explain how reading of a political poem (or religious) is forcing beliefs on another? freedom of speech/religion isn't freedom FROM hearing speech or freedom from being exposed to other religions
I apologize for what I said in another thread...I want Rocketman95 to like me again and be my friend... I don't really want Micheal Moore to have a heart attack and I only said "heart attack" in terms of him realizing that it's ok to take a deep breath and calm down in relation to the unhealthy pace he seems bent on...If I offended any heart attack victims...or those that know someone who had a heart attack, I sincerely apologize...I want Micheal Moore to live...and not have a heart attack... Now excuse me while I go clean my new Arsenal SSR56-2 rifle in 7.62 millimeter FULL METAL JACKET (x 39 mm)...It's impressive! I got it with 4- 30 round magazines, ready to go...320 rounds to burn and I'm going to be ready!
Though a religious poem would be unlikely to be allowed to be read over the school's closed-circuit television. One would think, given their past, the ACLU would be on the other side of the issue had it been a religious poem that caused the furor.
I was playing around, and not at all serious. It doesn't bother me at all who you reference or quote. I liked your post, and agree that it is an issue that shouldn't come down as a liberal or conservative one, but merely one of freedoms based on the U.S. constitution. My reply to you wasn't serious at all, and I didn't realize that it was your first post in the forum. I hope you'll come back.
talk about a broken record..... how bout this T_J: you actually answer a question directed to you - without turning it around or completely ignoring it - and the "liberals" on this board will each donate $1 to the tipjar. seems like a win-win situation for everybody, no? of course i expect no response....
My understanding is that the school cannot institutionalize religion. I.e., the faculty cannot 'present' it, they cannot 'schedule' it. But students are free to discuss or write poems about religion, no?
Sure, but in the original editorial linked on the front page, it mentioned that the poems were read over the school's closed circuit television. Given that student-led prayer at football games is verboten, it's probably not kosher to have religious messages read over the school's closed circuit television station, even if it is a student expression.
If there's some reason the poem ought not to have been on the school TV station, I'd think that's on the school -- not the student. I doubt there is a reason though. I've never heard of a separation of politics and state.
Somebody asked what the difference was, and the answer is there is a difference because the courts have decided that religious messages are different than other messages. There could be some issues with non-religious messages. Certainly the Hazelwood decision might come into play. If it was the student newspaper and the newspaper adviser had been told by the principal to not print something but the adviser allowed it to be printed anyway, that could easily lead to the adviser's dismissal. But this story apparently goes further than something like that.
The problem is that the current standard, the lemon test, is absurdly vague and impossible to apply with any consistency. It goes something like 1. bona fide secular purpose 2. not advancing any particular religion 3. not excessively entangling state and religion....applying those three factors uniformly is extremely difficult and results in a lot of contrary law.
Regardless of whether the standard is too vague, there's still a difference between a religious message and a non-religious message. So, the comparison that RocketManJosh made is not really apt (and not only because that difference would likely put the ACLU on the other side of the issue) from a legal standpoint, just because a difference does exist.
Yes, the law of the first part of the first amendment is separate and apart from the establishment clause part of it; though they frequently overlap.
OK I'm not talking about the law here ... According to you guys this poor kid was "censored" and that shouldn't happen in America ... I agree and it should be that way regardless of the message(i.e. religous). If religion is not allowed in school than neither should politics. Both of those go hand in hand. If a teacher is giving a political speech or a religious speech, both of those are their opinions and students should not be forced to listen to it. As much as a person has a freedom of speech as the kid in that school did, I believe that a person should also have the freedom not to have to listen to his political message and in a school environment where you have to be there by law, you do not have that option. Thus .. If a kid cannot read a religous poem on the closed-circuit TV(which I guarantee you is not allowed), the political message should not be allowed either. It's not censorship as much as it is protecting the rights of parents not to have their kids forced to listen to garbage they don't want them to hear.
NO! A state institution cannot be considered to advocate a religion. That does not mean that a student cannot privately pray or otherwise prepare for the rapture in school, write and read a report about Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna or whatever, etc. The law does not restrict the behavior of the participants but rather the power of the institution. Which is why I find France's recent decision regarding religious dress disturbing - it's limiting the freedoms of the students. If parents don't want their children to be exposed to the tremendous diversity that exists in the world, then by all means the children should be home schooled. The more severely underinformed people about, RMJ, the more comfortable you should feel.
Do you realize that from a logical perspective, this statement which is the heart of your post is meaningless. It's no different than saying "If religion is not allowed in school than neither should broccoli. Both of those go hand in hand."
Where? When? You don't really come right out and say it, but what I'm getting from you is that I'm thinking of unpatriotic and challening the government as one in the same? Am I right in that assumption? If I am, than you are far from the truth. Read the editorial, to begin with. You'll notice that is where I got the term "Un-American" from (which I even put in quotation marks since it was what the PRINCIPAL originally used to call her) to begin with. I never thought she WAS being un-American. Heck, I didn't even give my opinion of her actions! (If you'd really like to know, I think her poem was great and am devastated something like this would happen.) Notice this quote: That's basically my point. I'm not saying the girl is un-American...but so what if she is? Again, where and when did I do this? Sure, I mentioned that it would be nice if everyone were patriotic, but I'm not advocating extreme nationalism here. In fact I agree with you when you say that challenging our government is a form of patriotism! I'm sorry MacBeth, but my intention was not to similarize criticism and unpatriotic behavior. I have no idea why you would even think that.
