Texas School Punishes Boy for Opposing Homosexuality

[bullmoose88]

After a meeting with Pope and her attorney, the school rescinded the two-day suspension so Dakota would be allowed to play in an upcoming football game.

“They’ve righted all the wrongs,” said Matt Krause, an attorney with the Liberty Counsel. “This should have no lasting effect on his academic or personal record going forward.”

Maybe its just me, but the fact this is Texas makes me think that the only thing that got the kid off the hook wasn't a review of the case...rather that they probably needed the kid on the football team.

Not crazy about what the kid said, but in this particular case on these particular facts I can't really see why he got in trouble.  Perhaps some chiding from the teacher or social disdain, but any official disciplinary action...nuts.

[bullmoose88]

What's with these fundies? What's wrong about a girl being attracted to a girl or a guy being attracted to a guy? Who gives a sh**t?

better yet, what's wrong with a Christian believing in the bible?  why should he be punished for having Christian religious views?

The views here are so innocuous/benign to you.  They aren't so innocent to everyone.  The question is, at what point (if there is one) does the espouser's free speech right have to yield to other rights, particularly in a school setting?  If at all? 

[bullmoose88]

What's with these fundies? What's wrong about a girl being attracted to a girl or a guy being attracted to a guy? Who gives a sh**t?

better yet, what's wrong with a Christian believing in the bible?  why should he be punished for having Christian religious views?

The views here are so innocuous/benign to you.  They aren't so innocent to everyone.  The question is, at what point (if there is one) does the espouser's free speech right have to yield to other rights, particularly in a school setting?  If at all?  

There is an issue about free speech that is disruptive in secondary school needed some curbing with which I have some sympathy - up to a point. But this was not disruptive; the kid was just stating an opinion. And since there would be no punishment if the guy had said being a homosexual "is right," while there apparently was for saying "it is wrong," that suggests to me selective free speech, and that to me is unacceptable.

Schools are just too uptight these days (with way too much PC to boot), except for the one thing that matters - the quality of the education, and in particular the quality of the teachers. On that one, the schools tend not to be "uptight" at all. They just have their priorities wrong - way wrong.

(Both to Torie and Jmf)

And I dont think I've disagreed with that in this thread.  I get why you responded that way to quoted post, but my previous post did show I was perplexed at why (based on the facts presented) that the kid got official disciplinary action

And I think this ties in nicely with the comment that I've fallen off the turnip truck.  Again I thought I stated that I didn't see why the kid got in trouble and then in the next post went on to probe the real question...at what point should, if at all, he have gotten in trouble.  What behavior (regarding the topic at hand) would be actionable....

goodness.

[bullmoose88]

BM,

to even consider the rights of the "offended" during open discussion of a topic is a bit....extreme.  If a person doesn't want to hear an opposing view, then simply don't engage in discussing the subject, for everyone certainly has the right to not debate.

if would be like jmfcst suing Dibble for Dibble's expressed views of Christianity, when I am the one who chose to bring it up.

Again, not necessarily what I was getting at.  Generally the right to be not offended isn't recognized (nor should it be) by law or most people for that matter.  But you are in a school setting and the administration has a general duty to protect the students...order...safety etc.  Intimidation is also one of those things that could be taken by some as mere offense, yet is not a protected form of speech in a lot of instances.

Again, this particular instance, as reported, generated a reaction from a teacher that was inappropriate.  Merely saying "homosexuality is wrong" really doesn't present a safety threat to the student body or any other actionable cause for the school.  I've basically said that a few times now.

I've been asking, for the last several posts...what could the kid have done with this particular subject matter that disciplinary action would have been appropriate?  Merely saying "f****try" instead of homosexuality?  Something more vulgar and descriptive?  (Either in English or in German).  Some form of intimidation with it (maybe a wink or a nudge to beat up a/the homo(s))...either as a physical threat or something slightly less but not really any better (teasing a kid for a day/week/month/academic year)?

You and I are agreed, this kid shouldn't have been punished by the school for saying "homosexuality is wrong" but where will you draw the line?

[bullmoose88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When it is demonstrably disruptive, and "fighting words" like "f****t" probably are. It's a judgment call, and that judgment should be exercised in an even handed way. Calling a kid a "fundie" might be disruptive too. Words that have an insulting coloration which is personal to another student tend to fall into the "suspect" category I would think. Make sense?

Sure.  But I doubt you'd be surprised by that.  Clearly the teacher in the original matter (if we're getting enough of the crucial bits of the story) exercised poor judgment.

[bullmoose88]

Sure.  But I doubt you'd be surprised by that.  Clearly the teacher in the original matter (if we're getting enough of the crucial bits of the story) exercised poor judgment.

"poor judgment"?!  That like Bill telling Kiddo he "overreacted" when he popped a cap in her head.  If the story is correct, then the teacher CLEARLY sought to lash out at Christian views regarding homosexuality.

How do I put this...you acknowledge that its possible to separate the christian aspect from the anti-homosexual aspect right?  Its true that the basis for the anti-homosexual belief is from a religious perspective; however, the basis for the teacher getting into a fit had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the anti-homosexuality.  

So that it follows that had the student been a muslim who said I am a muslim and homosexuality is wrong...or just a hateful non-religious guy who said  I am a blah blah blah...homosexuality is wrong...the teacher would have thrown up the same fuss he did with the Christian student.

The religion is necessary for the Student's viewpoint on homosexuality, but its not really necessary for the teacher to get his knickers in a twist over the students viewpoint.

[bullmoose88]

If you hadn't noticed, the left is willing to embrace Muslims regardless of their views on homosexuality....the left isnt offended by the message from Allah, they're offended by the message from Jesus Christ

To be honest with you, I doubt the left (whatever that might be) really gives a damn at the moment about Islam's view on homosexuality because its far more preoccupied with a group of muslims willing to commit mass terror and murder over other things not really connected with homosexuality.  

Solve that problem and a few others on the totem pole and maybe we'll see the left take on the anti-homosexual muslims.  If the left is true to its word of course.  

[bullmoose88]

If you hadn't noticed, the left is willing to embrace Muslims regardless of their views on homosexuality....the left isnt offended by the message from Allah, they're offended by the message from Jesus Christ

To be honest with you, I doubt the left (whatever that might be) really gives a damn at the moment about Islam's view on homosexuality because its far more preoccupied with a group of muslims willing to commit mass terror and murder over other things not really connected with homosexuality.  

Solve that problem and a few others on the totem pole and maybe we'll see the left take on the anti-homosexual muslims.  If the left is true to its word of course.  

dude, the left is embracing the Arab Spring like it was the best thing since sliced bread...and they've run article after article how Muslims in America are nicer than Christians in America

And they're doing it out of a (naive perhaps) hope that the new Arab bosses will be better than the old ones.  Probably wrong.  I was saying they were targeting the known bad guys (jihadists etc) which I know you will say are nearly the same with the Arab Spring guys, but thats more of an aside point.

As for the y is nicer than x...I haven't seen that trend.  I'm sure you can find a few articles (maybe a decent quantity) but who is to say what their real motive is?  Bash the entrenched power (who also is probably predominantly christian) in favor of other interests (which US muslims probably are a part of)?  Try to run favorable stories on muslims to show the rest of the country they arent as bad as we think (of course they'd cherry pick the muslims most americans would feel comfortable with)?  Or perhaps as you suppose, they have an anti-christian or even anti-religious agenda and the muslims are a short term ally and long term enemy too.  Long story short, I just dont think the media's agenda is as quick and easy to characterize as you seem to think.

[bullmoose88]

That quote is why I said it had little to do with christianity and more to do with the teachers disdain with antihomosexuality.

[bullmoose88]

Would you prefer a nice game of chess?

Tic-Tac-Toe

Number of players: 0

Get to it WOPR...err...Josh...Jmfcst