We read:
"Michelle, 12, was pulled out of her class at North Kirkwood Middle School on Wednesday and taken to the guidance office for wearing a T-shirt that read: "Jesus, He scares the hell out of you."
Kirkwood School District spokeswoman Ginger Fletcher said Thursday that the word "hell" was viewed as profanity and against school policy. Fletcher said that when students come to school in such clothing, they are asked to turn the clothing inside out, cover it with a sweatshirt or change into different clothing.
But Ramirez and her family said Thursday that the word was meant biblically, not profanely. "To us, hell is a place," said Christina Ramirez, Michelle's mother.
Michelle, a member of the student council who wants to become a youth pastor, said the shirt meant that Jesus "doesn't let evil into you." She said she has worn the shirt many times before and it was never disruptive as the school claimed it could be on Wednesday. "It wasn't disruptive until they said something about it," Michelle said.
Source
Calling "hell" a profanity is just a weak excuse for censoring Christian speech
38 comments:
School is a place for children and teenagers to learn, not a place to promote their own or their parents' particular religious or political views, and clothing should not be used as a medium to conduct it in schools IMHO.
This school is obviously in violation of their own zero tolerance policy against stupidity and extremely poor judgement. There's also the little fact that the religious statement on that shirt is clearly protected by the First Amendment. Yes, i know how it pains leftists and athists to see someone else using the First Amendment, and without having to "tweek and manipulate" it as they usually do.
What if the girl wore a shirt that promoted Hell, Michigan?
"hell is a place"
Really? What are its GPS coordinates?
Anon 7:05 - is that an example of you embracing and celebrating the diversity of views in this forum?
Students still pretty much surrender most of their 1st Amendment right (along with their 4th and 5th) at the school house door with the understanding that the learning enviroment is not conducive to a controled enviorment conducive to learning. So I gotta go with the school on this one. If I thought students in most schools had the maturity level to not be distracted by this then I come down on the side of the kid. Also if the had banned the shirt at an afterschool activity like a club meeting or sporting event I'd go with the kid. But in the classroom? No.
Oh and untill my brother Marines (who we all know don't die but go to hell to regroup) form up ranks and march out with coordinates to their start point, hell is still a fairy tale. Sorry you and reality can't seem to mesh on this. But as I see it that's a you problem...
Wow, I'm tired. That last post was mine and I'm sorry for the spelling and context errors.
That sucked and I'm sorry.
"Anon 7:05 - is that an example of you embracing and celebrating the diversity of views in this forum?"
I am sure that you would love to silence my views completely. So much for your diversity. Hypocrite.
Hell is a place in the brain of the fanciful and credulous religious folk.
Plover,
Learn to spell, birdbrain.
"I am sure that you would love to silence my views completely. So much for your diversity. Hypocrite."
No, don't want to silence you at all. If you choose to exercise your freedom of speech by ridiculing little girls for believing in God that's your right. I just find it kind of sad.
Mind you, I have noticed that "hell" appears to rate higher on the American scale of profanity than the Australian. The "Dilbert" cartoon has a little demon called "Phil from Heck". Apparently, "Phil from Hell" would have been a no-no. The "M.A.S.H." comedy had a lot of sexual references, but still insisted on using the term, "heck".
As far as the school goes, I can see a good argument for banning all opinion T-shirts. An even better practice would be to introduce uniforms - as we have in Australia.
"No, don't want to silence you at all. "
You could have fooled me.
School uniforms are something that so many schools in the U.S. have never figured out. They would make issues like this moot.
Good point but it calls for common sense, which eliminates US schools.
If you don't believe in hell, don't worry, you'll find out where it is soon enough
Malcolm,
As far as Phil from Heck, he was also referred to as the prince of insufficient light. The point of his character was that he didn't rate highly enough to refer to 'darkness' or 'Hell'. It wasn't for any self-censor reasons.
But your idea of uniforms is a good solution. If the school is so worried about such "offensive" things being worn, why not opt for school uniforms?
They cry that uniforms would stifle the children's rights of expression, but isn't that exactly what they're doing now?
And for those of you who ask for GPS coordinates for Hell, I guess you're claim is that if it doesn't have GPS coordinates, it doesn't exist.
OK, then I guess the Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, etc don't exist either because they don't have GPS coordinates.
Ok, then, where is hell? Be specific. References please.
Anon 12:16
The location of Hell is irrelevant, because it exists outside the bounds of the Universe. The living truly "can't get there from here." It's a one-way trip for all but God.
Now I know that idea, that something beyond the Created Universe exists, is a bit big to fit inside your head. However, you accept a universe that just "is" although you can't see all of it, can't explain its existence, and don't believe it serves any purpose. Stretch those brain cells a little further, and maybe you'll see the true reality that exists beyond this fabricated one.
Ok, then, where is hell? Be specific.
No one knows. Most of what we know about Hell came from the mouth of Jesus. He didn't explain "where", just "what".
Of course, whether He was right about it depends on whether or not He was who He claimed to be. And verifying that depends on examining the evidence of history.
Of course, Anon has already decided that history cannot be known (an extreme position rejected by 99.99% of the civilized world), therefore it's pointless try to debate the point with him.
If Hell or anything else is outside this known Universe, then how can anything in this Universe know about it! If they believe they somehow can have this unique knowledge of other "dimensions", how can they demonstrate it?
Luke baby - "history" isn't something that either is or is not known. It is an understanding or interpretation of past events. Some may be well understood, especially if in the fairly recent past, some may not be so clear and therefore argued over, even if it is in the fairly recent past. As for the distant past (like 2000 years ago), that becomes more difficult to evaluate - but not it seems for you and other religious zealots who just see the past as you want it to be, because you have some emotional dependence on your view of life - which is pure solipsism!!
We've been down this road on this blog before.
There is more evidence—both from friendly and hostile sources—that Jesus rose from the dead (which itself is the proof that answers 5:04's questions) than there is about any other event in the ancient world. That includes the Caesars, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. To deny that level of evidence necessarily means denying lesser evidence as well, which necessitates denying all knowledge of ancient history. That denial has repeatedly been stated by "Anonymous".
I'm not interested in repeating that waste of time.
Yep Luke - put your fingers in your ears and say "La La La".
If all of our knowledge of ancient history were untrue it wouldn't matter to me one jot, and why should it. But to you, your comfort-blanket of Jesusism is your whole identity - poor you!
????????
I'm sticking my fingers in my ears because I look at the evidence?
How does that even make sense?
You said you weren't interested in re-hearing or re-discussing points of view you didn't agree with.
It just proves how utterly deluded Christians are if they can say that there is more historical proof of Jesus rising from the dead than there is of the activities and writings of Julius Caesar.
I do care about the truth. I'm just not interested in wasting time arguing what the truth is with someone who obviously cares only about attacking Christianity, not what the truth actually is.
If you ever do want to honestly examine the evidence, here are some good places to start:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0785242198
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1581345615/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0825427886/
"Jesus rose from the dead "
A lot of people wake up in morgues after being pronounced dead. No big deal there. Try again.
That's called the "Swoon Theory". Not possible with crucifixion.
See here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0825427886/
Luke equates valid criticism of "Christianity" as simply a desire to attack it irrespective of what may or may not be true/truth. That typical attitude of the religious is just paranoia and a desire to hide from what might be "truth" that may contradict their religion (because their whole world-view depends on the rigid dogma that gives them a false sense of security and undeserved significance).
So the constant barrage of unsolicited, unprompted, and off-topic derogatory comments scattered across Tongue Tied are what? Overtures of warm and fuzzy peace, love and understanding?
Their absolute refusal to admit—not even in the slightest degree—that a Christian has made a valid point is a sign that an argument is not being conducted in good faith. Just look back over these comments. Whenever a point is made which cannot be disputed rationally, "Anonymous" (another sign of bad faith arguing in Tongue Tied's comment section) resorts to name calling/ad hominem (which is what this latest screed is) or more unrelated warm and fuzzy overtures of peace, love and understanding.
A quick search found this blog post by someone analyzing the signs of someone arguing in bad faith. I think he makes valid points.
http://bit.ly/edhKKu
Finally, I find it fascinating that I often bring as much evidence as time will allow into the discussion to back up my arguments, while "Anonymous" brings none. Yet "Anonymous" constantly attempts to tar me as being the anti-intellectual one. A "valid" criticism needs evidence to validate it.
I hate Blogger's spastic and overenthusiastic filters.
Luke - surely if your religious position is defendable you can respond to each comment. If the comment is serious then you can respond seriously. If it is frivolous, or rude, or whatever, you can respond accordingly. But please don't be arrogant and think your religious views are above criticism. And it shouldn't matter if the comment comes from "Anon" as it's the comment that matters not the author.
Heaven and hell are every bit as real as god.
I'm other words not one little bit. I know the idea that there is no comforting afterlife where you get to hang out with dead friends, family, and rock stars is a bit much to fit in your head so I'll try to narrow the scope of the argument down to something you can understand.
Born->Live->Die.
Provide testable evidence of your magical sky monster or get over yourself.
"Overtures of warm and fuzzy peace, love and understanding?"
Do you mean all the venom spewed forth attacking President Obama (yes, I spelled it correctly) on this blog? Do you mean all the hatred against gay people? Do you mean all the hatred and venom against atheists? Surely you must expect a bit of push-back on all the right wing rhetoric, eh?
Yes, Christians think it's perfectly fine to say atheists, gays and even all non-christians are seduced by the Devil and will go to Hell to suffer eternal torment and torture; yet they seem so surprised when these same people are a wee bit offended by that and have the audacity to question such Christian beliefs.
The religious fall-back position is "faith" as it requires no justification much less evidence or proof.
Post a Comment