Principal protested for banning T-shirts telling non-Christians they're going to hell

From Pharyngula:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/115364340/persecution_in_the_schools.php



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.

no, that's the wrong mixed meta-fore.

whatever

most christians be doing is protesting these idiots who make their faith look so foolish.

...what should most christians be doing is protesting these idiots who make their faith look so foolish.

But when you have power, it's difficult to go against the grain by opposing those members of your persuasion that brought you that power, that what they're doing is wrong. Consider the Republicans: During the 2000 election and even after it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Repubs stole the election, not a single Republican expressed concern about the shenanigans that gave them the White House. Not a one... The same way with Christians. They are enjoying now more power in the political arena than they ever thought possible, so when these kinds of shenanigans occur, no Christian is going to protest. It's all about "the power."

Be quiet and enjoy "the power," even if it flies in the face of what you believe.

Plenty of Christians have been protesting, not a stupid T-shirt, but war:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/170307Hundreds.htm

http://www.larynandjanel.com/blog/christian_peace_witness_for_iraq_vigil.html (I like this one because it describes some who have turned against the war and realised what a terrible mistake it was)

against this abuse but your right, the powers that be haven't given them much voice for fear of losing all they have gained...

What really amazes me at times is the congregations of such people that are living off the money sent to them and is proven to be living well beyond their true means, why don't they question how their money is spent? It is a big problem that far too many dont do that, more times than naught, the leaders of a church are living the high life while the congregation is barely struggling, of course their leaders tell them they will more likely see heaven's gate because of thier struggles, I would assume common sense should tell the people that their leaders wont' make it to the gates simply because they are obviously not struggling in the same way, it is sad that people are taught not to question common sense just because someone tells them they shouldn't...

Too many followers refuse to question authority, that is not a good thing as history and present day political climates throughout the world prove.

They look a little...well, whatever.

This is another reason why I favour school uniforms, of course provided free to students.

Just curious.

It's a school. They're there to learn, not disrupt other students or themselves with either fashion or inflammatory statements. As per the other thread we're on, the issue is also one of tolerance, and loudly proclaiming such a thing in an environment like that is intolerant, theologically unsound, and the act of a brat.

does this thread qualify in your mind as one of the many that bash Christians and therefore shouldn't be allowed?

First, I never said that certain kinds of threads "shouldn't be allowed." I called for people to be more tolerant. Now is your chance to return the concession.

Second, of course it isn't bashing Christians (as of my writing of this post, anyway). It's about the limits of free speech in schools more than anything, though someone may come along and take the opportunity to slam Christians as a whole.

I'd be mighty surprised. All you seem to want to do is whine when people point out Christian hypocrites. You make your own personal judgments about their motivations ("na na na boo boo") and then bash them for it.

I'll repeat my advice to you once again: if you don't like a post, alert on it. If it doesn't get deleted, it probably doesn't violate the rules, and you'll just have to deal with it. Why don't you start by, oh I don't know, DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH instead of attacking everyone else?

If someone calls out a REPUBLICAN or CONSERVATIVE Christian who is a hypocrite and does not also engage in broad-brush slams on an entire religion (or all religious people by calling them insane, stupid, ill-educated etc.) then I have no problem with that. I routinely am critical of Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps myself. You can attack any individual you want if it's for a good reason, but attacking groups is a cheap and tawdry way of propping up one's own prejudices.

Why the concept of tolerance here drives you to such fits of hysterical barking that makes you look unhinged is beyond my comprehension. And perhaps you should keep it to the other thread instead of hijacking this one.

Take it up with the person you believe "engaged in a broad-brush slam on an entire religion", not me. I'm not going to be your ersatz target. I realize that you'd apparently rather project your strawman intolerant atheist on me, but I'm not interested in playing that game.

Argue with the people you believe have wronged you. You'll find it much more helpful, and you might just succeed in convincing a few to see the error of their ways. If that's really your goal, of course, and not just "hysterically barking" at atheists who are convenient targets.

Peace and love, spoony. Or at least success in finding someone else to be the target of your anger.

For one thing, I do reply to many of the kinds of posts I'm talking about.

And peace and love to you. I am not angry at you, or anyone here. All I've ever said was a request for more tolerance and live-and-let-live attitute. In my opinion you've been overly defensive of a behaviour you don't think is real problem, and seems to me that you've more taken up the role of ersatz than been cast into it. You've come onto this thread, insisting on carrying over another thread into this, making wild misstatements and using out of context pieces of the original thread, perhaps hoping to score points in the eyes of people who haven't seen it.

Then, after decidely playing games, you announce you aren't interested in playing games. Very well.

In my opinion you've been overly defensive of a behaviour you don't think is real problem

Nope, just pointing out that your complaints about it are misdirected and useless. You spend way more energy attacking innocent people - or people you THINK are "defending" the behavior you despise - than actually addressing what you see as the problem. If someone is a non-believer, and doesn't think that Christians deserve special treatment, then you seem to target them for abuse, flinging insults about their intelligence or whatever else you feel like bashing.

You've come onto this thread, insisting on carrying over another thread into this, making wild misstatements and using out of context pieces of the original thread, perhaps hoping to score points in the eyes of people who haven't seen it.

Just saw an opportunity to clarify your position, that's all. Didn't realize you would have gotten so angry about this, or I wouldn't have tried. Sheesh, wanna call off your attack dogs now?

Is that it depends what else he bans. If the ban is on all T shirts that target some segment of the student body for insults and implicit threats (as I assume he does) then it's fine. Becaue if you allow this you have to allow Muslims to wear T shirts saying non believers are infidels whom Allah will destroy, and Hindus to wear T shirst that say non-believers will be reincarnated as maggots or need to be sacrificed to Kali, and atheists to wear T shirts saying believers have hallucinations and imaginary friends and belong in mental institutions.

Of course there's always the slim chnace that he DOES allow these other types of insulting and threatening slogans and bans them only from Christians, in which case he's on shaky ground. Since however Xians are a vast majority and are a far greater threat to the tiny percent of kids who are willing to self identify as non belivers than the other way round, he could easily make a valid point that this is the equivalent of a "straight pride" T shirt where it is inappropriate for the empowered majority to adopt something forgiveable in an oppressed minority.

Perosnally I have to laugh about being threatened by a hell in which by definition I do not believe, and my standard response is "it's your hell not mine - you go there". Then again I'm not a emotionally and physically immature teenager in close proximity to a vast majority of otherwise (and moreso it seems) emotionally immature teenagers who may take it upon themselves to carry out God's judgement themselves. I don't fear hell, but as a youngster these days I could easily be persuaded to fear 85-90% of my classmates who think I belong there for having my own opinion about religion.

It's clear that it's meant as an insult when someone tells you to "rot in hell."

Not arguing that at all. But if we extend a putative ban to anything insulting I think it would be taking things a bit too far. After all "Packers Suck" may be seen as a mortal insult in Wisconsin, but I wouldn't necessarily ban it. How many shirts are on a variation of "I'm smarter/prettier/more athletic than you are". If you fear damnation then the threat of it may be worse than those things, sure, but the audience that fears damnation is essentially the exact same audience that believes it has no need to, since they are "saved". A Christian hell for unbelievers and other religionists can never, rationally speaking, be anything they accept as true let alone fear. And for them, an insult of belonging in hell surely can't hold much power.

Again, this assumes kids of this age are both rational and emotionally capable of handling these threats, which is I confess a stretch on both counts.

there is a difference between saying a team sucks, which is clearly mere opinion, and saying anyone who doesn't believe something will (or implicitly should) go to hell. Now that is also mere opinion, but it is more of a direct assault on any person of another faith. The appeal on the shirt is not just to atheists, after all but to all nonbelievers in Christianity. As an atheist myself, I just roll my eyes at such "warnings." But I could understand taking it as an insult if I were Jewish or Muslim, etc. And if I were a parent of another faith, I'd be especially insulted on behalf of my children.

Whilst people within a religion may or may not hold that opinion, broadcasting it to others in a public forum full of children, or coworkers or any diverse populace, is insulting, hurtful and should be condemned.

After all we're straining at gnats here and essentially agree it seems. I do have a mite of a concern that drawing the line between insults that are acceptable and those that are not may be tricky both logically and legally/constitutionally. If a kid can't wear a T shirt saying I'm going to hell can he wear one insulting, say, cops or CEOs? Is "eat the rich" OK? What if a kid's family in the same class is rich? How about statements about fat people? OR white people? Or heck let's get really nasty - can kids' clothes make hurtful and insulting statements about Republicans in a class which is bound to have some Republican families? How exactly do we draw the line? It has to be clear and logical, surely?

Now a reminder - I perfectly agree that these shirts should not be allowed in a school - but only if all such controversial and insulting shirts are banned (which I assume to be the case, and would myself suggest is the best course of action for a school setting). I'm a strange apologist for Christian bigotry of course, but I can't quite shake the nagging doubt that if they don't get the right to make controversial and demeaning/hurtful statements then neither should anybody else.

They cost money to make. Or else we can have a slave army devoted creating uniforms.

So somebody has to pay for them. That means the taxpayers.

I would like to have a new pair of jeans. Should my neighbors have to pay for them?

Yet we (are supposed to) give students textbooks, eh?

Perhaps some students should have to pay for them, since their families spend so much on back to school fashion otherwise. In any case, it should not be an undue burden on families that cannot afford them.

Now, at a certain point my arguement is silly: Of course the state has an obligation and an interest in educating everybody. However the school is not an endless font of goodies for everyone. The people primarily responsible for educating their children is their parent. They should shoulder the majority of the cost.

And I agree that if people are able to pay for such things, then it is obviously favourable that they do so to lessen the strain on school budgets.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I hope someday they wake up.
It also saddens me to see words with power such as 'persecute' be so trivialized that they become ineffective in recounting stories. When we discuss Hitler persecuting the Jews will people now think he took away their Tshirts? Oy vay.

These so-called Christians have a right to their hate speech, to the limited extent afforded high school students, but it needs to be underscored that it is, in fact, HATE SPEECH.

How it victimizes the intolerant.

Best line was (paraphrase) something to the effect of:

"All this will do is punish those who love the Lord so much that they cannot tolerate their fellow man"

Unfortunately the First Amendment permits intolerant speech. These idiots have a limited right (b/c they're high school students) to say what they're saying because they are not placing anyone in any immediate danger. However, in the public forum, we all need to make it clear that this is HATE SPEECH just like that of white supremacists or anti-Semites.

In my opinion, the principal did act properly using his authority to remove the shirts because (and I'm just guessing) it caused a disturbance in the school and could lead to potential conflict between students.

most certainly yes, in most cases.

and ban the anti-religion shirts as well.

Ya wanna wear that cross? Tuck that ostentatious lump inside your TURTLENECK ya putz. No wearing of the optional uniform golfshirt where jewelry might poke out...hey, it's YOUR choice!

What asswipes. I guess they didn't read that bit in the Bible about praying in private and not being ostentatious about your religion...naaah, that's no fun!!! It's only fun when everyone KNOWS what a "virtuous asshole" you are!!!!!!

Good grief!

Wearing a homophobic t-shirt is not part of any religious practice. There is zero evidence that wearing these shirts is essential to their faith. What did they do before they made the shirts?

is that the homophobes were bullying the homosexuals, and creating a hostile environment.

this is actually a CLASSIC of backlash culture

My first thought, too!

If a kid wore a "religion is make believe for grown-ups" shirt to their church, I'm sure they'd be OK with that.
:eyes:

they have the audacity to mock evolutionary theory by calling it a "fairy tale". LOL.

and are just being assholes.

...piss people off.

but its hard to tell if they demand more and more proof for evolution (and deny any proof offered) while accepting their belief on no evidence at all. Its hard to tell who of that group is really that stupid, and who is just a huge asshole.

...you're considering pity for the actually-stupid. Their argument is ironically so, either way.

its just more of the personal curiosity.

Kind of like, "are you really that stupid, or are you just an asshole?" LOL

...but that could get ugly.

the "christian" argument against man's part in global warming. They say the earth warms in cycles (which is true.) The earth warmed in cycles during a period of time "christians" don't believe exists.

6000 years isn't enough time to establish a pattern like that.

Actually I think they tried to get one over on us. Maybe the 6,000 year thing is susceptible to picking and choosing like Leviticus and the rest of the old testament because I've yet to see a gang of rabid baptists stoning to death Wal-Mart employees who work on the sabbath but it says it right there in the testament that says homosexuality is an abomination. I guesss I'm just not a believer.

The warming cycle; the wily headfake from the patriotic christians.

because it was calculated based on the age of the important figures of the Bible. Assuming the Bible were literally true, then such a date could be calculated if the timeline was constructed properly.

I the defense of the young-earth creationists, they are probably so caught up in their beliefs that they don't really even see global warming as an issue. It is either part of God's plan, is a liberal lie, or won't matter anyway because Jesus is coming back.

So the contradictions we discussed probably don't come up too often.

Of course, it goes back to something I've believed for a long time: If part of it is literally true, all of it has to be.

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-planet.html

I found this searching for the origin of the 6000 years dating, and it gives a story of a bishop who calculated the creation date from all those long long "x begat y" chapters of the old testament. Whilst his conclusion turned out wrong, if you've ever seen those chapters you have to admire the dedication to going through them! :P

lol. I think that's why they made them take a vow of silence, because they kept asking, "do we REALLY need this section?"

I'm hoping your quotation marks around the word, "Christian," is meant to signify that not all Christians spit at science.

I also believe in evolution.

I just believe God created the elements to start the whole ball rolling. Not a big stretch really. I take the Bible as a series of parables and not "fact." The point is the message, not the details of some story.

I've yet to find an answer to. Why don't "christians" or christians stone to death people who work on the sabbath? Your post is very telling. It seems to be on the road to confirming that criticism of "christians" that they pick and choose in the bible, that which makes their lives comfortable. You also say you "believe" God started the ball rolling? Do you "know" that for a fact? Would you like to amend the constitution to ensure I believe what you believe? Isn't it incredibly wonderful for "christians" and christians to live in the land of the free? By the actions of many, they don't seem to appreciate their plight in life; whining incessantly about being persecuted. They have no fucking idea what persecution is. My first question is quite serious, I'd like to understand how parts of the old testament are a-ok but the rest is just trivial nonsense.

I would have suggested to all others in the school to wear T-shirts that say 'Xtain Hypocrites will burn in Hell' and then they'll all be on equal footing with 'free speech'.

Equal free speech, bad environment. Better to not allow it altogether.

I also wanted to reply though to say that depending on the particular sect of the T-shirt wearer, it might be condemning other Christians to hell along with non-Christians. Many fundies think Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are headed for the ole' eternal frying pan as well.

More "Christian victims".

This was a victory for freedom of religion, I applaud the Principal for his courageous move.

How is it a victory of FOR? I'm not saying it's necessarily unjust, but I don't get how it has anything to do with FOR.

would be respectful towards all faiths, which the shirt in question wasn't. If the principal had banned a shirt that said "God loves you" or something affirmative rather than negative, one might say it was a defeat for freedom of religion.

not really. Freedom of speech/religion doesn't require respect, just tolerance. I'm really damn disrespectful of a lot of religious things, yet I'm not in jail, or kicked out of public institutions. Restricting free speech to happy things only doesn't really count as free speech, imho

of respect, or simple tolerance if you will, and if they did not act to bar such inflammatory speech about such a sensitive subject, then they would be complicit in creating an environment that is not one of religious freedom. A lot of speech is restricted in schools and sometimes it is for good reason, as in this case.

yeah, yeah, everyone says "hate speech!!!!!!1" but I just want to know; I hate these bastards too, but unless the t-shirts were pretty extreme, I don't want to see authoritarian censorship.

And all this "LOL CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED LOL" stuff is irritating; just because a Christian is involved does not mean that they should automatically be smacked down and told to shut up. Yep, they're homophobic racist bastards. But you know what? That's not illegal. And it shouldn't be.

edit: By all means, tell them to shut up, don't get me wrong. Just don't REQUIRE them to shut up, by law.

:rant:


Anywho, you need a login to see the newspaper article, so I'd just like to know what it said

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;

as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:

And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:

And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;

the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;

the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.

For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.

He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother --

existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body;

equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.

Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.

He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.

He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.

For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.

He suffered death for our salvation.

He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.

Those who have done good will enter eternal life,

those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

http://www.elca.org/communication/creeds/athanasian.html

Try getting elected to office as an outspoken Athiest

would they let me wear a t-shirt that states the fact that believing in god is as silly as believing in santa?

is ban all t-shirts with writing on them. Perhaps even anything other than a plain, no pictures, no writing, shirt.

The school my sons went to did that, and it certainly eliminated lots of problems.

Oy vey.

I wonder how these protesting parents would feel is the principal had banned tee-shirts that said "Christians are delusional".

Works both ways.

Julie