local controversy

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-03 11:59pm

HemlockGrey wrote:True. But 'Jesus was an Asshole' is fundementally hateful. Offering people Christmas story candy-canes is not.

If those candy canes contain literature glorifying a book which says that a child must be executed if he swears at his parents and that all nonbelievers in God are "wicked" and "sinners" who deserve to perish, then it is much MORE hateful than a shirt saying "Jesus was an Asshole". At least the shirt only insults one (long-dead) person, not billions.

And as Kelly keeps pointing out, you do not have the right to tell the school what they should regard as "offensive". The point is that you are trying to send a message, and the school has the right to tell you not to do it on their property.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-03 11:59pm

Westfield students to appeal penalty

Seven suspended over religious notes

By Michele Kurtz, Globe Staff, 1/3/2003

even Westfield High School students were notified early yesterday that they would be suspended from class for distributing candy canes with religious notes to their classmates before Christmas. But by the end of the day, school officials had delayed the action pending a school hearing on the matter, according to parents who requested the review.

The students, who say school officials violated their rights to free speech and expression in forbidding them to pass out the items, will be allowed to appeal the one-day, in-school suspension, said Mary Etta Grabowski, a parent who wrote school officials a note asking for a delay.

''I think it's kind of ridiculous how far it's gone over a little piece of paper and kids wanting to wish their friends a merry Christmas,'' Grabowski said yesterday. ''I'm proud of my son because I've taught him to stand up for what he believes in, and he's doing that even though it's costing him something.''

Superintendent Thomas McDowell did not return several telephone messages seeking comment yesterday. But school officials have said the issue has nothing to do with religion, and that they simply were following a policy that prohibits students from disseminating nonschool-related materials on campus.

The incident has raised concern among some religious groups, including one that has offered to help students challenge the school's actions in court. It also has outraged many students who say they have handed out similar items before, and their parents, who believe the school mishandled the situation.

The week before Christmas, members of a Bible group at Westfield High sought to pass out candy canes that included a a religious explanation for the candy's shape and colors, as well as Bible verses and a prayer seeking salvation from Jesus Christ. But school administrators told them that would violate school policy and could get them suspended.

On Dec. 19, seven students passed out about 450 candy canes to their classmates in the hallway and during lunch, said Stephen Grabowski, 16, a junior and co-leader of the Bible group.

Students returned to school from winter break yesterday. During first period, the seven students were called to the principal's office and told they would have to serve a one-day in-school suspension, some of them today and some on Monday, Stephen Grabowski said.

But Mary Etta Grabowski and another mother delivered a note to school officials requesting the suspension be delayed pending an appeal. McDowell called the parents about 2 p.m. and told them they would receive a letter notifying them that they could appeal the suspension to the school district, Mary Etta Grabowski said.

''We still plan to do something to attempt to fight the policy,'' Stephen Grabowski said. ''Maybe we'll ask them to change the policy. There's a possibility we'll file a lawsuit.''

An attorney with the Liberty Counsel - a Florida-based religious civil liberties organization - said yesterday he planned to talk to the students and their parents last night to discuss a legal challenge to the school's actions.

''I certainly think that it's wrong, and I think the decision to tell them not to distribute was unconstitutional, and so the decision to punish them for doing it is also unconstitutional,'' said Erik Stanley of the Liberty Counsel.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-01-04 12:02am

It was against school policy, they were made aware and STILL did it. They deserve what they got. I mean, hell, it's probably for ONE DAY.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-04 12:03am

It was against school policy, they were made aware and STILL did it.

School policy is unconstitutional, then.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-04 12:03am

I don't recall the Constitution saying that religious people are allowed to do whatever they think is reasonable according to their belief systems wherever they want.

If they want to continue that line of reasoning, I would like to start selling my "Jesus Was an Asshole" T-shirts and see if these people know what the word "hypocrite" means.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-04 12:05am

Thus it is prosthelitising. Not on the same level as the prosthelitising done in the Third World, but still basically the same.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-04 12:06am

I don't recall the Constitution saying that religious people are allowed to do whatever they think is reasonable according to their belief systems wherever they want.

If they want to continue that line of reasoning, I would like to start selling my "Jesus Was an Asshole" T-shirts and see if these people know what the word "hypocrite" means.

Constitution prevents people from infringing on other people's rights. Unless the school can show that the students were forcing the other kids to take the candy, then the students were not infringing on other people's rights, now were they?

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-01-04 12:07am

HemlockGrey wrote:
It was against school policy, they were made aware and STILL did it.
School policy is unconstitutional, then.

Rules are set up to protect people. If they are unconstitutional, then the constitution itself is unconstitutional.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-04 12:08am

Rules are set up to protect people. If they are unconstitutional, then the constitution itself is unconstitutional.

Right. And where the students forcing other kids to take the candy, it would be valid protection. As they apparently were not, it is not.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-01-04 12:09am

HemlockGrey wrote: Constitution prevents people from infringing on other people's rights. Unless the school can show that the students were forcing the other kids to take the candy, then the students were not infringing on other people's rights, now were they?

But these are CHILDREN, still under the RULES of the SCHOOL.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-04 12:09am

HemlockGrey wrote:Constitution prevents people from infringing on other people's rights. Unless the school can show that the students were forcing the other kids to take the candy, then the students were not infringing on other people's rights, now were they?

Wrong again. The school has the right to ensure that students do not have to be subjected to proselytizing on their grounds. The students are there because they have to be there. It is government mandated, and government funded. The government cannot make people pay money to send their kids to a school where religious activities are going on, as this effectively promotes the religion.

To put this another way, why did they choose to distribute the propaganda at school? Because the school setting made it easier to reach a lot of people. In other words, the school was effectively facilitating their proselytizing. In short, establishment.

PS. I noticed you completely ignored my point about the "Jesus Was an Asshole" T-shirts.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-04 12:20am

School policy is created to maintain a neutral atmosphere when possible, and compromise where necessary. This is why Muslim children can practice their religion where they want if they would otherwise be out of school and lose valuable learning time.
These christian brats could have distributed these candycanes at church, but wait!, if they distributed them at church, then all the nonbelievers would not get to hear the [televangelistvoice]MESSAGE of JESUS[/televangelistvoice].

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-04 12:20am

Wrong again. The school has the right to ensure that students do not have to be subjected to proselytizing on their grounds. The students are there because they have to be there. It is government mandated, and government funded. The government cannot make people pay money to send their kids to a school where religious activities are going on, as this effectively promotes the religion.

Mmm. Conceeded.

PS. I noticed you completely ignored my point about the "Jesus Was an Asshole" T-shirts.

So? You want to make the shirts, it's your problem.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-04 12:21am

course, the candy canes could have been refused. . . -ponders-

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-01-04 12:22am

Enforcer Talen wrote:course, the candy canes could have been refused. . . -ponders-

Show me a kid who passes up candy... it ain't gonna happen.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-04 12:24am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Rules are set up to protect people. If they are unconstitutional, then the constitution itself is unconstitutional.
Right. And where the students forcing other kids to take the candy, it would be valid protection. As they apparently were not, it is not.

So ... you'd have no objections if other students loudly prayed to Satan while the Christian students were showing off their religion?

This issue has been beaten to death. The government can't allow any religious organization to procur its facilities for the perpetration of their beliefs.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-04 12:26am

Kelly Antilles wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:course, the candy canes could have been refused. . . -ponders-
Show me a kid who passes up candy... it ain't gonna happen.

I do. often.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-01-04 12:41am

Kelly Antilles wrote:Show me a kid who passes up candy... it ain't gonna happen.

Sorry, but I pass up candy. Often because it requires extra effort to decelerate, lift my hand, take the candy, accelerate and while I'm doing that remove any wrapper, throw it away and eat the candy.

ben · Post by **ben** » 2003-01-04 12:43am

WTF, these kids are complete idiots they knew that the distribution is against school policy. so why the whinning? besides its not like a permanent suspension it is not that big of a deal.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-04 03:47am

Nobody's better at whining about imaginary persecution than the Christian super-majority in America. The way some talk, you'd think Christians were being rounded up and thrown in prison for their beliefs.

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2003-01-04 12:18pm

"Jesus Was An Asshole" T-Shirts...has anyone considered selling SD.net merchandise?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-04 02:49pm

Chances are they already exist, along with, "What Would Jesus Do ... For A Klondike Bar" t-shirts.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS