The interference was created when the rule was enforced, not when the valentine was shared.
I disagree but frankly I'm not in the mood to explain myself... Anyway, well, the way I see it is that even if it's legal or whatever to put that in a Valentine, I believe it's inappropriate to put that kind of message in a valentine. What if I handed out valentine's to my classsmates that said "Vote Bob for president" on them? Or, "I like soccer," how would you like that?
assuming that such actions actually HAVE offended students in the past, that is.
That's the assumption I'm making here. While it may seem quite a leap, I think it's a justified assumption. The school rule specifically bans Christian valentines. Given that school districts don't make a habit of creating arbitrary rules, that would seem to indicate that they have had problems in the past.
But here's something. Part of free speech censorship requires that mediums of speech not be censored based on their content. Does this make the school rule itself unconstitutional? And would this also force the conclusion that valentine cards (as the medium) must be banned entirely?
but John 3:16 and anti-Semitic rhetoric are not anywhere close to the same thing.
In content, nay. In similar build and weight, they're neigh one and the same. If one is permitted, as will the other. Again, South Park shows its pure brilliance. See Cartoon Wars parts 1 and 2.
I do not think that it's appropriate to include messages like that and parents should have more common sense. Would a Christian parent want their kid bringing home valentines that said "Allah is almighty, and loves you?" No, they'd have a problem with it. They'd rage up and down the hallways of the school that the school is allowing Muslims to proselytize their children. The whole thing would be a fiasco. So why are you all saying, "This isn't right!" and "There should be freedom of religion and speech here!" Is it because you're Christian? Is it because you think that there isn't a time and place for things, and a time and place to not do things?
^ So much win. If I told my kids to put "Satan loves you" on Valentine's Day treats, can one imagine the uproar? Public school and Religion should be kept at a good arm's length, just as Religion and the State. Last time I checked, the State funded the Schools. While I have no qualms about the factual education of the various religions that have manifested (for better or worse) our species, the messages on the child's valentines go that slight step over the line. It was a sweet thought, the kid has no fault in this situation, but I feel as if the action taken was appropriate and effective on the school's part.
I've actually run into a bit of much with my own school on a similar issue. Every year, the sophomores of a particular Catholic church (freaking New Jersey) go away on a religious retreat. No qualms with that, but when they get back they all wear these shirts that have a quote from the Bible on them... and I die a little on the inside. Gonna check my own school's parameters with a Satan shirt, hopefully they'll be able to maintain equal rights for all religions of all students... but enough about me. Sorry to go off topic, just felt as if it was a story worth sharing.
Doesn't anti-Semitism fall under hate speech, whereas most Bible verse wouldn't?
To a Satanist, like myself, the Bible is hate speech. It's all relative.
'The district also had concerns that the Christian content could lead others with negative messages to also distribute to fellow classmates. After all, once one person is allowed to hand out a message, any individual can then tout his or her values, Holzman argued.
"Otherwise we would be allowing anybody to give out personal messages or values," Holzman explained. "If somebody wanted to put anti-Semitism in there ... people would be outraged by that. If kids have a choice, it's a different scenario. But in this case we're talking about handing it out to everyone in the class, and they don't have a choice."'
And we are once again treated to the brilliance that is MageGrayWolf.
Also, what if a Jewish kid brought home valentines with Hindu scripture? Would the parent be thrilled about that? No. It's in everyone's self interest to keep such personal things out of the holiday, especially in such a public setting as school.
Biiig assumptions you're making. Who is to say that parents would necessarily not enjoy that? Who is to say that everyone will benefit from keeping personal religious beliefs 9,001 miles away from a holiday such as this?
In content, nay. In similar build and weight, they're neigh one and the same. If one is permitted, as will the other. Again, South Park shows its pure brilliance. See Cartoon Wars parts 1 and 2.
I . . . am having an extraordinarily difficult time taking this response seriously.
To a Satanist, like myself, the Bible is hate speech. It's all relative.
But this kid wasn't distributing Bibles. He was distributing John 3:16. That's an important distinction to make--and the neutral statement of a different belief system (which is all that John 3:16 does) is NOT hate speech. Hate speech isn't entirely subjective.
Who is to say that everyone will benefit from keeping personal religious beliefs 9,001 miles away from a holiday such as this?
Uh. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a parent who was thrilled, or at least neutral, on the subject of their kid's faith being tested or questioned. I have however seen many instances where parents thought it wasn't right that someone tried to tell their kids their own beliefs (Ironically while in church during youth group and while talking about how to get more members [I was forced to go])
That's an important distinction to make--and the neutral statement of a different belief system (which is all that John 3:16 does) is NOT hate speech
Where would you draw the line between, "That's okay" and "that's not?" Unless you want to jump into the cesspool of reasoning determining what is and is not okay about each and every religion of which is present at the school, and then enforcing that, the only real option is to either fully accept, or just disallow.
Uh. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a parent who was thrilled, or at least neutral, on the subject of their kid's faith being tested or questioned.
How is your personal experience sufficient justification for such a wide generalization? It's basically the epitome of a weak induction--"All of the windows I've talked to dislike having things placed on their sills, so all windows dislike having things placed on their sills".
Where would you draw the line between, "That's okay" and "that's not?" Unless you want to jump into the cesspool of reasoning determining what is and is not okay about each and every religion of which is present at the school, and then enforcing that, the only real option is to either fully accept, or just disallow.
I smell a false dichotomy. And I draw the line at hate speech. Which is, you know, a legal thing that seems to do a fairly good job at distinguishing a statement of belief from a statement with the intent to offend, intimidate, or defame.
Where would you draw the line between, "That's okay" and "that's not?" Unless you want to jump into the cesspool of reasoning determining what is and is not okay about each and every religion of which is present at the school, and then enforcing that, the only real option is to either fully accept, or just disallow.
This is also a drawing the line fallacy, for future reference. So yeah. Lots of formal fallacies here.
I . . . am having an extraordinarily difficult time taking this response seriously.
In the mentioned episodes, Family Guy is taken into consideration for pulling an episode because of some particular Muslim issues. The concepts of Free Speech are brought into play, with the concept that if one potentially religiously-unsound theme is brought to public media, then all religiously-unsound themes are permitted. It's actually a pretty intelligent look at things. Sure the show's full of poop jokes, but there's a lot of good nestled in.
But I digress to the issue at hand.
But this kid wasn't distributing Bibles. He was distributing John 3:16.
John 3:16 is from the Bible. It's common practice to refer to any bit from the book simply as "The Bible", and this also refers to my above point, if this bit from the Bible is permitted, then are all quotes and bits.
Despite it looking like a neutral phrase, even when taken out of context, it still preaches a lesson that is heavily dismissed in Satanism. I call it Hate Speech, but you don't. Doesn't this disagreement alone make it all relative?
"All of the windows I've talked to dislike having things placed on their sills, so all windows dislike having things placed on their sills".
Bit of a red herring...as windows are inanimate, and cannot speak or have opinions.
I could however survey people and ask them what their feeling about their children (ages 5-10) bringing home messages from other religions would be. I don't really want to though...
You're arguing that peanuts should be allowed because people won't slip on the shells, while ignoring that some are allergic to it.
Let's drop the whole idea of anti-semitism. I didn't state that in the first place so I don't know why I'm even arguing the point.
Religious statements should not be allowed in a public academic environment because of possible resulting incidents.
John 3:16 is from the Bible. It's common practice to refer to any bit from the book simply as "The Bible", and this also refers to my above point, if this bit from the Bible is permitted, then are all quotes and bits.
The part is not the whole, and the second part is a fallacy of the false dichotomy. What is there to say that it is necessarily all or nothing?
Despite it looking like a neutral phrase, even when taken out of context, it still preaches a lesson that is heavily dismissed in Satanism. I call it Hate Speech, but you don't. Doesn't this disagreement alone make it all relative?
No, it actually just means that you're equivocating and calling something hate speech on the basis of your own personal disagreement with the message. That's not what hate speech is, and it is your misuse of the term that is leading to the perceived subjectivity.
Bit of a red herring...as windows are inanimate, and cannot speak or have opinions.
Nope. I was just giving you an example of a similar weak induction, to get the point across that you made a weak induction.
You're arguing that peanuts should be allowed because people won't slip on the shells, while ignoring that some are allergic to it.
Let me just do some analogyception and point out that peanuts are allowed in most schools. A peanut allergy and disagreeing with an idea are also not analogous to one another.
Nope. I was just giving you an example of a similar weak induction, to get the point across that you made a weak induction.
Let me just do some analogyception and point out that peanuts are allowed in most schools. A peanut allergy and disagreeing with an idea are also not analogous to one another.
Fine, I'll drop the metaphors/comparisons as you are taking them extremely literally which is distracting from the issue.
Religious statements should not be allowed in a public academic environment because of possible resulting incidents.
The case at hand is Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District. During the Vietnam War, a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the continuing incursion. Hearing about the idea of the protest, the school adapted a policy that all students wearing armbands would be asked to remove them. Needless to say, the only students singled out where those who wore the black ones to school. Eventually the Supreme Court decided that it was within the students' rights to free speech to wear the armbands. This set the precedent, "Students do not check their rights at the door."
I feel that the issue now is completely unrelated to the one I summarized above. To compare spreading religious ideology with protesting a war is a mockery of the courts. A student should not and does not have the right to attempt to convert fellow students-practically what this student was doing albeit in an unintentional way. As a Jew, I would be personally offended if a Christian student decided to try and convert me. I would consider it an insult to my religion, and an insult to myself personally. Basically, if students are allowed to do this, a homophobic kid could attempt to "change" a homosexual student, all in the name of "free speech." The Supreme Court will most likely have the opportunity to set a precedent that will have major repercussions. I just hope they make a correct decision, and continue to allow the schools' right to provide a comfortable environment for all students, regardless of religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Fine, I'll drop the metaphors/comparisons as you are taking them extremely literally which is distracting from the issue.
I'm interpreting them fine. Notice that I was having a little bit of fun with the peanut one and pointing out a flaw in it. That was the only metaphor/comparison you tried to use to prove your point--the unnecessarily literal interpretation of an analogy was something you did to me as well, so please don't complain about it! :P
Religious statements should not be allowed in a public academic environment because of possible resulting incidents.
What is it about the possible resulting incidents that makes them favorable to limiting the free expression of students in academic environments?
