School forbids anti-abortion t-shirt
The McSwain junior public high school in Merced, California, has forbidden one of its students from wearing an anti-abortion t-shirt -- citing a violation of its school dress code banning any "suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter." The "inappropriate subject matter" phrase is enormously vague and arbitrary but that seems to be what they think catches the t-shirt. It is too vague to be constitutional. What if criticism of Obama is seen by the school as "inappropriate" (which it probably is)? The young lady, Anna Amador, who wore the shirt is now suing the school. Eugene Volokh has the legal arguments:
"That strikes me as a clear First Amendment violation under the Supreme Court's decision Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969). If junior high school students have a constitutional right to wear a black armband to protest the Vietnam War, at least until there's some serious evidence that the armband is likely to cause substantial disruption, they must have an equal right to wear a T-shirt to protest abortions.
And nothing in the school district's motion suggests that the student was ordered to change shirts because of a risk of disruption; the school district apparently thinks that it can just categorically ban any T-shirts that deal with this "inappropriate" "subject matter." One might argue, as Justice Thomas has (and as Justice Black before him had), that Tinker should be overruled; but it's the law, and school districts should comply with it.
Source
Note: The picture above illustrates the shirt, not the plaintiff.
52 comments:
Where does a public school get the authority to arbitrarily decide what is "appropriate"? Once again, we see some fascist school bureaucrat attempting to make public policy. But, as is usually the end result in cases like this, when the young girls lawyers show up, the school will instantly "see the error of their ways" and back down.
Well Anon, when people stop believing that our rights come from God, then naturally they have the authority to decide such matters. Then those 'in charge' can tell the 'little people' what is right, what is wrong, what is allowed and what to think.
I just spoke with an administrator out there.
Once we got through the BS, it came down to them not wanting the pictures of growing babies displayed to the 1,2,3 graders on the bus.
I asked him if he was going to ban the sharing of 6th grade textbooks.
I asked him if "Sotamayor was a a racist" (an arguably true statement based on her own comments) t-shirts would be banned. He said "probably".
Since the younger children would be clueless, his arguments are now discredited.
Hello Good Gentles All!
I am not the least bit surprised the school administration fought this. Consider this quote from a hero and archetype of the left:
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."
-Josef Stalin
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
InFides
Brian from Virginia said...
"Well Anon, when people stop believing that our rights come from God, then naturally they have the authority to decide such matters."
So, atheists have no rights?
Dear InFides,
"Hello Good Gentles All!"
"Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,"
Yadda, yadda, yadda.....
You're probably a very nice, amiable, huggy bear, intelligent person.
HOWEVER,
With ALL DUE RESPECT could you dispense with the pompous, sanctimonious crap?
I realize it makes you feel important, but somehow it just elevates you to a level of Comment snob.
Pretend we're bogged down in a verbal recession and we have to economize our key-strokes.
Just cut to the chase please.
Edie wrote:
Pretend we're bogged down in a verbal recession and we have to economize our key-strokes.
InFides = 326
Edie = 486
"So, atheists have no rights?"
No, that's not what he's saying.
Without God as an objective basis for rights and morals, then rights and morals become only what the group decides. Most groups will make the same decisions about certain basic topics, but not always. If there is no objective standard for rights which applies to all people at all times, then how can anyone claim another group is wrong when they decide differently? They can't. Furthermore, without an objective basis, those with power get to dictate "rights" to those without power.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Edie!
I debated responding to your post to me. Your behavior seemed inexplicable. I though it might be best to let it pass unremarked but I now feel some sort of reply is merited.
I must admit I cannot remember the last time I was castigated for offering a friendly greeting of hello to someone or by saying I wish him well in saying goodbye.
It is true, I have my ego, the same as everyone else, but I say hello not to stroke my ego but to express how happy I am to talk with people whom I consider friends. I am not sure why you have chosen to vent at me since I have done nothing wrong and harm you in no way by saying hello.
I am an old fashioned person, I confess it. I hold to the old forms of civility and address because they represent a more graceful and gentler time. The loss of so many of the basic civilities has made the world a much more abrasive place. My observance of time honored social pleasantries is a way of maintaining some sort of counterforce to the continued coursening of our society. Most people seem to appreciate the basic niceties.
In these dark and uncertain times I know how much stress everyone is feeling. If by lashing out at me it spares your family from such abuse and relieves some of the strain in your life then I am happy to be here for you. Better to vent at me than perhaps your family.
As to my wishing you the Peace of Jesus Christ in my closing I will not change. In fact, all the more so I hope His peace descends upon you and graces your life. I hope that He blesses you and preserves you from all strife and affliction.
"..., and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. ..."
I bear you no ill will. I harbor no adverse feelings about your post and I thank you for your forthrightness.
We are friends. I ask that you forgive my trespasses against your patience.
May I remember you and pray for you in the Mass?
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
InFides
"So, atheists have no rights?"
"No, that's not what he's saying.
Without God as an objective basis for rights and morals, then rights and morals become only what the group decides"
Ding! We have a winner! When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote it with the understanding that our rights come from God and go directly to us, the people. Government is supposed to be a protector of those rights, from enemies both foreign and domestic. When the Government starts to trample on those rights it has become an enemy of the people it governs.
"Without God as an objective basis for rights and morals, then rights and morals become only what the group decide"
Which god?
Anon 5:03 am
Which God, Hmmmmm…
How about the God of our Founding Fathers? The absolute Majority of them were Christians.
But they were still men, Corrupted by many of the ideals that they brought over from Europe like Slavery. Remember Christians are perfect, but heading that directions, same as Churches are Temples for Saints, but Hospitals for Sinners.
So it was the Christian God that they were referring to.
Mobius
"Which God?"
That a God exists can be discovered by examining the universe around us. It had a beginning, therefore, due to the law of cause and effect which underlies ALL scientific research, its existence had to be caused, and only a God fits the necessary criteria.
So which "god" becomes a matter of examining the various religions and testing the claims and evidence. Only the Christian (and Jewish) God has proven His existence through actions which only a true god could perform.
If you actually want to learn the truth (your attitude here suggests otherwise), get a copy of "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Frank Turek and Norm Geisler. They make the case for God's existence based solely on scientific evidence, then the Bible's accuracy on historical evidence.
"its existence had to be caused, and only a God fits the necessary criteria."
What happened before the big bang? Was there a big crunch? Is it cyclical? Was the universe created when the membranes of two other universes collided?
Man created god(s) to deal with the concept of infinity and all that is not understood.
god is getting smaller every day.
To try and get back on topic somehow, the picture of the t-shirt and the woman wearing it is not the girl, and it may not be the actual tee-shirt.
Anonymous said...
To try and get back on topic somehow, the picture of the t-shirt and the woman wearing it is not the girl, and it may not be the actual tee-shirt.
The very last line of the original post: "Note: The picture above illustrates the shirt, not the plaintiff."
So either the source is lieing or someone isn't paying attention.
"What happened before the big bang? Was there a big crunch? Is it cyclical? Was the universe created when the membranes of two other universes collided?"
I don't have time to write a full rebuttal. Fortunately, I don't have to. Here is an excellent overview of all the theories you threw out and then some, along with why they fail:
The Ultimate Question of Origins
It is still an assumption to say a "mind" created the universe or at least it doesn't say or can't say much about what that mind is, and slapping the label "God" on it doesn't say any more either. It also begs the question what was the origin of this "mind" (infinite regression). It would be an even bigger assumption to relate that mind/god to the anthropomorphic God of the Bible, who was more likely derived from a tribal god the Hebrews adopted as special to them.
"I don't have time to write a full rebuttal."
There is nothing to rebut. Questions were asked. No statements were made.
Mongo,
Picky, picky. I was responding to theories proposed in question form; theories which needed rebuttal.
"It is still an assumption to say a "mind" created the universe…"
You're right. In the absence of evidence, it would be an unjustifiable assumption to say that a "mind" created the universe. But we do not have an absence of evidence.
Scientists have been discovering that there are a very large number of constants which have to be precisely correct for life to even exist at all. That degree of precision is so extreme that it could not possibly have happened by chance. The fine tuning of these constants is known as the "Anthropic Principle".
For example, Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the expansion rate of the universe 1 second after the big bang varied by as little as 1 part in 10^17th (that's a 1 with 17 zeros), the universe would not be here. (Book: A Brief History of Time)
Physicist P. C. W. Davies estimated that if the strength of gravity or the weak force varied by 1 part in 10^100, life could never have developed. (Book: Other Worlds) By comparison, I've seen estimates that there are between 10^70 and 10^80 atoms in the entire universe.
He also calculated that the odds against the initial conditions needed for stars to form is at least 1 in 10^(10^21) (a 1 followed by 1 thousand billion billion zeros) against. (No that is not a typo.)
And these are only 2 (plus a combined calculation) of more than 120 such constants already discovered. Given such insanely long odds against these constants being precisely right to allow life, mere chance would be an inconceivable stretch. The only reasonable alternative is that the universe was deliberately created in such a way as to permit life. And that requires a mind.
You can read more about the Anthropic Principle here. You can also find a list of 98 of those constants here.
From the article:
"An account of scientific evidence in support of the anthropic principle fills several books. The authors' religious beliefs run the gamut from agnosticism to deism to theism, but virtually every research astronomer alive today agrees that the universe manifests exquisite fine-tuning for life."
"Today, no physicist or astronomer who has researched the question denies that the universe, the Milky Way galaxy, and the solar system possess compelling hallmarks of intentional design for human life."
Anon: "slapping the label "God" on it doesn't say any more "
What else would you call a being who could create an entire universe? Isn't that the very definition of "god"?
"It also begs the question what was the origin of this "mind" (infinite regression)."
Einstein showed us that time and space are so interrelated that one cannot exist without the other. Or put another way, time did not exist before the universe did. From the footnotes in my previous link:
"the universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole."
Footnote 12
From the Anthropic Principle article I just linked:
"The space-time theorems of general relativity prove that an Entity transcending matter, energy, space, and time is the cause of the universe in which humanity lives."
When you have something (inanimate or not) which exists outside of time, to ask when it begins is meaningless. It's like asking "where does a circle begin?" There is no "before" or "begin" where there is no time.
"God of the Bible, who was more likely derived from a tribal god the Hebrews adopted as special to them."
That's quite an assertion. Do you have any actual evidence to back it up?
The tribes in the middle east in biblical times had many local gods, like Baal, and the Hebrews had Yaweh as one among many, but the priests of Yaweh tried to make this male god the sole god of the Hebrews ("no other gods before me"), and to make a covenant with his people, etc. Look into the subject but I expect you want to hold onto your pre-conceived view of history.
Do you think Yaweh (however spelled) is actually the Mind aka "God" behind the Universe?
5:24PM Luke - Anything "outside" or "beyond" our Universe has to be a matter of speculation, and using words like "mind" or "intelligence" or "eternity" is quite pointless. As you must know, this Universe could be one of many where life may or may not exist or exist in a form we couldn't imagine; and just because the physical constants in this Universe allow our type of life to exist in tiny pockets like the biosphere of this tiny planet, might be no more than winning the lottery as far as we are concerned. As in state lotteries, the odds are enormous against any particular person winning but someone does almost every time, and in a corresponding way life on this planet is a winner as far as existing is concerned.
Also the Mind you envisage may be only an alien lifeform that created this universe while itself living in another universe - obviously the possibilities are endless and to infer your concept of God has anything to do with it is just wishful thinking.
Anon 12:12,
ev⋅i⋅dence [ev-i-duhns]
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
Anon 12:41,
Did you even read the articles I linked?
Yes I read them - which were unashamedly theist sites, so no objectivity expected there!
Don't you understand science? - it doesn't start with a conclusion and then goes looking for possible evidence to support it while ignoring everything else. Science starts by gathering facts, data and observations and then looks for a possible hypothesis to explain it. If subsequent data or re-evaluation puts the hypothesis or theory into question then it must be modified or abandoned.
Theists clearly have an emotional investment in their one world-view and they will try to manipulate the science to appear to validate their view or at least not to discount it (creationists are the most egregious re this abuse of science).
Saying there is a "God" behind the Universe says nothing about that "god" which may be an evil demon in the 21st dimension for all you know. To equate it with the jealous, capricious Yahweh of the Old Testament is going too far, but might say a lot about the bronze age culture of the time but puts the credulous religionists of today to shame!
" which were unashamedly theist sites, so no objectivity expected there! "
So, a theist can't try to prove the existence of God, because he's biased to believe in God?
So, an atheist can't try to disprove the existence of god, because he's biased to not believe in god?
So, an Evolutionist can't try to prove the veracity of Evolution, because he's biased to believe in Evolution?
This is a Genetic Fallacy. You are dismissing the arguments presented on the site, because it comes from a theist, instead of treating the arguments on their own merits.
Show me the test results that confirm the existence of god.
"Show me the test results that confirm the existence of god."
We're trying to. It's called evidence. But I guess the old saying is true, "There is none so blind as those who refuse to see."
The evidence in those articles did not originate only with Christians. Some of the scientists who did the research are atheists. Check the footnotes.
If I had argued that we should ignore scientists like Stephen Hawking because he is an atheist (I think so, anyway) you would have ripped me to shreds for using such broken logic. And you would have been right. That's a Genetic fallacy.
Funny thing though, those articles get their evidence from Stephen Hawking, among others. Are you saying that Mr. Hawking is biased in favor of Christianity? I guess that means that Antony Flew has always been biased in favor of Christianty too, despite spending most of his life leading the charge against Christianity and in favor of atheism.
Again, provide a test plan and test results.
An argument has already been given for the existence of God. All you've done is waved it off without addressing it.
Luke has already pointed you to a book and some internet articles detailing evidence for the existence of God. If you honestly want the evidence you're asking for then you should check out one of those books.
I'd suggest I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. Also, Lee Strobel's The Case For A Creator.
There's also a book written by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland called The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It's fairly pricey, but it presents the most up-to-date and complete resource out there.
The first comment on the book is an atheist, and he says, "As an atheist, I recognize this as the single greatest defense of theism ever assembled. Craig and Moreland basically made a list of the most compelling contemporary arguments for the existence of God, tracked down their foremost living defenders, and gave them 50-100 pages to make their case. The result is awe-inspiring, even for the atheist."
"Also, readers may be surprised to learn that the modal ontological argument has progressed a great deal since Plantinga. To my knowledge, atheists have yet to show what might be wrong with Robert Maydole's latest ontological argument, printed within."
And "'The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology' is a tour-de-force of analytic philosophy. If the world is just, it will shape the theistic side of the debate over the existence of God for at least a decade. In my opinion, it has no equal among atheistic literature - yet."
We don't have the time to write the books for you, they already exist.
Which definition of God is being argued exists? - a creative force behind the Universe? - a personal divine "father"? - the God depicted in the Old Testament? - the divine Jesus in the New Testament?
However, using science is the wrong way round as scientists whether theists or atheists shouldn't let possible bias interfere with objective research that doesn't start with a belief and look for ways to prove it. At best the existence of "God" can only be inference or supposition.
We are hitting the motherlode here. One simple sentence (Anon 8:47) yields lots of response.
"scientists whether theists or atheists shouldn't let possible bias interfere with objective research that doesn't start with a belief and look for ways to prove it."
Again, you are assuming that that is what's taking place. You are dismissing the argument because we apparently just forced the "evidence" to fit our bias, instead of rebutting the argument.
As to which God, let me quote what Luke said in response to the exact same question earlier in the thread:
"That a God exists can be discovered by examining the universe around us. It had a beginning, therefore, due to the law of cause and effect which underlies ALL scientific research, its existence had to be caused, and only a God fits the necessary criteria.
So which "god" becomes a matter of examining the various religions and testing the claims and evidence. Only the Christian (and Jewish) God has proven His existence through actions which only a true god could perform."
Re that last paragraph - a Moslem could just as easily claim Allah was the only true God and Islam the only true religion for the same reasons - none could really prove the claims, as each just interprets real or imagined history/science to suit each belief system.
A true scientist or researcher doesn't look for facts to support a fondly held belief, theory or hypothesis, rather a good scientist should try to disprove it (hence scientific theories should be "falsifiable", and while disproof remains unachieved the theory can stand, or may require some modification.) Religious beliefs are by their nature not subject to modification, and in the end they can only be suppositions or inferences.
"a Moslem could just as easily claim Allah was the only true God and Islam the only true religion for the same reasons - none could really prove the claims"
ev⋅i⋅dence [ev-i-duhns]
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
I'll say this one more time for the intellectually clueless:
"So which "god" becomes a matter of examining the various religions and testing the claims and evidence."
Testing those claims and evidence is a science which is practiced every single day in every civilized country in the world. It happens in courts of law, in the offices of historians and archeologists, and in the fields of practice of those who study the history of the physical universe such as geologists, astronomers, and many others. Your repeated reversions to the Genetic Fallacy—including laughable claims that scientists who are atheists are somehow biased in favor of the Bible—instead of actually dealing with the evidence and arguments presented, plus your refusal to actually present any evidence for your assertions makes you seem intellectually dishonest. Is that really how you want to approach such an important question?
Correction: I should have said "Testing such claims and evidence is a science…"
Get off your high horse Luke I was never rude to you or accused you of being intellectually dishonest or clueless or being laughable, etc. It's no use trying to have a civil discussion with people like you - so goodbye (btw. I was trying to put forward legitimate remarks, tho' I apologize that I didn't identify myself on any posting and whether you realized or not I wasn't the only religious skeptic commenting!)
"I apologize that I didn't identify myself on any posting and whether you realized or not I wasn't the only religious skeptic commenting!"
Then "Use the Name, Luke!" Select Name/URL from the identity list, put a handle in the Name field and leave the URL blank. That's what I do.
"I was never rude to you or accused you of being intellectually dishonest…"
Here's Wikipedia's definition of Intellectual dishonesty:
"Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
- the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
- the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty."
(Yes I know Wikipedia is not always trustworthy, but this definition appears to be accurate.)
I know that accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty is itself frequently used as a dishonest rhetorical trick. However, we have this entire thread as evidence, and if the shoe fits…
So your repeated claims of our bias and dishonesty are supposed to be civil?
"Then "Use the Name, Luke!" Select Name/URL from the identity list, put a handle in the Name field and leave the URL blank. That's what I do."
Well, aren't you just fucking special.
Leviathan. I never accused you or any poster of bias or dishonesty (much less repeatedly). I used the word bias once in a general context and never the word dishonest. However, "if the shoe fits" - to quote the phrase Luke tried to use on me with his accusation of intellectual dishonesty - which as he points out could be used against him too. All the posts that were mine were civil and polite and just dealt with the issues not trying to be unpleasantly personal as you and Luke do, but I guess that is the style of posting that goes on here and no doubt you enjoy it - but I don't.
Accusation of bias:
"Yes I read them - which were unashamedly theist sites, so no objectivity expected there!"
Accusation of bias:
"However, using science is the wrong way round as scientists whether theists or atheists shouldn't let possible bias interfere with objective research that doesn't start with a belief and look for ways to prove it"
Accusation of bias:
"A true scientist or researcher doesn't look for facts to support a fondly held belief, theory or hypothesis,"
Any questions?
They were not directed at you personally or any poster personally as is quite clear and what I said. I only addressed the arguments. you decided to abuse me personally and still being unpleasant just because I disagreed with your arguments, that's petty in my opinion, and this is the last time I will talk to you - GOODBYE!
"All the posts that were mine were civil and polite"
How do we know it wasn't you? You refuse to distinguish yourself from every other poster using Anonymous, when it's just as easy to put a handle under Name/URL.
"intellectual dishonesty - which as he points out could be used against him too."
Bwahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha!!!
AS A CHEAP RHETORICAL TRICK! Check your reading comprehension.
Mongo is the only one from your side who offered anything even approaching evidence in this thread, while Leviathan and I offered significant evidence in the form of links to articles and references to books which themselves rely on and give references to the best science and scientists in the field of cosmology and textual criticism. Not to mention a link to the actual Codex Sinaiticus online. I cannot have ignored evidence because you didn't give any!
"They were not directed at you personally or any poster personally as is quite clear and what I said. I only addressed the arguments."
Which is why I pointed out that your repeated accusations of bias are the Genetic Fallacy. Repeatedly using a known logical fallacy—especially after having that fallacy pointed out more than once—is a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. If you find unequivocal statements of the truth to be unpleasant, well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately for you, truth doesn't care about feelings.
Congratulations. Running people off the thread with concerted and verbose attacks! signed Anon.Whatever
"concerted and verbose attacks"
Known on the web as "fisking". Historically known as point-by-point rebuttal during debate.
Correction: Some of the links and references posted were done in this thread, including Mongo's link to the CNN article.
Well done boys. A pincer movement by the champions of the Church Militant crushing a lone heathen with deft blows of verbosity and pomposity. Or did you say something about a point in the butt. Oh well, it's Sunday tomorrow and you can brag to the Lord that you've proved that Christian kindness is overwhelming, or at least humbling.
Love and kisses from a huge admirer of machismo: Anon.Whatever.
So tell me, what are we supposed to do when someone posts something we have good reason to believe is wrong? Ignore it and let other people think that it's true? Just pretend that it's true? Or respond with evidence and hope for an honest debate? (This applies to anything, not just religion.) And what are we supposed to do when the other side refuses to engage in honest debate?
After all, isn't the point of honest debate to present reasons for the position we believe to be correct so that the truth can be figured out? Furthermore, shouldn't those reasons be based on quality evidence and sound logic?
You could at least apologize to him(?) for confusing the two threads that you admitted to, tho' that was after he? had "signed off": love & kisses from Anon.Whatever
You will never get anywhere by attacking the person you are trying to convince. (applies to all)
Post a Comment