Posted on 05/11/2005 2:11:51 PM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly
Not quite the same thing here. I'm not aware of anyone who died because of a student expressing his views in school.
Everything can potentially be a distraction to those who choose to be distracted, including blonde hair. Are we going to ban that? Seriously, how far are we going to go in regulating someone's behavior?
Oh, I'm sorry. Did that shirt have words on it? Must have been looking at something else.
Oh puh_leeeez, you buy into their propaganda. What about these cases:
- In Virginia, the ACLU has protested the issuing of “Choose Life” license plates and a moment of silence for school children at the beginning of each day.
-ACLU is defended the North American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) for this pedophile group’s role in the brutal murder of 10-yearold Jeffrey Curley in 1997, but the ACLU opposes abortion groups rights and supported a law that prohibits them from protesting outside of abortion clinics.
-The ACLU has filed lawsuits throughout the United States to remove Christian crosses and the 10 Commandments from public buildings.
-In California, the ACLU threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles if it didn’t remove a small cross from the county seal. The cross is one of the smallest images on the seal. The pagan Greek goddess Pomona is the largest image, but the ACLU only targeted the removal of the cross—not the pagan goddess.
-The ACLU sued Virginia Beach for a cross on its city seal. The ACLU specifically targets Christian symbols. He notes that in California, students are required to read the Koran in school and the ACLU has no problem with this. - In New York City, public schools were forced to remove all Christian symbols of Christmas but not Jewish Menorahs or the Islamic Star and Crescent for Ramadan—and the ACLU didn’t object.
-In a court filing the ACLU said, "“The actors in this matter deserve jail and/or fines for their calculated un-American and immoral conduct." What did these actors do? They were students who said a prayer over the PA at a high school baseball game in Louisiana. Jail time for a prayer?
-This ACLU has yet to challenge any Muslim prayers that have now been mandated by many California public schools. For the ACLU, Islam is allowed but, Christianity is forbidden.
Of course, this list goes on and on too. The ACLU consistantly supports different rules for Christians as it does for others. The ACLU has a long history of fighting against any display of Christianity in public despite some token cases that have no effect on their cause,
BTT!!!!!!
I'm not sure what you mean by "lay down her body" but I do not believe that women have abortions "for the convenience of society"; they have abortions for various reasons but mainly because they believe that it is the best of difficult options for themselves and their family. That may or may not be an erroneous belief but they should be the one to make the decision.
Regarding those who want to make abortion/health/moral/family decisions for others, they are overwhelmingly coming from a religious basis. The vast majority of those who redefine and use overly emotional terms such as murder, killing babies, etc. eventually reveal their extreme religious bias. It is fine with me if a religious group wants to dictate abortion policy to its members; it is when they want to dictate that policy to everyone that there is a problem. It is fine with me if you oppose abortion for whatever reason and confine that opposition to your own family; the problem is when you try to dictate to me and my family what we should do regarding abortion. Are you coming from a philosophy based upon religion or from your own personal wisdom?
How do you know for sure that terminating that particular pregnancy was "the greatest tragedy"? Do you know for sure that the undeveloped fetus of that pregnancy will still not be conceived and born under much better conditions for everyone? How do we know for sure that there is only one chance to come into this human world? What is the source of our lives, human parents or God? Can a human act overcome the will of God? If God wills that someone come into this world, I believe it will happen - sooner or later.
Here's another point to contemplate. If you believe in the concept of eternal life (which I do), you should realize that eternal means without limit, no beginning and no ending. That means we are really alive before coming into this world and we will be alive after we leave. Abortion is a (usually flawed) human attempt to make the stay here a little better for the people directly involved. To say that an abortion deprives the potential baby of life is just not something we can know for sure. It APPEARS that way but then the earth appeared flat to those who had limited perspective.
In our society, the right to offend outweighs the right not to be offended. To limit or regulate speech in public venues, the government has the overwhelming burden of showing that great harm would be done in the absence of such regulation, e.g. the "Fire!" in the movie house example. However, I don't believe wearing controversial messages in school meets that criterion. As for dead fetuses, dead soldiers, or the coathanger horsesh*t propagated by the pro-aborts, they're all examples of political speech protected by the First Amendment. Personal attacks on other students are not, and could indeed cause serious damage both psychologically and physically.
While a school building is publically owned, I don't believe allowing those sorts of non-education related activities helps the school serve the purpose for which it was founded -- namely, educating the kids therein. That's why I support the idea of uniforms at school. It takes the focus off the social (and caste) aspect of clothing, it nips in the bud many controversies which could be avoided and which ultimately serve only to distract from the education rather than enhnce it, and apparently, it saves money on lawsuits as well.
The "I'm offended" aspect of this is not at all my reasoning for my stance, other than the slippery slope argument of saying if we allow one, we have to allow them all, and soon we'll have "dueling shirts", a huge distraction which does nothing to promote the education of the students.
Now, having said all that, it appears this student does have a decent suit on his hands, sinnce he was apparently singled out for discipline on a shirt which wasn't shown to be causing a distraction in and of itself, and with no other extenuationg circumstances which the article lets us in on. We'll see.
"It takes the focus off the social (and caste) aspect of clothing, it nips in the bud many controversies which could be avoided and which ultimately serve only to distract from the education rather than enhnce it, and apparently, it saves money on lawsuits as well."
These are good arguments. I've never been big on uniforms, as I tend to believe individuality is generally a good thing, but I could possibly come around if I were convinced that such differences are in fact a hindrance to learning. It would be interesting to see if there are any studies on this subject.
The working world has them, even government jobs do. No reason why schools cannot say, "you can choose what you want to wear but within these guidelines".
I don't "believe their hype". I simply looked at their website.
- In Virginia, the ACLU has protested the issuing of “Choose Life” license plates and a moment of silence for school children at the beginning of each day.
I could believe that. They don't normally want the state involved in these sorts of things. It would be nice to have a source though...perhaps the ACLU's website?
-ACLU is defended the North American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) for this pedophile group’s role in the brutal murder of 10-yearold Jeffrey Curley in 1997,
I'm sure they support their right to freedom of speech and assembly...because they support EVERYONE'S. If they supported their right to murder someone, I'd like to see a source.
but the ACLU opposes abortion groups rights and supported a law that prohibits them from protesting outside of abortion clinics.
-The ACLU has filed lawsuits throughout the United States to remove Christian crosses and the 10 Commandments from public buildings.
Yes, that's true. PUBLIC BUILDINGS. Where they don't belong.
-In California, the ACLU threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles if it didn’t remove a small cross from the county seal. The cross is one of the smallest images on the seal. The pagan Greek goddess Pomona is the largest image, but the ACLU only targeted the removal of the cross—not the pagan goddess.
OK, if that's true (no source?), you've got them on hypocracy. Although one could point out that nobody actually worships Greek goddesses anymore, so that would not have quite the same meaning it did...a couple thousand years ago. Seems more historic. But I'll give you that one.
-The ACLU sued Virginia Beach for a cross on its city seal. The ACLU specifically targets Christian symbols.
Any other religious icons on city or state seals? For religions that are still practiced?
-He notes that in California, students are required to read the Koran in school and the ACLU has no problem with this.
Where is your source? In what schools? For what purpose? Is this a class on world religion, Islam, or Middle Eastern Culture? Is the bible taught at any public schools in the United States? If so, what does the ACLU say about this? In other words, is there an inconsistency?
- In New York City, public schools were forced to remove all Christian symbols of Christmas but not Jewish Menorahs or the Islamic Star and Crescent for Ramadan—and the ACLU didn’t object.
-Well, show me a source that shows that they had problems only with Christian symbols and you've got 'em.
-In a court filing the ACLU said, "“The actors in this matter deserve jail and/or fines for their calculated un-American and immoral conduct." What did these actors do? They were students who said a prayer over the PA at a high school baseball game in Louisiana. Jail time for a prayer?
Wow. Show me the source and, again, you've got 'em.
-This ACLU has yet to challenge any Muslim prayers that have now been mandated by many California public schools. For the ACLU, Islam is allowed but, Christianity is forbidden.
Hmmm...that would be incredibly bizarre, considering that almost everyone who runs those schools would be Christian (or at least not Muslim), and that almost all of the local (probably), state, and federal govt in Cali is non-Muslim, and that all schools would almost certainly have non-Muslim populations, and that...well, never mind. I would find it impossible to believe that such things would be mandated, but if you can prove it to me, well, I'll believe it.
I said "spiritually," as in spiritually thinking. I didn't make any restrictions on spirit. It depends on which definition you are using, actually--each individual human spirit or spirit in general. I certainly never said it makes you more spiritual to believe that Adam and Eve were the "source of life." In fact, they weren't the "source of life." Stop putting words in my mouth.
It is only logical that there had to be a first creature to recognize that there is a God, unless by coincidence, after how many thousands of millennia, it simultaneously occured to two people at the same instant. The Bible seems to be telling us that that isn't so, however. The Bible tells us there was a first man.
Anyway, my main point was let's stop bickering about trivia and focus on the beautiful truth that we are all in the same family. Physically and spiritually. We didn't evolve in separate regions, and we have, in a certain sense, one megaculture, unless we were raised by wolves.
No. Pantheism puts God in the human or material realm and I believe that God is only of the Spiritual realm. I believe that spirituality is the real nature of existence. This human, material world is not perfect therefore not the result of God's creation since God is by nature, perfect. This human world is the result of nonspiritual consciousness and will eventually pass away. God's creation is eternal and perfect - it has always been and always will be. In the King James version of the Bible, there are two descriptions of creation, the spiritual first and then the material (after a mist arose and covered the face of the earth). Adam and Eve are introduced in the second description of creation. Both accounts are allegorical. Both accounts are attempts to describe concepts that are obviously still complex enough that most people don't understand them.
It is only logical that there had to be a first creature to recognize that there is a God..
How is that logical? God is infinite, without limit, without beginning or end. A "first creature" implies a beginning and therefore a limit. If we are created in the image and likeness of God as the Bible says, then we also must be without beginning or end. Since God is spiritual, we must also be spiritual. We humans are stuck in the "deadly embrace" of a state of consciousness based upon a false premise (that we can exist separate and different from our Source, God). Jesus Christ brought the truth of existence to this human world and gave us the opportunity to break out of the human "deadly embrace" which enslaves the human race. We haven't done a very good job of following His instructions; but it is inevitable that we will at some point - when our minds are freed from human superstition.
I can't discuss things with people who don't observe the ordinary definitions of words. I refer you to Terminus the Mentor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.