Waiving Your First Amendment Right By Force

No Blood, Violence, Sex and.....Religion?

from JoeUser Forums

We have yet another ridiculous argument which has now gone to litigation in the school system.  No wonder the parents are homeschooling their kids in droves these days.  Have we lost our minds? 

A Wisconsin school system is facing a lawsuit because a high school teacher gave a student a zero on an art project because the student had a picture of a cross in it. 

At least the kid did the work!  Golly!  How many kids are even doing the work nowadays?  How can you give a kid a zero for painting a cross in a picture?  If it were a Nazi cross would that have been ok? 

Get this:  The school district argues that the student voluntarily waived his First Amendment religious freedoms when he entered the classroom.

Really?  This is legal?  Since when?  Seems it's ok to drop the F-bomb nowadays in the schools and not worry about losing their First Amendment Rights.  Heck, the teachers are dropping these bombs now. 

He was told he forfeited his First Amendment rights when he included a cross and the words "John 3:16, a sign of love" in his art project.  He was told to either cover up the scripture reference or put a border over it. 

He refused and he received a zero for the project.  She showed him a policy that every student has to sign,  It says in the policy that there is to be, 'No blood. No violence. No sex' and 'No religion citing they lose their First Amendment rights when they walk in the door. 

The kid, one of the top students in his class, was not intimidated.  He tore the policy in two, handed it back to the teacher and called it illegal. 

In fact, says the lawyers, this policy actually favors one religion over another.  This same teacher allowed pictures of demonic, evil-looking beings as part of these assignments, but yet wouldn't allow a small cross and a scripture verse.  Why is this so threatening?  How scary is a simple cross? 

The pro-family Cortman said this:  "What's most offensive about this case and most egregious in the actions by the school district is the fact that their policy lumps blood, violence, sex, and religion as if those four things are equal. 

What kind of message is the government school system trying to send here? 

 

3,696 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Maybe it just wasn't a very good cross. :NOTSURE:

Could just be two lines on a piece of paper, you know. :P

~Zoo

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

We're looking at the beginning of a nasty movement against Christians.  We've had it too easy for too long.  Have you checked out "Speechless: Silencing Christians?"  (afa.net) Our challenge is going to be how to show love while digging knives out of our backs.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
blood, violence, sex, and religion
End of quote


The Bible is full of all those things! Yay, Bible!

Regardless, you do lose some rights when walking onto a school campus. Absolutely. There's no helping that, because order has to be preserved. Safety of the children comes before the freedoms of those children. However, the limiting of those freedoms should be restricted to only taking away those freedoms necessary for the safety of the children.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Could just be two lines on a piece of paper, you know.
End of quote

ha!  Yes Zoo....it's all in how you look at it.....;P

We're looking at the beginning of a nasty movement against Christians.
End of quote

Yes, it is coming....and not that I'm looking forward to this but  trials and tribulations in the church separate the possessors from the professors and refines the church. 

The trouble with Christians today is no one is trying to kill us.  If they were, there would be a lot less "Christians" out there, but the ones still around would be strong in the faith. 

I've heard about "Speechless" but not real familiar with it.  I'll have to check it out. 

 

 

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

the limiting of those freedoms should be restricted to only taking away those freedoms necessary for the safety of the children.
End of quote

And thats exactly why I think that the school has overstepped its bounds here. Its not like the kid was saying become Christian or die! in his artwork it was merely an expression of his idea and its not like he was threatening anyone with it. Art is all about presenting an idea or emotion through images and if kids in the classroom where bigoted enough to be offended by a cross or a star of david or any other religous symbol banned under this rule then I don't know why they are even in art class.

On a completely practical level how can they just totally ignore religous art? A good portion of the Rennassaunce art has religous basis and was funded by the Catholic Church and religon in art has played an important role even after the secularization of art. Maybe they just ignore this whole section of art because they dont want to offend anyone. This is kinda like in Farienheight 451 where they dont want anyone to be offended by any ideas so they just ban all the books.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leinad0033
End of quote


You had some really great points. Thanks for sharing.

However, the limiting of those freedoms should be restricted to only taking away those freedoms necessary for the safety of the children.
End of quote


Well maybe they thought someone might be "beat over the head with the cross?"  :p 
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
become Christian or die!
End of quote


That's... basically... Jesus' ministry in a nutshell, there.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
The school district argues that the student voluntarily waived his First Amendment religious freedoms when he entered the classroom.
End of quote


You cannot waive rights (and the school district is going to get burned on this). The only argument is a restriction based upon a situational need. But as the founders state, rights are inalienable - i.e., not given or taken by man.

the limiting of those freedoms should be restricted to only taking away those freedoms necessary for the safety of the children.
End of quote


And that is closer to the issue. Limiting, but not waiving. As the student was not prostelizing, I dont think the school has an issue. Indeed, they violate their own policies by not applying their arbitrary and capricious rules unilaterally.

And thats exactly why I think that the school has overstepped its bounds here.
End of quote


And that is a great summation.

I was wondering when you would get to this, KFC. I read it, and was going to file it under the "Zero Tolerance = Zero intelligence", but did not have time to get to it. It is actually worse than zero intelligence as, since the school is an extension of the government, the activity was in compliance with instructions, and not disrupting the leson activities, and preventing the exercise of the students first amendment rights, it is clearly an attack on some religions. And that is against not only the letter, but the intent of the constitution.

I hope they make an example of the teacher and administration.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Might have a case that a cross is a violent torture device...
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I agree this was stupid, I think some of you are exaggerating the reasons such as this picture being dangerous in some way. I think they were simply enforcing a rule they created, which according to DrGuy is wrong.

My comments are not about the reason the kid was given a zero but because you people are complaining about the possible reasons it was done. Talk about double standards, it's OK to enforce a rule so long as it's not against some kind of religious situation? Fine, the rule is wrong, but they did what was suppose to be done, enforce the rule. Now enforcing existing rules is a bad thing? Why are none of you complaining about the rule itself as oppose to complaining about the possible reasons it was enforced? I don't understand why people complain not because the rule is incorrect but because it offended them?
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

I was wondering when you would get to this, KFC. I read it, and was going to file it under the "Zero Tolerance = Zero intelligence", but did not have time to get to it.
End of quote

 Like minds?  I've been getting into the current events thing lately...dunno why.  I like your title. 

You don't care for it much now that it's you being rooted out, although I dare say a failing grade on an art project is not as harsh as punishment as say...being burned at the stake.
End of quote

It's basically the same principal at play here.  The authorities (Rome/Government School) decided they don't like Christians or who they represent.  One burned the Christians at the stake to shut them up, the other makes rules to shut them up.  No difference other than method of punishment. 

Talk about double standards, it's OK to enforce a rule so long as it's not against some kind of religious situation? Fine, the rule is wrong, but they did what was suppose to be done, enforce the rule. Now enforcing existing rules is a bad thing? Why are none of you complaining about the rule itself as oppose to complaining about the possible reasons it was enforced? I don't understand why people complain not because the rule is incorrect but because it offended them?
End of quote

No, no double standards.  I'm ok with enforcing rules.  In fact, I don't think we enforce rules made enough nowadays.  So that's not it. 

We are discussing that the rule is stupid.  Idiotic.  Subjective.  Did you notice where I wrote it was ok to draw demons and evil looking creatures but not a cross? 

A demon is representative of the "evil side" of religion.  Demons are mentioned in scripture along with the cross and John 3:16.  But yet, they did not break the rule drawing a demon? 

 

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

Ahh, after how many centuries of 'rooting out' non-believers for torture and death do you now find the tables turned, Christian?  You don't care for it much now that it's you being rooted out, although I dare say a failing grade on an art project is not as harsh as punishment as say...being burned at the stake.
End of quote

Exactly, excellant point.

A demon is representative of the "evil side" of religion.  Demons are mentioned in scripture along with the cross and John 3:16.  But yet, they did not break the rule drawing a demon?
End of quote

A demon is a mythological creature, and ironically, I believe the idea actually came from the Hebrew bible unless I'm mistaken. Not just that, but if demons are sometimes representations of a fallen angel, and therein can represent christianity, then the demon drawings are......get my meaning?

However, The school did kinda go nuts on this one, I'll wait and see how it goes. Maybe research a bit more.

 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Big difference in both the prohibitions and the punishment. You're basically being told to 'shut up' in secular situations here, particularly those directly involving agents of our government, ie: public schools, courts, etc. You're in no way being prohibited from worshipping as you see fit or being penalized for doing so, you're simply being asked to confine those activities to more appropriate places.
End of quote


Yes, agree here in the US....but this is how it starts and we are being told to shut up.....regardless. Right now...here ..we are allowed to freely worship in our churches...but that is not world wide freedom nor will it be here soon enough.

Recently the IRS has come up with a new tax law. It used to be they left non-profits alone if they made under a certain amount. That would include churches, food pantries etc. Now...they want every non-profit to file a return regardless of amount they brought in. Why do you suppose they want to all of a sudden keep track of these non-profits? I'm sure we'll find out in the not so distant future. This outlawing homeschool....was just the beginning. I think it may have been an "oops" moment. The timing wasn't quite right. But it's coming.


Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are discussing that the rule is stupid. Idiotic. Subjective. Did you notice where I wrote it was ok to draw demons and evil looking creatures but not a cross?

A demon is representative of the "evil side" of religion. Demons are mentioned in scripture along with the cross and John 3:16. But yet, they did not break the rule drawing a demon?
End of quote


I'm sorry KFC but not every "demon" represents a religious creature. But unless you can prove to me that a cross with John 3:16 next to it was not motivated by religion, you are losing this argument. Here, I'll give you an idea of what my son could consider drawing if he chose to draw a demonic type of creature:



These characters are from Yu-gi-oh.



Jackie Chan Adventures

These cartoons have nothing to do with the Christian religion. Would you consider these wrong like you do the ones you are complaining about in this article?

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, agree here in the US....but this is how it starts and we are being told to shut up.....regardless. Right now...here ..we are allowed to freely worship in our churches...but that is not world wide freedom nor will it be here soon enough.
End of quote


You know, I had a really big guy (looked like a wrestler) threaten to beat me up because he claimed that during one of my jobs as a valet attendant, I almost ran over his daughter. I never saw the girl he spoke of and if she was in the area he claimed she was, shame on him. The girl would have been on the street. None the less this to me was an opportunity to make quick money by suing his behind big time had he laid a single finger on me. Now here we have a kid who's parents are suing the school and will make a nice bit of change in the process and you see this as the beginning of the end of Christianity? I'm sure those people that burned on the stakes had lawyers just like today and opportunities to make money out of the persecutions they endured.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Recently the IRS has come up with a new tax law. It used to be they left non-profits alone if they made under a certain amount. That would include churches, food pantries etc. Now...they want every non-profit to file a return regardless of amount they brought in. Why do you suppose they want to all of a sudden keep track of these non-profits? I'm sure we'll find out in the not so distant future. This outlawing homeschool....was just the beginning. I think it may have been an "oops" moment. The timing wasn't quite right. But it's coming.
End of quote


Wow, 9/11 conspiracies are looking like jokes after this bit of scare tactics.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top

I'm sorry KFC but not every "demon" represents a religious creature.
End of quote

where are demons first mentioned in ancient literature?  If you wanted to find out about demons what book would you honestly think of first?  Demonology is just as religious as drawing a cross is.  They're just on opposite sides of the fence...so to speak.  Good vs evil.  One kid can draw  his version of evil...but another can't combat that with his version of good? 

I'm sure those people that burned on the stakes had lawyers just like today and opportunities to make money out of the persecutions they endured.
End of quote

ya, ok Charles.  I guess you weren't paying attention in history class. 

Wow, 9/11 conspiracies are looking like jokes after this bit of scare tactics.
End of quote

so that's why you think I wrote this?  I knew this for a while now.  It has nothing to do with conspiracies.  Check with your local accountant and ask him yourself.

 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Demonology is just as religious as drawing a cross is.
End of quote


Mmm...no, not necessarily. "Demon" is synonymous in a lot of places with "monster." Sometimes they're not even inherently bad...they can be good too. They're viewed as supernatural creatures in a lot of places...so unless dragons and unicorns count as religious symbols, I'd be hesistant to classify demons as solely religion based. Don't get me wrong, they are often associated with religion, but not totally. In Christian mythos they're firmly rooted as agents of hell...but for instance, in Japan they are creatures of nature and can take on many forms many of which aren't evil in any way.


~Zoo
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

The worst part of this act of Unconstitutionality by the teacher was, she told the student that his artwork infringed on the other students' rights,  because they shouldn't have to be exposed to his religion.

Apparently to that waste of a paycheck teacher, merely seeing a cross is being "exposed to religion".  Meanwhile all manner of satanism and anti American symbolism can be openly displayed and if students don't want to be exposed to it, it is their own responsibility to "just not look at it".

It's about time Christians started questioning the illegal infringement of our rights.  For too long, if anyone takes offense to anything, it becomes a federal case... unless of course, you are Christian... then you are just supposed to "understand".

The Teacher was dead wrong.  She needs a long course on the U.S. Constitution...  and so does anyone else who thinks she was in the right.

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

The worst part of this act of Unconstitutionality by the teacher was, she told the student that his artwork infringed on the other students' rights, because they shouldn't have to be exposed to his religion. Apparently to that waste of a paycheck teacher, merely seeing a cross is being "exposed to religion". Meanwhile all manner of satanism and anti American symbolism can be openly displayed and if students don't want to be exposed to it, it is their own responsibility to "just not look at it". It's about time Christians started questioning the illegal infringement of our rights. For too long, if anyone takes offense to anything, it becomes a federal case... unless of course, you are Christian... then you are just supposed to "understand". The Teacher was dead wrong. She needs a long course on the U.S. Constitution... and so does anyone else who thinks she was in the right.
End of quote

This was so excellent it needed to be repeated.  Thanks Ted!  You, my man, are right on!

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
where are demons first mentioned in ancient literature? If you wanted to find out about demons what book would you honestly think of first? Demonology is just as religious as drawing a cross is. They're just on opposite sides of the fence...so to speak. Good vs evil. One kid can draw his version of evil...but another can't combat that with his version of good?
End of quote


As zoo said, not everyone sees demons as religious or even bad. But what else other than religious could John 3:16 refer too? Stone Cold Steve Austin?

ya, ok Charles. I guess you weren't paying attention in history class.
End of quote


So you are saying there were lawyers defending these people and throwing lawsuits for monetary compensation? Man, those were some terrible lawyers.

so that's why you think I wrote this? I knew this for a while now. It has nothing to do with conspiracies. Check with your local accountant and ask him yourself.
End of quote


I'm sure you asked every single accountant out there right? Nothing funnier than a majority Christian country trying to root out and hurt Christian people and their churches. LOL. The only reason I can think of for doing such a thing is to appease to people of other religious faiths such as Islam, but then we are doing bad things to them to, right?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
ummmm Charles...my husband is a CPA and works at a medium sized firm. So I get firsthand info when new tax laws come out....just stuff we discuss from time to time.

This is NOT considered a Christian nation anymore. Maybe to some it still is, but the scuttlebutt these days is it's a post-Christian nation now. We've pretty much taken God out of everything but our money and our Pledge to the Flag and there's talk about taking that out as well.

If it were a Christian nation, this kid would not have gotten a 0 for drawing a cross on his paper.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree, but that doesn't mean the entire government is trying to eradicate Christianity in this country, as several have tried to assert recently.
End of quote


True. We have to keep it in perspective here. His rights were violated, but he wasn't persecuted. The teacher was wrong for what she did, now he gets to exercise his right to stand up for his beliefs.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top

The point I've been making is that these wrongs can be corrected, with the wrongdoers being punished and the victims compensated, so it all comes out in the wash. Only when a government offers no recourse, when your kid gets a failing grade over something like this and there's nowhere to turn, that we need to worry.
End of quote

Yes, I agree and this is something I, for one, don't take for granted.  Quite often I hear Christians pray they are very thankful that we can still be free to worship how and when we want. 

I tend to think many christians don't want to believe this because of course, that might mean the 'end times' aren't as close as they hope for
End of quote

maybe....but there are so many other signs of the times to take into account.....I wouldn't look just at this one small part and scream...."end of the world."  I think you know me better than that LW. 

It's kind of sick in a way, hoping for the end, and eagerly seeking out signs of its impending arrival, almost as if they can hardly wait to see all us heathens get whats coming to us.
End of quote

and this is just plain and straight......way off the mark.  We don't want anyone to go to a Christless eternity.  That's why we preach like we do.  I mean...heck if we didn't care....we'd leave you ignorant of it all.   We want you to know what's coming so you can be prepared.  We hope for the end because it's like we are travelers in a world that wasn't meant for us...and travelers get weary and restless for being home where they belong. 

Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top

It's one thing to tell somebody, KFC, it's another to tell them over and over and over and over and make the repetition of the tale the entire focus of your life, even when it makes you insufferably annoying 99% of the time.
End of quote

ha!  but it's that 1% I live for!