…and this is a 
Persecution in the schools
Category: Religion
Posted on: May 9, 2007 11:29 AM, by PZ Myers
You can't trust that tyrant Terwilliger. He's an awful, awful man, and once he made school principal, he used his vast autocratic powers to make every Christian suffer. He threw them to the lions. He crucified them upside down. He beheaded them and shot them with arrows. He tied them to stakes and set them afire. He lashed them and flayed them. He burned their bibles and slapped them when they dared to pray in the lunchroom. He made them stop wearing offensive t-shirts that said other members of the student body were going to hell.
Oh, wait. He didn't do any of those things, except the last one. What kind of pathetic despot is he if he doesn't even try to oppress people? And what kind of crybaby Christians are these picketers? Their only hardship is that they aren't allowed to pretend to be the Reverend Phelps in the school.
Trent Allen, a spokesman for the San Juan Unified School District, said the problem with the shirts worn by San Juan students isn't that they espouse religious beliefs, it's that they target a particular group or refer to a sexual act. The shirts for which students were suspended on Monday quoted Bible verses implying homosexuals would go to hell.
This sounds awfully familiar. Why, my own wee little daughter stirred up outrage at her school last year by wearing a "Gay? Fine by me" t-shirt, which led to a group of homophobic and overtly Christian students to ostracize anyone who shared that sentiment and start wearing their own hate-mongering t-shirts. At least they didn't go as far as these wackos in San Juan, who started up a company called "NO GAY GEAR" to produce slick, professional signs, bumper-stickers, and t-shirts damning queers to hell.
The organizers of these protests are, of course, fervent Christians, following in Jesus' footsteps, which is very difficult since, as we all know, Jesus was an acrobatic kick-boxer who strove to annihilate the poor, the weak, and the oppressed, pausing only long enough to do an occasional media interview.
Dick Otterstad and son Luke, leaders of the 20-member El Dorado County congregation, have staged dozens of demonstrations in recent years to expose what they view as Christian persecution.
They've taken to Wal-Mart parking lots dressed up as Santa Claus to warn shoppers about the company's use of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." They've donned red devil suits and picketed the "imposition" of gay tolerance at school workshops. And they've attracted media attention -- from outlets as big as CNN and USA Today -- at almost every turn.
The Otterstads and their church brought those tactics to Sacramento over the weekend, orchestrating rallies against Dave Terwilliger, the San Juan High School principal who has drawn the ire of religious conservatives for suspending 35 students for wearing anti-gay T-shirts.
Terwilliger suspended the first round of students nearly three weeks ago, saying the shirts disrupted the learning environment. Students said the shirts were an expression of their religious views and intended as a counterpoint to the April 18 Day of Silence, an annual student protest in support of gay rights.
Since good Christians always respond to pleas for tolerance and civil rights for all with a counterpoint, I guess. Somebody has to speak out for the continued domination of the majority at the expense of those less well represented, and no uppity minorities are going to crawl out from under their bootheel. Otterstad's heroes understood that.
"We're taking biblical issues and bringing them to bear in the culture," said Otterstad, 60. "Jesus did that, the Apostles did that, Martin Luther King did that."
Yeah, he's just like Martin Luther King.
There was also a throw-away paragraph in the article that just cried out to me for more attention. Read this, and think about what it says about our country.
Otterstad ran for a seat on the the Black Oak Mine Unified School Board in El Dorado County in 2004. He said he thinks the public school system should be abolished. He said sodomy laws should be reinstated. He got 38.8 percent of the vote in that election.
He ran for the school board on a platform of abolishing public education. I wish I could say that was unusual, but it's a painfully common occurrence.
He ran for the school board and one of his issues was reinstating sodomy laws. What? Watch out for nosy school board members lurking in the bushes outside your bedroom window now. This may be a crazy country, but I assure you, school boards do not have jurisdiction. I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem in most schools, either … but then again, with Otterstad's Kook Church in the community, who knows what lunacy is going on?
He ran on a platform of batshit insanity, and he got over a third of the vote.
That scares me.
Obviously, though, the answer is to play nice with those voters, encourage their quaint folkways, and find some common ground that will convince them to moderate their beliefs and work together in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance with other members of the community. Hmmm, maybe they like science and can join hands with us in improving biology education?
Or just maybe the answer doesn't involve giving religious nutjobs an inch … nah. That wouldn't be sufficiently reverent.
Comments
Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a smoot.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 9, 2007 11:46 AM
I wonder how many of the 38% were learned these attitudes from their parents, as opposed to those who being persuaded by logical (or even illogical) arguments. I agree with earlier comments that genetic changes in human intelligence are not a pressing concern, but what about cultural evolution? My impression is that groups that think women should stay home and have kids seem to have more kids. Could the next few national elections be determined more by demographics than debate?
Posted by: Ford | May 9, 2007 11:52 AM
Ottersad is a certified creep. But (I hate to admit it), he might be right about the t-shirt issue.
Terwilliger had the opportunity to make this controversy into a 1st amendment teach-in. He could have explained why free speech is a core value for Americans, and how he would not discipline students even if their t-shirts were bigoted. Instead, he replied with a heavy hand.
Posted by: Jeffrey Shallit | May 9, 2007 11:53 AM
So, you aren't going to join with the "Friendly Atheists" and try to open a dialogue with these guys?
Where's your commitment to Positive Atheism? Remember that Christians want to be persecuted. It fulfills the prophecies!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 9, 2007 11:55 AM
I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem in most schools, either ...
It would have made high school more fun, though.
I just had an insane vision dance into my head of me running down the corridor in high school and passing a couple of gay students having sex openly in the corridor, and me saying, "Don't mind me, I'm just on the way to the library..."
Posted by: Kimpatsu | May 9, 2007 12:01 PM
This sort of reminds of situations where people claim "anti-white racism" in situations where they get called out for racist comments. Dominant groups throughout history have always had a peculiar narcissism about losing their societal hegemony.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 9, 2007 12:05 PM
This is the sort of story that makes me think that one day we may have to give the fundamentalists their own state or swath of the country. You know, a nice place where they can ban science, stone to death anyone who engages in non-vaginal sex, and picnic alongside the runway to wait for Jesus to fly in on his spaceship. Might as well start with Utah, where Republican party chairs are literally bursting into tears these days because Satan is using illegal immigrants to destroy America. We could even let the Fundies call their reservation "America," and the rest of us could keep "United States." That'd be fair, right? But perhaps they'd prefer "Jesus Land."
Posted by: tinisoli | May 9, 2007 12:06 PM
I would love to see the look on their faces if someone were to walk up to them in order to a) ask them how saying that homosexuals were going to hell squares with the idea of a "loving God," and b) mention to them about how the Bible says "he who claims to know the light but hates his brother is a liar."
Posted by: Stanton | May 9, 2007 12:08 PM
Jeffrey, the First Amendment doesn't apply to school. For example, would anyone argue that the school should allow t-shirts saying "Niggers are going to hell"? Terwilliger is right to keep hateful conduct out.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | May 9, 2007 12:09 PM
I can see the first amendment issues, but couldn't this also fall under sexual harrasment? If its illegal to have a hostile workplace, how can it be legal to have a hostile schoolplace? The problem isn't the religious component to the t-shirt, its the fact that it is targeting a specific set of people and virtually threatening them.
I mean, the kids couldn't wear a shirt that says "women should stay in the kitchen" but that is at least as bibically supported as condemning gays.
Of course at the same time our right to say stupid and hateful things is protected by the first amendment, and keeping kids from wearing the shirts doesn't stop them from thinking the thought.
Perhaps the school could have just issued a statement of solidarity to homosexuals along the lines of "people can say what they want, but we will not discrimate on the basis of sexual orientation, and consider the statements of those who do as contrary to our intended education mission" or something.
Posted by: Robert | May 9, 2007 12:10 PM
And he would also need to add on that with a right comes a responsibility. Free speech is not absolute, and schools do have legal authority to restrict forms of speech which are offensive and disruptive; extended from their authority to have dress codes.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 9, 2007 12:12 PM
Ford wrote, "I wonder how many of the 38% were learned these attitudes from their parents, as opposed to those who being persuaded by logical (or even illogical) arguments."
Far more likely was that the majority of those 38% didn't have any idea who they were voting for, or what his platform was.
I've known plenty of people who just pick a random couple of names for local elections, or choose by party preferance, without knowing anything about the candidates viewpoints or platform.
We shouldn't assume intolerant bigotry to what is adequately explained by ignorance. (Of course, bigotry is a subset of ignorance. But not all ignorance is due to bigotry.)
Posted by: Flex | May 9, 2007 12:17 PM
Keep in mind that El Dorado county is very small (pop 156,299 as of 2000 census), and very rural. This population is spread across a lot of mountain towns, and the main attraction, Lake Tahoe, is visited by hordes of folks from the San Francisco Bay area, which we all know is a cesspool of gay liberals.
Sacramento in general leans heavily conservative (it's a massive sea of suburbia built upon 100 year floodplains), so hearing this crap coming from there is not surprising.
It sucks to be a liberal atheist around here... even if I wanted to get into politics, there would be no chance of getting more than about 5 - 8% of the vote. My own mother in law has said that she votes for people because they are Christians first, and then later considers their politics...
Posted by: Tiskel | May 9, 2007 12:20 PM
I forgot to add, that El Dorado county is also 97% white. They don't take too kindly to diversity around there.
Posted by: Tiskel | May 9, 2007 12:21 PM
Perhaps the principal should have taken note of the materials the t-shirts were made of, as well as the students other clothing. He could then have quoted the biblical proscription about wearing two different textiles. Abomination is abomination, doncha know.
Posted by: Humbert Dinglepencker | May 9, 2007 12:22 PM
Curt Cameron writes, in complete error:
The first amendment most certainly does apply in the public schools. There is a long line of court cases about how it applies. I suspect the school will lose this case, for the same reason it would lose if it banned t-shirts that read, "gay? fine by me."
While I abhor the Christian bigots as much as anyone here, they have as much right to express their bigotry as Skatje does to express her tolerance.
Posted by: Russell | May 9, 2007 12:31 PM
"He ran on a platform of batshit insanity, and he got over a third of the vote."
He would probably won here. Hell, Bush/Cheney got 82% of the vote in this county - in 2004!
Posted by: Coragyps | May 9, 2007 12:35 PM
The old quotation from the asst attorney general in the Nixon era (Michael Ullmann), known as "Ullmann's Razor", comes to mind regarding the motivation behind the antics of these religous bigots: "When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other".
Posted by: MKinsella | May 9, 2007 12:36 PM
Don't a lot of schools (successfully) enforce bans on "gang colors?"
These shirts, it seems to me, serve a similar (primary) role: allowing people of a common political and social clique to enjoy a public display of solidarity and gain the ability to intimidate by making others conscious of the large population of said clique.
By making their gang colors out of text on a t-shirt, this group thinks they've found a loop-hole that will protect their right to wear gang colors under the umbrella of free-speech.
I think an argument could be made that since the primary role of these shirts is not to communicate (ie. excercise free speech) but to intimidate, they are not protected speech.
Posted by: Crosius | May 9, 2007 12:38 PM
I'm with Russell -- I don't think that principals should be involved in regulating student expression, when it's at the level of words on a shirt (or a book bag). Certainly, this is in party because I suspect there are more principals who would have banned Skatje's shirt than the "hell" ones that are the subject of PZ's post.
Students are in school to learn a great many things, and among them is how to deal with others who aggressively disagree with one's own heartfelt ideals and values. I say let the shirts be worn -- and leave it to the students (aka "the next generation of adults") to figure out what it all means. Mediating their intellectual discourse for them isn't a great way to train their minds for the future.
Goes without saying but will say anyway that I think the protesters and the students they're backing are hateful idiots.
Posted by: CP | May 9, 2007 12:41 PM
Not that it will ever happen here but what about school uniforms. I had 12 years wearing them and actually think they are pretty good idea. No need to think about what to wear to school, it evens everyone out and depending on the school they could be modified enough for a bit of difference.
Moot point I know but could save some of this bullshit.
Creepy by a factor of 10.
When I first saw the poster I thought it was a Side Show Bob protest.
Posted by: coz | May 9, 2007 12:43 PM
Curt,
1st amendment does apply at public schools (private schools are exempt completely), but there is an exception for speech that is considered disruptive to the learning process. I personally think "hate speech" falls squarely in that category. Being a gay teen in this country must be hard enough without being harassed at school.
Posted by: Matt Stocum | May 9, 2007 12:44 PM
He forced 500 children to play the biggest piano in the world. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045464/
--Sorry I couldn't help it.
Posted by: Jim A. | May 9, 2007 12:45 PM
A message of tolerance vs. a message targeting a group for intolerance? Sorry, the school did the right thing and removed the shirts that were condoning violence and hatred and left the shirts alone that just asked for acceptance. I don't think there are many prosecutors that will even take the case on.
Posted by: Jay | May 9, 2007 12:45 PM
A message of tolerance vs. a message targeting a group for intolerance? Sorry, the school did the right thing and removed the shirts that were condoning violence and hatred and left the shirts alone that just asked for acceptance. I don't think there are many prosecutors that will even take the case on.
Posted by: Jay | May 9, 2007 12:49 PM
As far as the 38% of the vote goes, you have to remember that this area of California votes overwhelmingly Republican, to a fault.
John Doolittle does not represent this area, but the voters there vote in ways similar to those in Doolittle's district.
Great article on Doolittle here:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=318713
I really think the 35 students who drew suspensions had it coming. I would absolutely expect to be suspended for wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus sucks, and he likes it." No doubt about it.
Maybe we need to bring about more biblically-inspired punishments. Kids who don't honor their mother and father need to be stoned to death. That sounds like a good idea, and the Bible supports it.
It's time to put down myths and fairytales and superstitions and grow up. Toss out the Bible and move on.
Evangelize for Rational Thought.
Posted by: MikeM | May 9, 2007 12:52 PM
What a pity these students were shut up! Someone could have made up alternative T-shirts with other quotes from the Bible, like St. Paul's injunction against women teaching, or his urging slaves to obey their masters.
I can just hear the whining: "They're making our holy book look bad... by quoting from it... just like we're doing... only when they do it, it's bad!"
If we silence the bigots, we also silence the anti-bigots.
Posted by: Mark Borok | May 9, 2007 12:53 PM
Actually no one is being silenced.
T-shirts are being restricted. There's a difference.
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 9, 2007 1:01 PM
Crosius writes:
The issue with such analogies is whether the specifics hold from case to case. I am not a first amendment lawyer, but I suspect one of the specifics that matters is that the gangs that are targeted are organizations that in fact have planned and committed violent felonies. Now yeah, you can point to Christians who have committed hate crimes. But I doubt you can point to the specific church or group involved having done so. These kind of specific differences matter. A public school cannot ban speech merely because it considers such speech hateful.
BTW, it won't be a prosecutor taking the case. It will be one of the students whose t-shirt was banned who will sue, aided by a legal rights organization. I hope it is the ACLU, but in this case, it is more likely to be one of the right-wing groups formed so that right-wing Christians can get this kind of legal protection without going to an organization that they usually love to bad mouth.
Posted by: Russell | May 9, 2007 1:02 PM
Errr... maybe he meant Martin Luther?
Re: gang colors
I agree; such an argument could be made.
But my Death Cab for Cutie and Azumanga Daioh tee-shirts are safe, right? Whew! :-)
I wonder if these people with their imagined "War on Christmas" and their persecution complexes will ever realize how silly they look to people from ethnic or racial groups that have experienced REAL persecution in the recent past. I realize that's not a very, um, scientific statement, but this stuff just gets on my nerves. Grow up, people!
Posted by: Kseniya | May 9, 2007 1:13 PM
I think anyone who believes in the First Amendment has to come down against content-based restrictions on teeshirts. On the other hand, a teeshirt that says 'Fundamentalist Christians are drooling, mouth-breathing morons' should be equally protected.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | May 9, 2007 1:17 PM
Tiskel said:
I agree and disagree with this. You need to get yourself south of the American River, like I did. The closer you get to Placerville and Roseville, the more correct your statement is.
I'm proud to say that I live in the culturally diverse, and "leans Democrat", Pocket. It's not the same as Carmichael...
I very seriously doubt people like Doolittle and Lungren would win in Matsui's district.
Posted by: MikeM | May 9, 2007 1:17 PM
read tinker v. des moines (1969). this ruling, btw, specifically applies to articles of clothing. the only stipulations that differ from normal 1st amendment rights is that the students' rights to speech must be balanced with the legitimate state interest of educating the students -- ie: if the speech is disruptive to class, it's out. in tinker, the supreme court ruled that passive speech (such as armbands and t-shirts) was clearly non-disruptive, and thus constitutionally protected. legally, if these nutjobs wanted to sue, the school would not have a legal leg to stand on.
unfortunately, in this country, we have to take the bad speech with the good speech. the quote the ruling of cohen v. california (a t-shirt case, btw), "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric."
as a side note, i am forced to wonder if that "third of the population" has any correlation with the people that still support our president, and the third of the population that believes they've been abducted by space aliens.
Posted by: arachnophilia | May 9, 2007 1:22 PM
Heh. My loving family gave me the DVDs of The West Wing Season 2 recently for my birthday, and just last night I watched this scene, in which Bartlet takes down a "Dr. Laura" clone on the subject of biblical punishments and other literalism insanity:
Gotta love Aaron Sorkin for giving "Dr." Ignorant Tight-Ass a name that sounds very much like it belongs to a porn star, eh? ;^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 9, 2007 1:43 PM
Heh. My loving family gave me the DVDs of The West Wing Season 2 recently for my birthday, and just last night I watched this scene, in which Bartlet takes down a "Dr. Laura" clone on the subject of biblical punishments and other literalism insanity:
Gotta love Aaron Sorkin for giving "Dr." Ignorant Tight-Ass a name that sounds very much like it belongs to a porn star, eh? ;^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 9, 2007 1:48 PM
OK, this is getting weird: This time, I know I only hit "Post" once, and the message still showed up twice. Grrrr....
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 9, 2007 1:53 PM
They should be allowed to wear t-shirts displaying the words Jesus said about homosexuals.
Posted by: khan | May 9, 2007 1:54 PM
reinstating sodomy laws?
Does that mean that sodomy is like...mandatory?
Posted by: Paul D | May 9, 2007 2:02 PM
It would be more appropriate to compare them with people who were persecuted, arrested, exiled, tortured or killed because of ideology.
Posted by: Greco | May 9, 2007 2:40 PM
#37
Yes! I wear some everyday! My favorite quote from jesus about gays is " ".
Posted by: cv | May 9, 2007 2:49 PM
Re post #30:
Azumanga Daioh...rock on! :)
Posted by: JRY | May 9, 2007 2:56 PM
Being neither an American nor a lawyer I really can't comment on the Constitutional legalities, but it seems to me that whether this can be considered hate speech turns on the exactly what is said on the T-shirt. If they quote verses about putting homosexuals to death, then that's an implicit threat of violence. But if it just says they're going to Hell, then where's the threat? Might as well wear a T-shirt saying that if you step on a sidewalk crack, your mother will be rendered a paraplegic.
Posted by: Eamon Knighr | May 9, 2007 3:03 PM
The quote about freedom of speech not applying to schools is, in fact, wrong. This is, I think, very much about freedom of speech, but the school is on the RIGHT side of this one. Imagine walking up to a black student in the hallway and saying, to his face, "You're all worthless niggers, and you're all going to hell." Freedom of speech would have nothing to do with it. You'd be targeting individuals for harassment, and that's not only against school rules, where I come from it can be a crime. I can't see how it's any different to wear t-shirts saying gays are going to hell. They're aimed at specific people, who know who they are. Wearing a shirt saying "Gay? Fine by me!" is a qualitatively different sentiment, that isn't targeting anybody for abuse or harassment.
Posted by: Tim Limbert | May 9, 2007 3:37 PM
I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem in most schools,
...unless they are run by priests. (And even then, I don't think it's actually in the hallways.)
Posted by: Margaret | May 9, 2007 3:45 PM
Eamon Knighr:
I'm not a lawyer, but I am an American, and as far as I can tell, "hate speech" simply doesn't have any legal meaning in this nation. American hate laws have nothing to do with speech, but address the motive of an act that would be criminal in any case. Thus, if one commits an act of vandalism, that is a crime. If the act of vandalism is motivated from animosity toward certain protected groups, then in some states, that makes it a higher category of crime, bringing stiffer punishment. That hate itself is perfectly legal. As is speech expressing that hate. Both are protected by our first amendment.
Yes, a speech act can constitute an assault, if it really is a threat of violence or reasonable interpreted so. It can constitute incitement to riot if it is likely to have that effect. Brandenburg v. Ohio expressed the standard "where such advocacy is directed to producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." But merely expressing hatred against people because of their race, religion, height, appearance, choice in t-shirts, or any other basis is your right. Or at least, it is your right in the US.
Posted by: Russell | May 9, 2007 3:46 PM
Azumanga Daioh...bleck. Can't you otaku obsess over something that's less uselessly banal, like Ghost in the Shell or Evangelion. Granted, these are pretty crappy in their own right, but at least they have robots.
Posted by: stogoe | May 9, 2007 3:52 PM
Apparently, Christianity has been dumbed down to an entitlement to be an asshole. If you don't let them abuse the people around them, you're "persecuting" them. But hey, at least they're admitting that their religion is sociopathic.
I'm going to start a religion that entitles me to other people's teenage daughters. If you won't give them to me, you must hate me. I demand my civil rights as a member of the persecuted sect of the Church of θυσίακοριτσιών.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | May 9, 2007 4:01 PM
Re stogoe & #46:
Considering that alot of popular anime (in America) has tons of robots, magical girls, aliens, monsters with tentacles, uber ninjas, and heroes with great powers, a comedy about a slightly surreal high school life with a plot of nothing except, again, high school life is quite non-banal in it's apparent banality.
Huh? ;)
Posted by: JRY | May 9, 2007 4:05 PM
Yeah, and there's the additional dimension presented by the fact that school attendance is mandatory. People in the "real world" have the ability to deal with harrassing, potentially threatening speech by walking away; because they're required to be in attendance and even somewhat restricted in their movements by the structure of the school day, students are effectively compelled to remain in the presence of their harrassers.
Freedom of speech is never absolute; it must not trample other protected rights. The question here is not whether freedom of speech applies in schools, but whether this particular speech crosses the line into violating other, equally strongly protected rights. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the compulsory nature of school attendance has a part to play in where you strike that balance.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 9, 2007 4:07 PM
(a) God doesn't want to send them to hell; he sent ten hojillion fundies to help them; it's their own fault.
(b) They don't hate gay people; they're doing this out of love. And if you believe it makes the difference between an eternal chaste orgasm and eternal torture, pretty much anything's justified out of love.
They may be bigots, but they're pretty internally consistent bigots.
Posted by: grendelkhan | May 9, 2007 4:11 PM
Well if a kid can get kicked out of school for wearing a pirate costume as a follower of the FSM. Then they sure as there is no hell better ban that crap in schools.
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 9, 2007 4:12 PM
So they are being persecuted because someone called them out for persecuting others? Wow, Jesus would flip in his grave if he did not rise from the dead.
I also do not see how 80% of a society can ever be persecuted. I have never heard of a persecuted Majority.
Sadly, until the same Christians rise up and reclaim their faith from the retards that have taken it over, I am lumping you all in the same boat, a boat of idiots.
Posted by: Marq | May 9, 2007 4:15 PM
Christianity, when taken seriously, is pretty much tailor-made for trolling, isn't it? Not only does it command adherents to hassle people, it actually teaches them to look forward to the mockery and derision sane people will give them, and juices them up with deliciously-addictive self-righteousness.
Posted by: grendelkhan | May 9, 2007 4:22 PM
Ed says the shirt is A-OK, and that's good enough for me.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | May 9, 2007 4:25 PM
Reinstated? Hell, the government hasn't quit doing it. Everytime I read about another assanine thing the government is funding (Faith Based Initiatives, for instance), and look at the FICA column on my paycheck, I feel more than a little used.
Also, considering how truly stupid, and in some cases ugly, those who are against homosexuality are, you'd think they'd want more people to be gay. If they force every man to be hetero, they'll have way more competition.
-Berlzebub
PS. Yes, I know I'm rambling, but my mind isn't with it today.
Posted by: Berlzebub | May 9, 2007 4:27 PM
I'll send a T-Shirt to Ed. "Jesus was gay."
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 9, 2007 4:28 PM
(Yes, I notice that I used the possessive. From the fundie viewpoint, somebody owns the women folk, whether they're married off or not.)
Posted by: grendelkhan | May 9, 2007 4:31 PM
Public schools have (or at least should have) the right to ban anything demonstrably disruptive to the learning environment. People generally send their children to school to learn, not to, y'know, be watching the kid with the t-shirt that projects a laser light show on the ceiling, or the kid with a sound chip in his or her pants that makes various car honking noises.
Yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But there's a difference between shirts that protest or convey a message, and shirts intentionally designed to cause disruption through offensiveness and mean-spiritedness. The difference between "I'm not a fan of homosexuality" and "All queers go to hell" is kind of like the difference between "I don't support this war" and "Your soldier brother can go to hell". The former states your personal position while the latter is aggressive against others and encourages conflict and possibly some kind of violence.
Of course, the best approach to all of this would be for a group of students to wear shirts that say "All Dogs Go to Heaven", and rabidly, pseudo-seriously argue against the homophobic students to this effect. "All queers go to hell!" "No! You're wrong! All Dogs Go to Heaven!" I'm a strong believer in the power of absurdity. Why have their argument when you can twist it into your own and make the whole thing entirely devoid of meaning?
Posted by: J Crowley | May 9, 2007 4:40 PM
When I got to work this morning, I had two Watchtower magazines laid on my desk. One was wide open with a article about "what happens when you die?" (or something like that)
Now, I REALLY don't know who did it, since I don't go around spouting about my disbeliefs, but I definitely haven't gone around laying printouts of Dawkins' or Dennet's most memorable quotes.
Maybe I should.
Posted by: daenku32 | May 9, 2007 5:05 PM
Yup. It's time to get a Darwin poster... or something.
Posted by: Steve_C (Secular Elitist) FCD | May 9, 2007 5:09 PM
Ed says the shirt is A-OK, and that's good enough for me.
Do you have a link to where Ed has commented on this particular case? I've looked on Dispatches and can't find anything, and I'm interested in what he has to say.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 9, 2007 5:11 PM
Otaku? Moi? Actually, the local otaku is my brother, who just turned sixteen. He's still in high school (I am not) and he sometimes wears tees that relate to anime and manga (I never do) and I just thought I'd throw Daioh it out there and see who noticed. :-)
It's a cute manga, but I find it vaguely disturbing that it's classified as Seinen manga, as opposed to Shōnen or Shōjo. I can understand my brother (or any high school boy) being interested in the sometimes bizarre antics of cute high school girls (including the precocious Chiyo-chan), and I know an eight year old boy who likes it, too. Though I lack the interest and patience to read through all four volumes myself, I admit I enjoy slice-of-life stories and can relate to some of the characters... If that makes me uselessly banal, then so be it. :-)
But Daioh, a sienen manga? Maybe it's simply that Wiki's classification for Azumanga Daioh is wrong. I dunno.
Either way, I agree that robots are cool. Especially flying robots with laser eyes.
Are we off-topic yet? Actually, I was wondering if a tee reading "Anti-gay? Not so fine with me" would be approved. Or "Homophobes suck!" Or "Jesus Was Mortal" or ...
Posted by: Kseniya | May 9, 2007 5:46 PM
Sorry. This is a simple First Amendment issue. The statement is offensive but is definitely protected - and should be.
How would you respond if he banned t-shirts that said "God is dead"?
LC
Posted by: L. Caution | May 9, 2007 5:55 PM
Eamon et al, I don't know. Saying someone will go to Hell does count as a threat of violence. It doesn't seem like a convincing threat, but it makes of for its lack of believability with sheer frothing insanity and evil.
Posted by: hf | May 9, 2007 6:21 PM
I don't think threats are protected by freedom of speech. And a T-shirt saying "Gays go to hell" or some such could be construed as a threat, i.e. "and I'm willing to help," considering how many supposedly gay guys are beaten up.
Posted by: Monado | May 9, 2007 6:23 PM
Schools have standards for dress codes. For example, they don't allow t-shits that advertise alcoholic beverages or cigarettes. They also have standards for non-harassing behavior.
I am assuming that most schools would not allow a t-shirt that says "Niggers are going to HELL!" Although that speech is protected by the First Amendment in the general public, on school grounds it's not tolerated.
I just don't see how wearing a shirt that proclaims hatred of a minority group, on school grounds, could be protected speech. Perhaps someone can point me to the relevant precedents?
Posted by: Curt Cameron | May 9, 2007 6:39 PM
They don't seem to realize that no one is anti-christian, we are anti-asshole. There used to be a difference but now the line has blurred.
Posted by: Mena | May 9, 2007 7:16 PM
Where was all this First Amendment stuff when I was in high school (80's)? Our student newspaper regularly got censored, and I even knew a kid who was made to change his pants because he'd painted a smiley-face on the butt. And we were the nerd school.
Posted by: mothworm | May 9, 2007 7:38 PM
RE: #26:
"...overwhelmingly Republican, to a fault...."
Is no one going to take advantage of this straight line?
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 9, 2007 8:06 PM
CP @ #20 said "Students are in school to learn a great many things, and among them is how to deal with others who aggressively disagree with one's own heartfelt ideals and values. I say let the shirts be worn -- and leave it to the students (aka "the next generation of adults") to figure out what it all means. Mediating their intellectual discourse for them isn't a great way to train their minds for the future.".
What a pollyanna attitude. Its one thing when students are agressively disagreeing with which football team is the best and totally another when a group of people is being demonized and your a member of that group. The feeling of having someone smear your football team is nothing compared to the feeling of having someone smear a core aspect of your being. Until you've been a member of a minority that's being persecuted by a large powerful majority you're in no position to be suggesting t-shirts like that are not a problem. Its terrifying as a member of an outcast minority to be targeted in this way - one most certainly isn't in a position to respond as though it a level playing field. "Train their minds for the future" - give me a break, you mean train oppressed gay kids to expect to suffer at the hands of the powerful. Please don't be so hopelessly naive.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | May 9, 2007 8:10 PM
I don't think between-classes buggery in the hallway is a problem...
Ahh, Proffessor! You have not had the sublime privilege of sporting in the academic groves of Syosset High, that's obvious.
Posted by: Mooser | May 9, 2007 8:38 PM
I have a hard time (on free-speech principles) understanding why it's OK for Skatje to wear a T-shirt supporting gays, but it's not OK for students to wear T-shirts criticizing gays.
I think we all know which T-shirt we agree with, but free-speech means defending the right of people to express themselves in ways that are offensive to us.
I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I would definitely draw the line at implicit or explicit threats of violence. I'm not so sure that I would consider a T-shirt saying 'I hate gays' to be wrong, that is if it's OK for other students to write 'I like gays'.
Personally, I would ban all slogan T-shirts, religious and patriotic symbols at school. I don't even like the idea of having the flag in the classroom.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 9, 2007 9:54 PM
Actually, I rather liked the idea of those students labeling themselves, too. It was like they were scrawling a big "L" on their foreheads for us.
Unfortunately, the problem is that there are gay students in the school (mostly very closeted, of course). Imagine being in their position, with a number of students wandering the halls who proudly self-identify as hating you. It's hard enough being a disrespected minority without having the school administration sanctioning students who think you are evil personified.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 9, 2007 10:01 PM
Violates the First Amendment. Students have a right to political expression at school, and schools may not simply declare those expressions to be "disruptive" in order to exclude them.
Not that anyone actually follows the rules, of course...
Posted by: Caledonian | May 9, 2007 10:06 PM
lol khan, sounds reasonable to me.
from what i can gather, the shirts said "homosexuality is a sin." inciting violence is indeed a concern. the 9th circuit court decision (last year) upheld the suspensions (last year) on the basis that the shirts target a minority group in a negative manner. it's rather hotly debated. i'm not sure that's totally constitutional.
at that point, you might be able to say that those are "fighting words," incitement to violence, which are not protected. t-shirts are a lot more passive than shouting in someone's face, even if the message is every bit as despicable. so the line is really kind of hazy here. i'd like to see a case get higher than the circuit courts, personally.
christianity is a strange religion. they want to help people. they THINK that pointing out lifestyle "choices" as sinful, that they will gain repentant converts. i don't know WHY they think this; maybe it worked on them.
but if you go up an talk to one of the gay-bashing people and ask them how to avoid going to hell, they'll gladly tell you. so it's really, really hard to tell the difference between actual threats and simple ugly bigotry in this case.