Posted on 08/22/2007 8:56:45 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The re-education Fascist/Marxist.
Actually is does. I am assuming your fifth grade classmate (or student) tarred the teacher with the epithet in class. In this case, the disruption of the class—there being a state interest in universal education—was the basis for disciplinary action under the prevailing First Amendment jurisprudence as applied to schools.
In this case, there was no disruption of education: a work of fiction was seized by a state functionary, and used as the basis for a state-imposed punishment.
The state claim that the story constituted a threat very much involves First Amendment jurisprudence, as there is a body of case-law dealing with what speech (or written expression) is, in fact, not protected by the First Amendment because it constitutes a threat (’true threat doctrine’).
The case thus involves the boundaries of what is protected speech or writing under the First Amendment, both boundaries set by the state interest in universal education, and boundaries set by the non-protection of true threats.
The case thus involves the boundaries of what is protected speech or writing under the First Amendment, both boundaries set by the state interest in universal education, and boundaries set by the non-protection of true threats.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The state has an interest in seeing that all children are fed.
We do NOT have state owned and run grocery stores as a means to accomplish the universal feeding of all children.
The problem and conflict here is that we have compulsory attendance, government owned and run schools. If this incident had occurred at a private school, there would be no First Amendment conflict, because the parents would have willing submitted to the rules of the private school when they enrolled their child.
The fundamental conflict here is that it is impossible for government to run a compulsory school without violating every protection of the First Amendment every minute of every compulsory school day.
The solution¨: Completely privatize universal K-12 education. Parents would buy education for their children in the free market. The government would provide education vouchers to the poor, just as they provide food vouchers now (food stamps).
Sadly, though, if SCOTUS takes this case it will very likely narrowly examine and rule on the problem set before it, and government schools will continue their abuse of all citizen´s rights.
Odd, this is from the 11th. They tend to be more rational.
Official incompetence and malice induced by a faddish social hysteria of the current educational and prosecutorial cohort, in this case such adult malice towards young students stinks especially pungently given the overwrought reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mandating the absence of religion is as religiously charged in content and consequences as it the inclusion of religion.
It is impossible for K-12 education to be religious neutral. If you do not believe this then describe for us the impossible Nirvana of a religiously neutral school. I and, possibly others, will have great fun with it.
ALL sentient beings have a religious philosophy and worldview that drives the decisions in their lives.
ALL school curriculums and school policies have religious content and religious consequences. It is one ( among many) reason why government must get out of the education business.
Solution: Handle education in the same way we do universal feeding of children. Parents would pay for their own child’s education. The poor would get education vouchers in the mail along with their food stamps ( food vouchers).
If the Supreme Court accepts this case, they will likely focus on the narrow issue of this girl’s story. They will not likely ask why this is a problem in a government school and NEVER a problem in a private school. SCOTUS will not examine the fundamental incompatibility of compulsory government schools and the First Amendment.
No, secularism is a religion: it takes a position on ultimate realities, and derives a code of conduct form that position. Remember that Buddhism and the variant of Taoism that is not admixed with traditional Chinese belief in deities are both religions, and do not regard the ultimate realities as involving God or gods. Neither mihayana nor zen Buddhism involve anything recognizable as worship, yet both are religions. Secularism is a religion.
Secularism as I understand it does not take a position on matters theological. You live your life according to the world around you. It’s like saying Agnostocism is a religion.
But ‘you live your life according to the world around you’ is a theological position: it denies any effective existence to a transcendent realm, whether God, the gods, or the atheistic transcendence of Buddhism or Taoism. It assumes either that morality can be obtained by reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought’, or that morality arises solely from common consent of human beings, or is merely subjective.
As I said, it takes a position on ultimate realties, and derives prescriptions for behavior from that position, thus having the elements common to all religions.
In my opinion, schools are overdoing it as far as punishing alleged “threats”.
When I was in high school, I once told another student I was going to kill him in a voice that was clearly meant to be joking. In response, I was sent to the office, the police were called (I wasn’t arrested, but I was Mirandized), my parents were called, and I was given ten days Alternative School as punishment.
What really pissed me off about the whole incident was the fact that when the class was asked if they felt threatened by my words, only one said yes (one out of a class of almost thirty students), and I’m willing to bet it was a student I had butted heads with before, yet they still gave me the punishment.
I can understand schools being cautious, but surely when twenty-nine out of thirty students felt I was joking, it’s reason enough to believe I was.
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.