I wonder what's next...

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
Shoot me down, I can't wait

Click to expand...

Just catch up.  The reasons previously posted also apply against your arguments.

Originally posted by Outspoken
"not the point. if there was a GLBT commitee handing out rainbow coloured candy-canes at christmas, or some similar item at a Gay Pride Week"

During Gay pride week one of my teachers did something quite similar to that thanks

Click to expand...

You'll have to be more specific.  "Something quite similar" is vague.   Especially for Texas.

"First, I don't believe you - and since you didn't follow them around all day, you can't even say what did (or did not) happen to them"

You don't have to believe me, I know it to be true, I ate lunch with the guy everyday and had in him a class

Click to expand...

I do not believe you, because you were not in a position to know what happened to this person day in, day out, during his entire high school career.  No one was.  You might be able to say that you personally never saw such harassment, but you cannot say that it never occurred to him. 

Oh, one last detail - you want me to believe that you ate lunch everyday with your high school's out-of-the-closet homosexual?  My, what a truly enlightened and open-minded person you paint yourself to be.

The believability of your story is slipping by the minute.....

"On the next day, despite warnings that they could be suspended, seven students passed out about 450 candy canes in the hallways and at lunch, Grabowski said. "

so I guess at lunch they have to ban the talking about relgion too, or anything of that nature.

Click to expand...

The point of the quotation was to refute your claim that it wasn't going on during school hours.  Since you did not defend that claim in your response, I'll take that as your admission that you were wrong about your claim.

"WorldNutDaily is a unreliable, rightwing and biased source. "

So says the red colored marker maker

Click to expand...

Whatever.  My statement stands.  WND is not a reliable source.  The fact that most of your sources come from there indicates that you are unable to substantiate your position from normal news sources.

That in itself should be a big, red warning flag to you - and everyone else - about how trustworthy WND articles tend to (not) be.

 

Originally posted by alonesoldier
I've said it once and I will say it again. We need a group like the ACLU to keep the government in line.

Click to expand...

You realize that the ACLU is defending these kids?  You know, as in the article?

Oh, right - you never bother to actually read the news articles.  You just plow right ahead into the discussion, without being prepared with the facts of the situation. 

But that is not what they are about anymore. The fact is that if these students had been passing out condoms, anti-war propaganda or wiccan litterature their would not be a problem.

Click to expand...

Of course there would be.  Some right-wing parent would have complained to the school board.  Like the nutjobs who want to get school Halloween activities cancelled each year.

Our civil liberty friends only come to the rescue when it is the evil right wingers passing out candy canes with bible verses.

Click to expand...

And as we've seen, you're thoroughly uninformed about the ACLU's involvement in this case.



 

Originally posted by alonesoldier
The answer is no Lacmeh, you seem to have left out that included wiccan material in my argument.

The situation is simple. We have a first admendment rights in this country which are not surrendered upon entering public property.

Click to expand...

You're flatly incorrect about that. 

For some reason, uneducated people seem to think that "public property" means "I can do anything I want to with it."  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

First amendment rights are limited on public property.  That's why you can't use the walls of the Post Office to paint your political graffiti.  It's also why you can't use the steps of the courthouse as a place to hand out religious tracts.

Before you start making wild proclamations about the 1st amendment, spend a little time studying it.

Sauron--I'm pretty sure I'm all caught up. Now, you tell me why you think that this is unconstitutional.

Handing out candy canes with a bible verse on it (whether that is the original incident or not) to students willing to take them during the intermediate periods between classes or before/after school is not against the law at all. To say it is would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Reason: What is the difference between that and the students talking about it with willing participants. If you think it is disruptive, then why not say that students cannot talk about anything all day long. They must go mute at all times until called upon, because any conversation of "outside" topics is an unnecessary evil. If this country allows people to burn the flag as they did in the case Texas v Johnson, then please--it's not that hard to see.



The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit purely private religious speech by students. Students therefore have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity. For example, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable nondisruptive activities. Local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and other pedagogical restrictions on student activities, but they MAY NOT structure or administer such rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech. Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics.

To say that the school had prohibited the handing out of anything un-school related does not make that rule constitutional. A private school may be able to say that--but not a public one. They are supported by taxpayers across the state. They are an agent of the state. They cannot prohibit handing out of reading material by students as long as the material is safe, and the process does not disrupt the learning process. What if someone is handing out directions to their party--this is un-school related--so it can't be done? That is ridiculus. Prohibiting the handing out of reading material by students is prohibiting their freedom of speech via written word. Prohibiting corporations etc. from handing out materials can be done, but not students. Students have to go to school in some form. They are not an outside agent. What if someone is having a political debate with another student and brings in a newspaper the next day to enhance his position? This is unschool related, and the newspaper has nothing to do with school. So, this is unconstitutional as well. The freedom of the press is to write it, the freedom the students is to read it, talk about it, and show it in an manner that is not disruptive--I am going to fight for these rights in places far far away. In the same way, when the student/s wants to hand out candy canes during Christmas time with Christian literature on them to those willing to take them before school/after school/during intermediate periods between classes--they can.

Take care

FOW

Opps sorry posted in wrong thread.

Just a note Sauron, The American Liberties Union, a organization with ties to jerry farwell is defending these kids, not the American Civil Liberties Union, they are two different organizations.

-nicholas

Originally posted by alonesoldier
Just a note Sauron, The American Liberties Union, a organization with ties to jerry farwell is defending these kids, not the American Civil Liberties Union, they are two different organizations.

-nicholas

Click to expand...

Note: You have made a typo above, there is the ACLU and there is the ACLJ.  The ACLJ has ties to Pat Robertson.

However it appears that it is the Liberty Counsel, with ties to Falwell, that is participating in the suit, not the ACLJ.
 

Inany case, if you go back to page one and look at the story from the Boston Globe that I linked to, you'll read that the Director of the the ACLU's Western Massachusetts office sent a letter to the school telling them that the ACLU believes that the kids do have the right to distribute the candy canes.

''Students cannot be punished for exercising their rights of free speech unless that speech causes material disruption in the school,'' said Newman, also director of the western Massachusetts office of the American Civil Liberties Union, which wrote to McDowell on the Westfield students' behalf earlier this month.

 

I read back a few pages, but must admit I didn't read the whole thread, but I think people are missing the main point here.

There are already tons of things you aren't allowed to do in school for various reasons that aren't "illegal" Short shorts, hats, offensive T-shirts, profanity, etc....all of these will get you suspended but are technically your rights as a citizen. Whats important here is that the students did so after the principal already told them not to.

It says in the article that the students suspensions may hurt their future.....well, they knew that was the risk they took.