The reason this story goes further is because there is no pedagogical or constitutional basis for the principal's actions. Yes, we have free speech. But there are limits to it: -- Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater -- Libeling/slandering another in print or broadcast -- Fraud or false advertising -- Inciting riots or public endangerment -- Threaten the president with assassination -- Obscenity (not really defined by the SC as to what is obscene) Personally, I don't see the girl reading her poem as one of the limits above. I suppose the principal's reaction may have been plausible had there been a clear indication that this incident would have caused a riot (I don't know the details of the story so I can't say for sure). But from the stories, it doesn't seem like there was a clear reason, other than him stating how "un-American" the girl was being.
The day highschool students care enough about politics to riot because of a poem, it will be a triumph for our school system and our youth.
Rocketman Josh has a reasonable point (if this is the one he is trying to make) with respect to keeping politics out of the classroom. This is not meant to say that the teaching of politics should be forbidden, but teachers and administrators should not espouse their personal political beliefs upon their students. For example, teachers should not be allowed to praise or slam Bush BUT they should be allowed to lead discussions of various political policies of the Bush administration as long as they keep personal opinions out of it. Personally, I feel they should allow religious discussions in the same vein.
ER-- This was the passage to which I was responding: I realized that you put "un-American" in quotes, but other than that it didn't seem to be objecting to the characterization. However, obvioulsy you weren't saying what I thought you were, based on yur response to me, so I apologize for the misunderstanding.
This is my point and the best analogy to that is the same as teachers keeping their religous beliefs to themselves ... By giving this kid a forum such as the closed-circuit TV that is unfair. And to whoever said that parents should homeschool their kids if they don't like it is just r****ded. Then schools should be allowed to do whatever they want then. They should be able to promote any religion they want to. If you don't like it as a parent homeschool your kid. Maybe a school principle is extremely conservative so he chooses to play Rush Limbaugh over the closed circuit TV every day. You don't like that? Homeschool your kid according to that guy! I'm all for political discussions in the classroom where everyone in the room gets a chance to discuss issues(we had many of these in school). BUT its not fair to give a single kid a forum such as closed circuit TV to promote his/her political(or religous) message
So you don't think Religion and Politics go together AT ALL? Yeah tell people in the Middle East that? Sorry Sam, but for many of us, religous beliefs strongly influence our political beliefs. I know you have no real response to the issue I presented and all you have to say is pretty much "Thats Stupid!" so next time post when you actually have a real response.
But that is the thing. It wasn't a SINGLE kid who was allowed the use of the TV, it was a poetry group that presented their poems regularly. If another kid was so insluted and wanted to present an alternate viewpoint, they could have written a poem and read it over the TV. Instead, the principal chose to override everybody based on HIS political beliefs. Execrable.
Not in this case because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state specifically to keep religion from influencing politics too much. The founders saw what happened when religion dominated politics and wanted to avoid that at all costs.
im not talking about separation of church and state, I'm talking about beliefs. Political beliefs ARE influenced by religous beliefs and that is the way it is. According to Sam there is no relation between the two whatsoever.
Josh, I'm merely using the logic espoused by you, unfortunately, I'm using it to reach a conclusion you don't want it to reach. What you seem to be saying is this. Religous beliefs influence your political beliefs, therefore, no politics in school Well, Religious beliefs, for me, personally, do not influence my political beliefs. But they do, however, influence my beliefs about broccoli. Accordingly, no broccoli in schools. Perhaps instead of defending this non-functional logic, you should come up with something new? Or at least admit error.
Actually, the reverse is true. The separation was put in place by the framers to ensure that politics does not influence religious freedom, as it did in England. That's one of the main reasons why they moved over here. It's amazing how the liberals can use something as political ammunition and in the process so distort its meaning that they completely discombobulate themselves. My goodness, this is almost as bad as one liberal thinking we nuked Japan thrice.
My beliefs about broccoli ARE influenced by religious beliefs and that is the way it is. Therefore no broccoli in schools. My beliefs about poltics are influenced by math, science, and history, yet we teach those in schools......
Yours might be, but my religious beliefs are pretty well separated from my political ones. Your inability to separate politics from religion does not necessarly mean that others have the same limitations.
Wait, so are you saying a student or teacher shouldn't be allowed to A) talk about religion in school, B) espouse beliefs about religion in school C) espouse beliefs about politics in school d) Talk about politics in school or E) some combination of any one of these.
In some ways the British system, with it's immediate accountability, it's necessity that leaders know the issues and can respond when challenged about them, and their extreme seperation fo Church and State, in an administrative capacity, is more and more appealing.
Haha ... Man I just love how you have absolutely no answer for what I'm saying so all you can claim is faulty logic which pretty much everything you spew out is. At least other liberals on this board make arguments and I can simply say that I just disagree and we can move on ... With you I have nothing to disagree with because you have no real argument other than to try and somehow disqualify my argument (which you did very poorly by the way)
andymoon, you are my friend and as my friend, I hate to be critical of you, but andymoon, you have just demonstrated your lack of fundamental understanding regarding the separation of church and state. Despite this lack of understanding, andymoon, you continue to rail on another poster. I would suggest, andymoon, that you not speak out of school and that your attack posts would be a little more informed than this. When we see the shallow depth of understanding on this issue and contrast that with the strength of your opinion, your credibility is severely damaged andymoon.
Oh and I would say that a teacher should be able to do all four options, given my meaning of espouse, which is probably wrong, as being to profess what their beliefs are. For instance I had a teacher who just asked the class on day, is anybody in here Catholic, and I was of course the only one raising my hand, and it was great, we had a perfectly good conversation about religion without anybody having to profess their beliefs as wrong. In fact, everybody was asserting their beliefs as right, but respecting everyone else's beliefs. The same was true for one of my hippie Sierra Club teachers. Everyday we'd get in a discussion about politics and the like. It was great!
RocketmanJosh Most of your posts seem to be very unsophisticated which I will attribute in your case to what seems to be youth. Well and good, I was a kid once too. But since then I have garnered a few expensive degrees and learned more than a thing or two about logic and reasoning, (as well as the Establishment clause and protected speech, but let's leave that out of it for now) Note, If I'm wrong about your credentials here, please let me know, and then I'll take the gloves off. I've demonstrated, pretty conclusively, that the logic behind your statements is effectively meaningless, as it can be used to discredit the teaching of anything at all in school given the tenuous, tautological self serving equation behind it which can apply to anything from religion to politics to math to broccoli I'm going to assume, for your sake, that you realize this inconsistency and these "responses" that you give to me seem to be knockoffs of what you see some of the lesser lights around here do on a regular basis and use as a defense mechanism. Essentially, it is "na na na boo boo" I hope in the future you learn to engage in an intellectual exercise with a more open mind; it can only benefit your education and the rest of your life. Till then, keep on rockin' in the free world, kid. SF
