Topic: Neutralize all Haters (Read 3192 times)

David · « **on:** December 20, 2007, 01:48:18 AM »

So I'm reading The God Delusion by Dawkins and I came across something that annoyed me.

Here is the quote:

"The
Los Angeles Times (10 April 2006) reported that numerous Christian groups on campuses around the United States were suing their universities for enforcing anti-discrimination rules, including prohibitions against harassing or abusing homosexuals. As typical example, in 2004 James Nixon, a twelve year old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, Abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white.' The school told him not to wear the T-shirt - and the boy's parents sued the school. The parents might have had a conscionable case if they had based it on the First Amendment's gaurantee of freedom of speech. But they didn't: indeed, they couldnt, because free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to prove it is religious and it no longer counts as hate. So, instead of freedom of speech, the Nixons' lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. p 23

Look, I am not for wearing T-shirts that say that on them. What I am totally for is freedom of speech. To me, the idea of 'free speech' as long as it is not 'hate speech' is dangerously close to the idea that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. lol, yeah, you can say whatever you want, just don't say the wrong thing.

edited for spelling in the thread title

Vic · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2007, 10:04:17 PM »

While I agree this type of T should be allowed under either right, I think provoking non believers with such taunts is counter productive. You can not witness to someone you have offended. They will not be interested in anything you might have to say.

What is hate speech? This sounds like a slippery slope toward blank Ts for everyone to me!

David · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2007, 04:13:24 PM »

Yeah, I think these tees do little or no good, because the holy spirit is what draws people to God. It's just that any infringement on free speech excluding yelling fire, slander, etc. is really dangerous. The creepiest thing to me is the orwellian term "hate speech".

Another thing is that a statement like 'homosexuality is a sin' does not discriminate against homosexuals in any meaningful sense. No one is singled out or anything. I mean there are plenty of heterosexuals that believe that homosexuality is not a sin, and a statement like that could be for them too.

Thanks for the response.

Bowlnik · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2008, 12:22:56 PM »

Alright, I know this is sort of an older thread, but I would just like to throw some things out there.

The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech is not protected if the speech either causes great and emmanent evils (Like yelling Fire in a movie theater) or if the speech constitutes what might be referred to as "Fighting Words". Basically, if you wear a shirt that is intentionally inflammatory, you can't sue someone after they hit you for violating their free speech. Many would deem that t-shirt intentionally inflammatory, and it is long established that public schools can restrict the clothing of their students, either through uniform or a dress code. When I was in High School for example, we couldn't wear clothing that espoused certain extremely controversial/illegal views, not because they didn't want us to believe in them neccesarily so much as it became a matter of public safety. Preventing the wearing of a T-Shirt like that is clearly different when attending a public school than when worn as a private citizen, and this has been acknowledged in regard to terrorism and drugs and violence for some time, so I see no reason not to extend it to "Fighting Words" for similar reasons.

Unfortunately, as was made clear this is not a matter of free speech but rather of freedom of religion. For that I think the exact text is important.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Now, to perhaps further clarify "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" we should perhaps define "Exercise"

Probably the most appropriate definition is

Verb
tr. 1. To put into play or operation; employ: Proceed, but exercise caution.

Essentially, to take ones religious beliefs and put them into practice. While that may theoretically make the wearing of this T-Shirt protected, if one can demonstrate that wearing t-shirts with questionably canonical statements on them is mandated practice of the christian faith, which I think you would be hard-pressed to in fact do. As it is, Homosexuality as a sin is pretty strongly stated in the book of Romans (Even though there I think it is largely missplaced. Homosexuality is given as an example of the sin that pervades mankind neccesitating the coming of and sacrifice of the lamb of God. It isn't a special condemnation of homosexuality.) Islam is never mentioned in the New Testament, of course, so as opposed to repeating a specific teaching it seems to be taking a general principle (All non-christian religions are either false or only partial truth) and applying it for perhaps obvious reasons to a specific religion (In this case Islam) and that Abortion is Murder; (I defy you to find anyplace in the bible that says that. I however can I think using Exodus make a strong argument for minimal/neglegent punishment for what was essentially abortion, when the mother is unharmed but a fight between two men (One being her husband) causes a miscarriage. In such a case, a fee is exacted on the non-husband to compensate for what is treated as basically lost property) which in this case is of questionable canonicity.

All questions of religious exercise aside, the Supreme Court has ruled that if a religious practice causes dangers to others (See Human Sacrifice) than it is not protected, this is basically the same thing as the "Fighting Words" doctrine.

So I really don't think this is as clear cut an issue as you would make it out to be.

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2008, 02:43:10 PM »

I don't understand on what grounds the court would have permitted such a shirt in the school, if it violated school dress codes. This was a free speech issue, not a religious issue. The student's religious doctrine did not require him to wear this provocative shirt. Even if it did, that would not override the school's right to maintain an atmosphere conducive to study and learning. The first amendment does not mean that religious doctrines can promote and carry out literally any act that members of the religion feel compelled to do. There are limits to how wild a religion can get before it is in the interests of public safety and welfare for legal authorities to step in and mediate disputes.

David · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2008, 10:57:00 PM »

well, besides what the supreme court says and what other laws there are concerning the subject, what do you all think about the general thought of making someone take off a shirt they are wearing just because someone who disagrees with what the shirt says might hurt them.

seems kind of silly to me. I can appreciate that certian shirts can be distracting, but really, how distracting would that be? One reads the short message and reflects on the meaning for maybe a minute or two at most, and moves on. In high school there were alot of kids with shirts that had sayings on them, but I was waaaayyy more distracted with the girls.

one could make a very strong argument against co ed schools for this reason.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2008, 01:29:12 AM »

Quote from: David on February 02, 2008, 10:57:00 PM

well, besides what the supreme court says and what other laws there are concerning the subject, what do you all think about the general thought of making someone take off a shirt they are wearing just because someone who disagrees with what the shirt says might hurt them.

I think that schools have every right to maintain dress codes that promote their purpose--education. Public schools have a special obligation to provide an atmosphere in which students and parents from all backgrounds can feel comfortable and safe. So I think that the authorities have no right at all to object to such articles of clothing on public streets, in the parks, or at public facilities. A classroom is different, and messages of hatred, even when sanctioned by a religious institution, should not be permitted to intimidate other class members. Freedom of expression should be permitted in educational facilities, but only to the extent that they promote the purpose of education. The T-Shirt logo in the OP was clearly meant to provoke confrontation, and not all high school students have the maturity or understanding to resist such provocations.

Quote

seems kind of silly to me. I can appreciate that certian shirts can be distracting, but really, how distracting would that be? One reads the short message and reflects on the meaning for maybe a minute or two at most, and moves on. In high school there were alot of kids with shirts that had sayings on them, but I was waaaayyy more distracted with the girls.

Unless you are a girl. Try to remember that not everyone is the same as you. Perhaps you do not belong to a socially stigmatized minority, so you don't really feel threatened by a shirt that proclaims your religion, your ethnic group, or your gender should be rejected by others. You would be lucky and privileged not to be hated by the majority for some reason. Still, a public school is not just for people like you. Hate messages have no place in our public schools.

Quote

one could make a very strong argument against co ed schools for this reason.

That argument has already been made, and it simply does not make sense in today's world. There is no reason why people of diverse backgrounds should not be able to come together to learn about the challenges that they will face in adulthood.

End Bringer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2008, 01:27:44 PM »

Quote from: Bowlnik on January 25, 2008, 12:22:56 PM

...and that Abortion is Murder; (I defy you to find anyplace in the bible that says that.

This is off topic, but I couldn't resist the challenge as it's easily answerable:

The 6th Commandment: "Thou shall not murder." Murder of a child 10 seconds in of the womb is no different then if the child was 10 seconds out. There you go.

Quote from: Copernicus on February 03, 2008, 01:29:12 AM

Freedom of expression should be permitted in educational facilities, but only to the extent that they promote the purpose of education.

So it's free, but not really free. That's about as contradicting as you can get.

Quote

Perhaps you do not belong to a socially stigmatized minority, so you don't really feel threatened by a shirt that proclaims your religion, your ethnic group, or your gender should be rejected by others. You would be lucky and privileged not to be hated by the majority for some reason. Still, a public school is not just for people like you. Hate messages have no place in our public schools.

I wonder, would you hold this same view for a shirt that promotes atheism?

Quote

That argument has already been made, and it simply does not make sense in today's world. There is no reason why people of diverse backgrounds should not be able to come together to learn about the challenges that they will face in adulthood.

As long as they keep silent, right?

I find that there is an underlining flaw with your whole arguement. And that it is while you label such a statement as a "hate message" nothing in the statement 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, Abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white.' promotes hate. It says nothing about people or promotes any action to be taken upon people. This doesn't seem to state that people who hold to such things should be burned at the stake. It doesn't even differentiate between homosexuals and heterasexuals in that there are both that equally hold that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

All this statement seems to be is a statement of what these topics are held to be under a point of view. Technically while it aligns with the Christian position on such matters, it's not specifically Christianity alone. Quite frankly you can't even make the arguement that such a statement promotes intolerance. Because all the shirt does is promote a disagreeing point of view. And without disagreement there is no tolerance (Seriously? What's to "put up with"?). All that seems to be done is that it's slapped with a label of "Hate message" and a flimsy arguement of wanting to keep people from being offended. Which is quite contradicting seeing how we want kids "to learn about the challenges that they will face in adulthood". One of those challenges being that they will find very diverse points of view that they may disagree with and may often be offended by them.

What happened to "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Once again it's a case of who's ox is being gored. So, it's been a strange track record for First Amendment rights. Burning a flag is protected free speech; praying on a public sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic is not protected free speech. Withdrawing government funds from artists who spend it for making sacrileges or pornographic art is called censorship by the artists and the press; taking someone off the air for saying that homosexuality may be dangerous to your health is not censorship. Choice to terminate the life of an unborn child is protected by law; communicating alternative choices outside of an abortion clinic (at least in Atlanta) is forbidden by law.

So I agree with your Cop, in that such arguements don't make sense in today's world, because today's world is becoming increasingly contradictory except where the depreciating remarks about people with religious conscience are concerned. There's certainly no public outcry over that. Any additional commentary on these things would simply be redundant. The bald-faced inconsistency and patent idiocy of such actions speak for themselves.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2008, 04:34:27 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on February 03, 2008, 01:27:44 PM

Freedom of expression should be permitted in educational facilities, but only to the extent that they promote the purpose of education.

So it's free, but not really free. That's about as contradicting as you can get.

When did you ever get the idea that freedom of speech was an absolute freedom? Do I really need to point out cases where your freedom of expression is not absolute--say in a crowded movie theater? We are talking about freedom of expression and its effects in public schools, not public parks.

Quote

Perhaps you do not belong to a socially stigmatized minority, so you don't really feel threatened by a shirt that proclaims your religion, your ethnic group, or your gender should be rejected by others. You would be lucky and privileged not to be hated by the majority for some reason. Still, a public school is not just for people like you. Hate messages have no place in our public schools.

I wonder, would you hold this same view for a shirt that promotes atheism?

Oh, I'm sorry. Are we talking about the same T-shirt? Mine says "Confirmation is Cannibalism, Christianity is a Lie, God Murders Babies. Some issues are just black and white". Do I think that a high school student should be able to display such a shirt at school? No. What do you think?

Quote

That argument has already been made, and it simply does not make sense in today's world. There is no reason why people of diverse backgrounds should not be able to come together to learn about the challenges that they will face in adulthood.

As long as they keep silent, right?

Wrong. As long as they behave in a manner that respects the purpose of the school and the feelings of their fellow students, the faculty, and the staff.

Quote

I find that there is an underlining flaw with your whole arguement. And that it is while you label such a statement as a "hate message" nothing in the statement 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, Abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white.' promotes hate. It says nothing about people or promotes any action to be taken upon people. This doesn't seem to state that people who hold to such things should be burned at the stake. It doesn't even differentiate between homosexuals and heterasexuals in that there are both that equally hold that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Ditto with my message. It does kind of imply that people ought not to be Christians or worship God, doesn't it? Just as yours implies that God disapproves of homosexuals, people ought not to be Muslims, and women who have abortions ought to be treated as criminals. Do you think that your T-shirt encourages tolerance and understanding? I think quite the opposite.

Quote

All this statement seems to be is a statement of what these topics are held to be under a point of view. Technically while it aligns with the Christian position on such matters, it's not specifically Christianity alone.

This is just false. It does not align with the "Christian position". Many Christians reject the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, that Islam is a lie, and that abortion is murder. Your message reflects the beliefs of many Christians, but not all. And many Christians would consider it wrong to display such a shirt in public, let alone a high school classroom.

Quote

What happened to "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Once again it's a case of who's ox is being gored. So, it's been a strange track record for First Amendment rights. Burning a flag is protected free speech; praying on a public sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic is not protected free speech. Withdrawing government funds from artists who spend it for making sacrileges or pornographic art is called censorship by the artists and the press; taking someone off the air for saying that homosexuality may be dangerous to your health is not censorship. Choice to terminate the life of an unborn child is protected by law; communicating alternative choices outside of an abortion clinic (at least in Atlanta) is forbidden by law.

Hey, I don't disagree with the decision of the courts to allow Nazis to conduct a parade in a Jewish neighborhood or Fred Phelps to hold up a sign to a grieving family that says God wanted their son murdered. Those are some rather extreme and provocative actions that we need to allow if we are to preserve the rights of people to say anything they want as part of the public dialog. But even protesters are not allowed to go into people's homes to display their message, nor are they allowed to disrupt funerals. Free speech cannot be allowed to trample on the right of people to privacy and respect. Provocative messages on clothing can destroy the atmosphere of learning that is essential to the purpose of a school. Children are compelled to attend. Hence, they have the right not to be forced to put up with messages of hatred. I can't believe that you are really blind to the hatred in the OP T-shirt, but most people understand that it is intended to provoke anger and hatred at individuals who disagree with the "black and white issue".

Quote

So I agree with your Cop, in that such arguements don't make sense in today's world, because today's world is becoming increasingly contradictory except where the depreciating remarks about people with religious conscience are concerned. There's certainly no public outcry over that. Any additional commentary on these things would simply be redundant. The bald-faced inconsistency and patent idiocy of such actions speak for themselves.

I am not sure that you do agree with me on the real issue here. Free speech is not an absolute right, especially in the presence of the captive audience of the school building.

cimics · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2008, 05:33:51 PM »

I do not view the three-fold message on the shirt to be "hate speech." I do see this as a free speech issue rather than a freedom of religion issue. Even if this were "hate speech," there is no question someone could wear it on a public street. And in a university setting, I would think. A high school setting is a little bit different -- free speech is limited by legitimate concerns relating to the educational purpose of the school and the interest in protecting the safety of students. Even so, there appears to still be a fairly expansive amount of free speech protection. Take a look at

Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)

which upheld prohibiting a student banner promoting drug use.

From Alito's concurrence, it seems like Alito and Kennedy could join the dissenters (or perhaps the court majority, other than Thomas) to swing the court in the other direction in a case where the facts are slightly less favorable to the school administrators' position.

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2008, 06:34:28 PM »

I'm pretty much in agreement with you, cimics, although this is not a clear case of disruptive speech in the way that the T-shirt logo was. The question is one of where to draw the line, and it seems reasonable to me that schools be given a certain amount of leeway to determine what would be disruptive in a given situation. Frankly, confiscation of the banner and detention strikes me as a little more appropriate for this case. I would be more concerned about language that might provoke anger and hurt feelings among students.

End Bringer · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2008, 12:50:03 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on February 03, 2008, 04:34:27 PM

When did you ever get the idea that freedom of speech was an absolute freedom? Do I really need to point out cases where your freedom of expression is not absolute--say in a crowded movie theater? We are talking about freedom of expression and its effects in public schools, not public parks.

Wow. This may in fact be the weakest arguement you have ever made to me yet. I may need to frame it.

Your comparison of a crowded theater is so laughable I'm almost embarrased to even have to state why. Theaters, librarys, and such don't prohibit free speech. They prohibit noise. Such a thing would apply to a whistle or a bull-horn as much as someone yelling "GOT MILK?" In fact in such areas you'd be able to wear such a shirt given that when the theater get's dark it's hardly disruptive.

But you know, I could even set your bad analogy aside and still defeat this point. You want to know why? Because a class room is an arena for thoughts and ideas. And in such a setting that makes a school the most appropriate place for the expression of ideas. Any ideas. That's right Cop. I took you over my knee and I spanked you good. And if you're into that sorta thing, then you're just creeping me out.

Quote

Oh, I'm sorry. Are we talking about the same T-shirt? Mine says "Confirmation is Cannibalism, Christianity is a Lie, God Murders Babies. Some issues are just black and white". Do I think that a high school student should be able to display such a shirt at school? No. What do you think?

Cop! You mean you've been promoting hate messages all this time on this forum? Shame on you.

I'm absolutely fine with it and for a very simple reason: People are already saying those things. Such ideas are already promoted. There is no hiding from them nor should there be. And while I have strong disagreements with such views, I have absolutely no problem with a person's ability to say them. That is tolerance and best of all it has no confliction with the First Amendment.

Quote

Wrong. As long as they behave in a manner that respects the purpose of the school and the feelings of their fellow students, the faculty, and the staff.

*snort* This isn't a matter of behavior. There is a fine line between acting any way you want and thinking and talking any way you want. And it's almost sad that you try to bring up saving people's feelings. Doesn't sound like banning the shirt will be considerate to the wearer's feelings. ANd we all know the world is genuinely sensitive to student's fragile emotions. There's no pressure on them whatsoever. And teachers, faculty, and staff, they're push-overs really. A soft breeze could knock everyone in the school down.

Quote

Ditto with my message. It does kind of imply that people ought not to be Christians or worship God, doesn't it? Just as yours implies that God disapproves of homosexuals, people ought not to be Muslims, and women who have abortions ought to be treated as criminals. Do you think that your T-shirt encourages tolerance and understanding? I think quite the opposite.

Heh. Other than treating women as criminals (it just says they and the doctors who perform such acts are murders, but it says nothing to treatment), that's pretty much correct. And there is not a thing wrong with that. It's just as much a promotion of understanding in calling a spade a spade or a screwdriver a tool. You can say that it may encourage intolerance in that the exclusive nature of truth makes one reject the notion that a screwdriver is an animal, but that's a kind of intolerance that should be promoted. And it as such encourages the understanding of what those things are.

Quote

This is just false. It does not align with the "Christian position". Many Christians reject the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, that Islam is a lie, and that abortion is murder. Your message reflects the beliefs of many Christians, but not all. And many Christians would consider it wrong to display such a shirt in public, let alone a high school classroom.

Congradulations. You just shown that even Christians can hold to views that do not align with Christianity. After sntjohnny's rather thorough posts regarding the Creeds and how Christians can disagree on important, yet nonvital, subjects I'd thought that'd be obvious to you by now. Though you'd hardly need to tell me this. I once was one of those Christians that believed abortion was OK.

Quote

Hey, I don't disagree with the decision of the courts to allow Nazis to conduct a parade in a Jewish neighborhood or Fred Phelps to hold up a sign to a grieving family that says God wanted their son murdered. Those are some rather extreme and provocative actions that we need to allow if we are to preserve the rights of people to say anything they want as part of the public dialog. But even protesters are not allowed to go into people's homes to display their message, nor are they allowed to disrupt funerals.

Boy, you just keep making my arguement easier and easier. The fact that such homes and funerals are private while a public school is public should give some indication of the double standard your argueing. Especially when you contradict yourself in the next breath:

Quote

Free speech cannot be allowed to trample on the right of people to privacy and respect. Provocative messages on clothing can destroy the atmosphere of learning that is essential to the purpose of a school. Children are compelled to attend. Hence, they have the right not to be forced to put up with messages of hatred. I can't believe that you are really blind to the hatred in the OP T-shirt, but most people understand that it is intended to provoke anger and hatred at individuals who disagree with the "black and white issue".

Hmm, so you have no trouble with clear cut hate speech in public, but a moral and religious message that can't even be clearly shown as hateful in public and you want to ban it. Wow.

I see the statement as a black and white issue, because it's either true or it's not. Homosexuality is a sin or it's not. Islam is a lie or it's not. Abortion is murder or it's not. It really does look like a black and white issue, doesn't it? If the statements true then there's nothing remotely wrong with it. If the statements not true then we should be having homosexual marrages, worshipping Islam, and having abortions.....wait....that's kinda conflicting given Islam isn't too keen on homosexuality either and I'm pretty sure there are complications with abortion from a same sex couple.

Anyway, seems the main issue doesn't seem to be whether it's hateful, but whether the statement is correct. And it is. It so is.

Here's another problem you face: Books just as easily promotes provocative and offensive messages. The fact that they can go several pages in to such subjects means they can do so with more deeply. Seems removing the shirt is no different from burning the books, and much for the same reasons. So how about it Cop? Since you're so against even an atheistic promoting shirt are you ready to throw Dawkin's works in the oven?

Quote

I am not sure that you do agree with me on the real issue here. Free speech is not an absolute right, especially in the presence of the captive audience of the school building.

If the First Amendment is not an absolute right, then no right is. You may therefore have your privacy violated by anyone for any reason. You may be imprisoned without due process or speedy trial. Your property is fair game. If the rights that were deemed so important that they were the very first established before all else does not need to be upheld then no right after it needs to be either. Including this so-called "right" for people to get away from "hate messages" in public schools. Go contemplate the irony in that.

Bowlnik · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2008, 04:07:32 AM »

Oh wow, I really can't respond to all of that, but uh, here...

Firstly...
"...and that Abortion is Murder; (I defy you to find anyplace in the bible that says that.

This is off topic, but I couldn't resist the challenge as it's easily answerable:

The 6th Commandment: "Thou shall not murder." Murder of a child 10 seconds in of the womb is no different then if the child was 10 seconds out. There you go."

Well, see, here is the problem. You are assuming about a lot of things. Can one only murder a human being? Is a fetus a human being. The bible answers none of those questions. I would like you to find for me biblical text that specifies the meaning. It doesn't. What you do have is a bit of law not a chapter or two after the commandments that very clearly treats unborn children as property, not as people. I mean, we are talking about a code of laws that will stone to death a raped woman who didn't cry out. (As I recall) Come on? Do you think it was an accident, a bit of mercy on the part of the Lord to what was clearly unintentional? Certainly not.

And the real issue at stake here in the school system is one of safety. The wearing of that shirt is clearly and almost certainly intentionally inflammatory. It invites violence. Whether you believe that it should or not is irrelevent. As are any moral questions about the righteousness or justification of someone who will become violent as a result of it. Because it is in a public school, and it is very likely to cause violence, it is the duty of the school system to prevent violence and maintain order by stopping the wearing of that or any other similarly inflammatory shirt.

And very interestingly, the boy would still be in middle school, and based on his age he almost certainly didn't purchase the shirt for himself. So at that point you are really talking about the exploitation of youth by selfish parents, who very likely knew that this is exactly how it would end up and wanted to prove a political point.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2008, 08:53:32 AM »

I agree that the question of when the 'fetus' is a human being is important but don't agree that it would need to be spelled out in order for it to follow from the Christian Scriptures that abortion was the murder of an unborn human. It is known that Christians have rejected abortion from its earliest days and when there is no feminist ideology to divide one's allegiances, it is pretty much been unanimous among Christians from past until present. Now, that is an interesting fact and the most reasonable inference is that there is something in the Christian world view that generates that perspective.

I don't think it would be much trouble to dig up plenty of sources online that help lay out what that basis is so let me respond to the example that was given... a child 10 seconds in the womb versus a child 10 seconds outside the womb. What is a 'fetus' but a name we use to describe that which is growing in the womb? You raise this question in a way that I think is unfair. According to Wiki, the term 'fetus' has only been in use since the 1500s ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus ). It says that it is derived from the Latin, which it says means, "offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young." Now, why should we expect the Bible to speak to the status of a 'fetus' when the distinction wasn't raised until thousands of years after it was written? More substantively, should we expect the Bible to treat a distinction (fetus/unborn versus human/born) that hardly was made when it was written?

As for your counter example about the unborn being treated as property, I believe from your description that you are referring to Leviticus 27. I think you misrecall the argument made by pro-abortionists from that passage. 27:1-9 sets a value on people of various ages. For example, if a male is between the age of five and twenty the value is given as 20 shekels. The pro-abortionist argument arises from pointing out that the scale begins at one month. No monetary value is given to children less than one month old (vs. 6).

Now, I find this a curious argument. If we are to take this passage with this understanding, we would be led to believe then that the Bible doesn't believe there is a human life from birth until one month, let alone in the womb. That I think would be positively nonsense. But we can resolve this particular example (again, I'm guessing somewhat as to what passage you were referring to) by pointing out that you are wrong in saying that the unborn is being treated as property. Is the male 5 years to 20 not a human being according to the bible because a financial value is given to him? The reasoning breaks down and we're left scratching our heads until we realize that this passage isn't talking about property at all. This isn't the civil code. 27:2...

"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values set the value....'"

In other words, this is a ceremonial thing having to do with establishing reasonable expectations on how much a parent ought to give the priest to dedicate his child or family member or himself. This is not in the criminal code. This is more like an airline letting children under 5 fly for half price. Does that mean the airline doesn't think a child under 5 isn't human? Does it mean that the airline views children as property? Nonsense? If the airline were to phrase its policy to say.... children under 5 are half price but infants 1 month and under are free.... is the airline speaking about its views on whether or not the fetus is human? I don't think so.

If I am right and Leviticus 27 is the passage you are referencing, the context reveals that it is useless in this context.

I would propose that the most useful passages will be the ones in the criminal or civil code. We have a passage that seems to speak more directly Lev. 21:22

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The punishment for murder, as we know, was death. Here, we have an explicit example of a premature birth (or miscarriage) connected to the formula of an eye for an eye and life for a life. This passage is in a stronger context to begin with (personal injury laws) and more explicit (explicitly refers to the unborn). The distinction seems pretty simple... if the baby lives without serious injury, the 'civil courts' can handle it. If, however, the baby dies or is seriously injured, the 'criminal court' steps in.

Anyway, the Christian's pro-life position does not hinge on the interpretation of the laws given to the Israelites while it lived under the direct rule of God. But like I said, those arguments can be found easily enough on their own.

End Bringer · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2008, 09:51:08 AM »

Quote from: Bowlnik on February 04, 2008, 04:07:32 AM

Well, see, here is the problem. You are assuming about a lot of things. Can one only murder a human being? Is a fetus a human being. The bible answers none of those questions. I would like you to find for me biblical text that specifies the meaning. It doesn't.

There is one, but I don't really need to limit myself to a Phar Lap standard because you say so. Look up any biology book. Science is 100% in agreement that a human being is formed from the moment of conception. That is not open to debate. Jot this down. The law of identity: a thing is itself and not something else. What that means is that whatever a thing is it remains what it is for as long as it exists. A thing can change it's properties, but it will never change it's nature. So when a human being is formed at conception, it remains a human being till it is extinguashed from existence.

The only issue that needs to be addressed is whether the unborn is a human being or not, and it's been thoroughly answered that a fetus is a human being. So if one human being killing another innocent human being is murder, then one human being killing another innocent human being is murder. Period.

Now even limiting myself to your standard I can still defeat you. Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." It seems God was saying that there was a person to be known even in the womb or even before that. And there's no difference between a human being and a person.

Your feeble attempt to classify them as property can also be said for slaves and women, especially during those times (and the verse you use to justify it is questionable). Are they not human beings? It's quite a silly question these days, yet pro-choicers always want to seem to ask it.

And that's all I have to say on this matter. At least in this thread.

Quote

And the real issue at stake here in the school system is one of safety. The wearing of that shirt is clearly and almost certainly intentionally inflammatory. It invites violence.

I must have missed where Columbine and other such tragic events were started over a T-shirt. Simply being a Christian invites violence in many parts of the world as it did for the early Christians who were persecuted. In Mecca you can be arrested for being a Christian. Heck, just looking at someone the wrong way is an invitation for violence. If someone becomes violent because of it, then the fault is on the one who commits the act of violence. If there's no moral obligation for someone to refrain from violence because he hears or reads something he doesn't like, then I fail to see where the moral obligation is to remove an inflammatory shirt from someone who was behaving himself. And since shools are perfect breeding grounds for teasing and outright bullying, kids are often going to hear inflammatory remarks on a much more personal level then a T-shirt addressing issues.

Quote

And very interestingly, the boy would still be in middle school, and based on his age he almost certainly didn't purchase the shirt for himself. So at that point you are really talking about the exploitation of youth by selfish parents, who very likely knew that this is exactly how it would end up and wanted to prove a political point.

Good for them. Christians need to be more politically active. As the courts seem to have muddled over First amendment issues which speak crystal clear over these issues (and says the opposite of what is oftne decided) over the last sixty years or so, we need to raise these issues and have them (finally) clarified. Rather than fuss about a T-shirt (which I think is misguided, I think it is the wrong hill to die on), why don't we simply get back to the basics of the First Amendment which supposedly secures our safety from the government getting into our religious and free speech hair? Remind them that they must not limit the free exercise thereof.

If we want to have a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that, for goodness sake, we shouldn't stop at a T-shirt. That's inconsequential. Let's go for the whole thing. Let's just make it clear in a Constitutional amendment that we want to exercise our religion freely and express our views without government interference. And if that means that a kid sits in his third grade classroom during study hall and reads his Bible at his publicly owned desk, more power to him. And if students want to meet together, and bow their heads, and pray or kneel on the government tiles in their public school and pray, more power to them.

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2008, 03:22:16 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on February 04, 2008, 12:50:03 AM

Your comparison of a crowded theater is so laughable I'm almost embarrased to even have to state why. Theaters, librarys, and such don't prohibit free speech. They prohibit noise. Such a thing would apply to a whistle or a bull-horn as much as someone yelling "GOT MILK?" In fact in such areas you'd be able to wear such a shirt given that when the theater get's dark it's hardly disruptive.

EB, you seem to be ignorant of the issue. It is not about noise, but about causing a panic by shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Language designed specifically to invoke violence can also be regulated. Freedom of speech has never been considered an unconditional right in the US. Slander and libel is still illegal. Telling a lie under oath in a courtroom is illegal. Clothing that is designed to provoke inappropriate reactions from fellow students can and should be banned from schools, where it important to promote an atmosphere of study and rational thought. You really need to show that school dress codes represent unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, and you haven't done that with this case.

Quote

But you know, I could even set your bad analogy aside and still defeat this point. You want to know why? Because a class room is an arena for thoughts and ideas. And in such a setting that makes a school the most appropriate place for the expression of ideas. Any ideas. That's right Cop. I took you over my knee and I spanked you good. And if you're into that sorta thing, then you're just creeping me out.

Don't let your repressed sexual fantasies distract you from the discussion, EB. :) It is perfectly appropriate to discuss civil rights in social studies classes, and nothing I have said prevents a school from carrying out that mission. It is quite another thing to hold that students should be subjected to abusive messages on the clothing of their schoolmates. One of the things that we do try to instill in American schools (or ought to) is tolerance for diverse backgrounds and respect for people whose opinions may differ from one's own. Clothing that displays hateful messages would seem to contradict that purpose.

Quote

Oh, I'm sorry. Are we talking about the same T-shirt? Mine says "Confirmation is Cannibalism, Christianity is a Lie, God Murders Babies. Some issues are just black and white". Do I think that a high school student should be able to display such a shirt at school? No. What do you think?

Cop! You mean you've been promoting hate messages all this time on this forum? Shame on you.

Huh? I'm giving you a hypothetical case of a T-shirt that might not display a message that you feel comfortable with. This isn't just about a few Christians getting away with their own messages of hatred and intolerance.

Quote

I'm absolutely fine with it and for a very simple reason: People are already saying those things. Such ideas are already promoted. There is no hiding from them nor should there be. And while I have strong disagreements with such views, I have absolutely no problem with a person's ability to say them. That is tolerance and best of all it has no confliction with the First Amendment.

You are confusing the classroom with the street. We are talking about creating an atmosphere of learning, openness and tolerance--something that is necessary for learning and rational discussion to take place, especially among children and teenagers. A public speech in the park is not the same kind of situation. That seems to be the point that you are missing in the discussion--that different situations call for different forms of behavior. It is one thing to promote your political or religious views in public places, where people can walk away. It is quite another to force people in a closed, required setting to be subjected to that kind of treatment. Then your freedom begins to trample on the rights of others.

Quote

*snort* This isn't a matter of behavior. There is a fine line between acting any way you want and thinking and talking any way you want. And it's almost sad that you try to bring up saving people's feelings. Doesn't sound like banning the shirt will be considerate to the wearer's feelings. ANd we all know the world is genuinely sensitive to student's fragile emotions. There's no pressure on them whatsoever. And teachers, faculty, and staff, they're push-overs really. A soft breeze could knock everyone in the school down.

Your sweeping generalizations about students and teachers strike me as unrealistic and disingenuous. Children do not have the same freedoms and privileges as adults precisely because many of them lack the self-discipline that we expect in adults. Part of the role of an educational institution is to teach self-discipline.

Quote

Ditto with my message. It does kind of imply that people ought not to be Christians or worship God, doesn't it? Just as yours implies that God disapproves of homosexuals, people ought not to be Muslims, and women who have abortions ought to be treated as criminals. Do you think that your T-shirt encourages tolerance and understanding? I think quite the opposite.

Heh. Other than treating women as criminals (it just says they and the doctors who perform such acts are murders, but it says nothing to treatment), that's pretty much correct. And there is not a thing wrong with that. It's just as much a promotion of understanding in calling a spade a spade or a screwdriver a tool. You can say that it may encourage intolerance in that the exclusive nature of truth makes one reject the notion that a screwdriver is an animal, but that's a kind of intolerance that should be promoted. And it as such encourages the understanding of what those things are.

You ignore the fact that not everyone agrees with your moral views and judgments, and you seem to forget that the provocative messages will not always be the ones that strike you as correct and sensible. One type of knowledge that comes with maturity is the understanding that hatred and violence promote more hatred and violence, not the other way around. Children are more prone than adults to reacting to such provocations precisely because they are immature. They are more sensitive to insults and quicker to anger than adults. Hence, schools carry a special burden of lowering tensions that are caused by intolerant and hateful provocations.

Quote

This is just false. It does not align with the "Christian position". Many Christians reject the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, that Islam is a lie, and that abortion is murder. Your message reflects the beliefs of many Christians, but not all. And many Christians would consider it wrong to display such a shirt in public, let alone a high school classroom.

Congradulations. You just shown that even Christians can hold to views that do not align with Christianity. After sntjohnny's rather thorough posts regarding the Creeds and how Christians can disagree on important, yet nonvital, subjects I'd thought that'd be obvious to you by now. Though you'd hardly need to tell me this. I once was one of those Christians that believed abortion was OK.

I did not need sntjohnny's posts to understand that Christians can have very diverse opinions. What I objected to here is something you seem not to understand. Or maybe your anger just won't let you care. Saying that position "X" is the "Christian" position is arrogant and disingenuous when it so clearly is a matter of controversy among Christians. To do so is an arrogant attempt to marginalize those Christians who disagree with your opinions and to drive a wedge between nonbelievers and believers who might agree on an issue--in this case the nature of abortion. It is irrelevant whether you once were more tolerant of women who sought to decide on their own whether they should end a pregnancy.

Quote

Hey, I don't disagree with the decision of the courts to allow Nazis to conduct a parade in a Jewish neighborhood or Fred Phelps to hold up a sign to a grieving family that says God wanted their son murdered. Those are some rather extreme and provocative actions that we need to allow if we are to preserve the rights of people to say anything they want as part of the public dialog. But even protesters are not allowed to go into people's homes to display their message, nor are they allowed to disrupt funerals.

Boy, you just keep making my arguement easier and easier. The fact that such homes and funerals are private while a public school is public should give some indication of the double standard your argueing.

But public schools are not streets or public parks. Like a funeral or a private home, they have a special purpose, and civil freedoms must be restricted to conform to that purpose. Children represent a captive audience. They have no choice but to attend a school, and it is the responsibility of the school to provide them with a place where they don't have to put up with every behavior that is legal on a street corner. Calling the school "public" does not mean that it is indistinguishable from all other public places.

Quote

Especially when you contradict yourself in the next breath:

Quote
Free speech cannot be allowed to trample on the right of people to privacy and respect. Provocative messages on clothing can destroy the atmosphere of learning that is essential to the purpose of a school. Children are compelled to attend. Hence, they have the right not to be forced to put up with messages of hatred. I can't believe that you are really blind to the hatred in the OP T-shirt, but most people understand that it is intended to provoke anger and hatred at individuals who disagree with the "black and white issue".

Hmm, so you have no trouble with clear cut hate speech in public, but a moral and religious message that can't even be clearly shown as hateful in public and you want to ban it. Wow.

I didn't say that I had no trouble with hate speech in public. I have trouble with attempts to ban hateful messages in all places at all times. I said that rights can conflict with each other, and there are times when some rights must be curtailed in favor of others. Moral and religious messages are permitted in places where people who disagree with those messages are not forced to listen to them. A person of color should not have to take a school exam, sitting next to someone who displays a shirt emblazoned with the n-word. It can be, to say the least, a bit of a distraction.

Quote

I see the statement as a black and white issue, because it's either true or it's not. Homosexuality is a sin or it's not. Islam is a lie or it's not. Abortion is murder or it's not. It really does look like a black and white issue, doesn't it? If the statements true then there's nothing remotely wrong with it. If the statements not true then we should be having homosexual marrages, worshipping Islam, and having abortions.....wait....that's kinda conflicting given Islam isn't too keen on homosexuality either and I'm pretty sure there are complications with abortion from a same sex couple. Anyway, seems the main issue doesn't seem to be whether it's hateful, but whether the statement is correct. And it is. It so is.

You fail to distinguish between the promotion of an idea and the idea itself. It is one thing to examine the pros and cons of a given opinion about race, sex, or religion in a classroom. It is quite another to use that restricted venue to actually promote those opinions in such a way as to disrupt the educational purpose of the setting.

Quote

Here's another problem you face: Books just as easily promotes provocative and offensive messages. The fact that they can go several pages in to such subjects means they can do so with more deeply. Seems removing the shirt is no different from burning the books, and much for the same reasons. So how about it Cop? Since you're so against even an atheistic promoting shirt are you ready to throw Dawkin's works in the oven?

Again, you fail to distinguish between promoting an idea in a provocative fashion and discussing it rationally. Reading ideas in a book is not the same thing as having to deal with open hostility in the behavior of one's schoolmates.

Quote

If the First Amendment is not an absolute right, then no right is...

Right. No right is absolute. All are restricted under some circumstances. The courts have the responsibility of judging when and how rights can be restricted.

Bowlnik · « **Reply #16 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:33:56 PM »

Ironically, Sntjohnny, the passage you quoted in support of your argument is what I was referring to in support of mine, but I would disagree with your interpretation, which I suddenly see as not entirely clear.

I read it as referring to the injury of the woman as being critical. That also seems to be the general Jewish interpretation which is why Anti-abortionism has never been nearly as prevalent among Jews.

And Endbringer, thank you. You have agreed with me. Your opposition to abortion is not entirely or even mostly based on scripture. You have personally made the decision that the unborn child is a human being in full and that the killing of which is murder. I commend you, you have made a moral choice on your own. Now, sure, it is at least partially based on a commandment of the bible, but let's be clear here... You do not obey all of the things that even Exodus tells you you ought to do. (Forgive me, I am assuming you suffer witches to live)

I would even agree with you, but I simply do not believe that there is nearly as strong a biblical condemnation of abortion as many evangelicals in the United States would believe based on what is their, I believe, insufficient knowledge of the text that they claim is the whole and sum of what they believe as far as religion and morals is concerned.

I think I would wear a shirt that says "I think abortion is of extremely questionable morality, Islam and Christianity are remarkably similar religions, and shaving with a razor is a sin. (It is, by the way)"

Bowlnik · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2008, 10:39:30 PM »

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

In researching I found this article that makes a fairly strong case for your interpretation. However, I think it undermines its own point. At one point it mentions that the murder of a slave is punished with a fine, and claims that the punishment doesn't make the slave sub-human.

But I think it is clear that it does. "Thou shalt not Murder" is pretty strong, further the Lex Talionis is eminently clear on what should be done in regard to murder. In this case, the loss of a slave is thought of as Destruction of Property. It is clear that the slave is not considered human, but rather property. It seems that The Law primarily does its levying of fines as a means of property restitution. That would suggest that the unborn child is a bit of lost property. The article further argues that the fine represents financial restitution for the increased cost of a premature child, but the examples it gives of increased cost would clearly represent "Further Injury". It however makes a great deal of sense if you think about it like the ancient Jews would have, which is that the loss of a child represents a signifigent economic loss, as opposed to a personally emotional one. It was only relatively recently that we as a people have put such an emphasis on loving our infants and toddlers. Previously, the risk of death was just too high to emotionally invest. However, children have long been considered a source of free labor, and that is I think where the fine is involved.

Their argument about the original Hebrew is compelling, but ultimately not conclusive, because the other biblical uses of the term merely suggest that they imply a living child as opposed to a dead one, and the counterexample they presented is one that specifically refers to miscarriage. So it is clear that the term can and was used to refer to miscarried infants.

I am merely trying to put into question the fast surety with which Christians believe that the Bible is clear on the issue of abortion, it just isn't.

The other passage that is frequently mentioned to support the Pro-Life position is actually specifically refuted in this article, as it is I think clear to anybody who understands the context that the statement about God knowing you in the womb is a statement not to your "Humanness" in the womb but rather a statement that was meant to demonstate the omniscience of God. And there are other statements that might extend that to Him knowing you prior to conception.

I would make an argument that God "Knows" every person that has been, is, ever will be, or ever could have been. So Sntjohnny, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken.

Sorry, had to fit that in. Actually, I would be very interested in actual scriptural support aside from the complicated passage that specifically and clearly supports your position.

End Bringer · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2008, 11:34:43 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on February 05, 2008, 03:22:16 PM

EB, you seem to be ignorant of the issue.

Almost everyone you disagree with always seems to be.

Quote

It is not about noise, but about causing a panic by shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Language designed specifically to invoke violence can also be regulated. Freedom of speech has never been considered an unconditional right in the US. Slander and libel is still illegal. Telling a lie under oath in a courtroom is illegal. Clothing that is designed to provoke inappropriate reactions from fellow students can and should be banned from schools, where it important to promote an atmosphere of study and rational thought. You really need to show that school dress codes represent unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, and you haven't done that with this case.

Heh. Go to a theater. Start blowing a whistle and see what happens. It won't cause a panic, but I doubt you won't get kicked out. And again you seem to think your bad analogies as proof of your point when you've still stated nothing of which that can be called expressions of thoughts and ideas. Yelling fire and lying hardly fit in that catagory. But again even if you could give a legitimate example it would still be meaningless due to a classroom being the most appropriate place for thoughts and ideas.

I really don't need to show any case that a dress code shows unreasonable restrictions. I'm perfectly fine if a public school adopted a uniform as private schools do. The hypocrisy I find in this case is that shirts with logos, slogans, or pictures is perfectly allowed with the current standard of dress, and thus this shirt's message or even a clear cut hate message is perfectly allowed within that parameter. Either allow it all or ban even shirts with anti-drug messages. After all, it may provoke drug users since "not everyone agrees with your moral views and judgments."

Quote

Don't let your repressed sexual fantasies distract you from the discussion, EB. :)

Meh. I'm more a katoptronophilia kinda guy. (I had absolutely no idea what this meant 10 minutes ago).

Quote

It is perfectly appropriate to discuss civil rights in social studies classes, and nothing I have said prevents a school from carrying out that mission. It is quite another thing to hold that students should be subjected to abusive messages on the clothing of their schoolmates. One of the things that we do try to instill in American schools (or ought to) is tolerance for diverse backgrounds and respect for people whose opinions may differ from one's own. Clothing that displays hateful messages would seem to contradict that purpose.

You really can't do anything but give proof by assertions of "abusive messages" and a hypocritical cry for tolerance while being intolerant of such messages, can you? Weak Cop. Real weak.

Quote

Huh? I'm giving you a hypothetical case of a T-shirt that might not display a message that you feel comfortable with. This isn't just about a few Christians getting away with their own messages of hatred and intolerance.

As you've been arguing on this forum that Christianity is a lie for some time, I find you to fit the bill perfectly when you say calling Islam a lie is considered a hate message.

Quote

You are confusing the classroom with the street. We are talking about creating an atmosphere of learning, openness and tolerance--something that is necessary for learning and rational discussion to take place, especially among children and teenagers. A public speech in the park is not the same kind of situation. That seems to be the point that you are missing in the discussion--that different situations call for different forms of behavior. It is one thing to promote your political or religious views in public places, where people can walk away. It is quite another to force people in a closed, required setting to be subjected to that kind of treatment. Then your freedom begins to trample on the rights of others.

You are imagining a meaningful difference between the two when there isn't one. The only difference you've listed being that messages in the street can be ignored (very appropriate behavior regarding important issues). And you've completely missed the point that people can do that anyway. In fact, it would be easier to ignore a shirt than someone talking given that reading is an effort above hearing. At worst, someone would be aware of what is said, but how a person reacts is entirely up to him/her. And the right to ignore it is entirely within a person's ability.

I find your call for the ability to ignore major issues to be quite contradicting to your call of schools being a place of learning and tolerance. This can be said even more for the issue of abortion due to the fact that sex education is introduced to students as early as Jr. High. You want them to be ignorant of such issues till life hits them?

And spare me the double standard. I can easily reverse this so-called "right" of others to trample on the explicitedly stated right of everyone.

Quote

Your sweeping generalizations about students and teachers strike me as unrealistic and disingenuous. Children do not have the same freedoms and privileges as adults precisely because many of them lack the self-discipline that we expect in adults. Part of the role of an educational institution is to teach self-discipline.

It should have struck you as sarcastic. But then that doesn't always travel well over the internet. Though it doesn't seem that this self-discipline includes to not react violently when faced with a message that may provoke a person. I just find it interesting how you call for schools to be a place of learning, tolerance, and self-discipline, but argue for students to be able to ignore or be ignorant of disagreeing views on major issues till they're blind sided by life as well as simultaneously saying schools can't do their jobs well enough that a T-shirt ruins everything. If you find statements of a schools fragility unrealistic then stop argueing based on it.

Quote

You ignore the fact that not everyone agrees with your moral views and judgments, and you seem to forget that the provocative messages will not always be the ones that strike you as correct and sensible. One type of knowledge that comes with maturity is the understanding that hatred and violence promote more hatred and violence, not the other way around. Children are more prone than adults to reacting to such provocations precisely because they are immature. They are more sensitive to insults and quicker to anger than adults. Hence, schools carry a special burden of lowering tensions that are caused by intolerant and hateful provocations.

People disagree? Shocking. Read my above comments on your contradictions regarding your arguement of what a school is, and simultaneously asserting they're incapable of it at the same time. If you're going to argue that schools are there to prepare kids for the world, then don't argue that they must ignore that tension at the same time until they're out the doors. It's not going away.

Quote

I did not need sntjohnny's posts to understand that Christians can have very diverse opinions. What I objected to here is something you seem not to understand. Or maybe your anger just won't let you care. Saying that position "X" is the "Christian" position is arrogant and disingenuous when it so clearly is a matter of controversy among Christians. To do so is an arrogant attempt to marginalize those Christians who disagree with your opinions and to drive a wedge between nonbelievers and believers who might agree on an issue--in this case the nature of abortion. It is irrelevant whether you once were more tolerant of women who sought to decide on their own whether they should end a pregnancy.

Not at all. The Christian position is one by and large commited to virtuous living. Now I say by and large because there are a lot in Christendom who are not deeply committed to following Christ. But if one is deeply committed to following Christ and following that which Jesus taught and his disciples passed onto us, then one who is that kind of Christian is also deeply committed to living a virtuous life. So therefore if "X" is shown to be in accordance to what Jesus and his disciples taught, then it is by definition and reasonable to call "X" the Christian position. There is nothing arrogant or disingenuous about it.

Quote

But public schools are not streets or public parks. Like a funeral or a private home, they have a special purpose, and civil freedoms must be restricted to conform to that purpose. Children represent a captive audience. They have no choice but to attend a school, and it is the responsibility of the school to provide them with a place where they don't have to put up with every behavior that is legal on a street corner. Calling the school "public" does not mean that it is indistinguishable from all other public places.

So do streets and parks. You can say they're special purpose is to accomadate travel and enjoy nature and thus there shouldn't be free speech there either. It's getting to the point where there no longer is a public place for free speech anywhere. See my remarks about you calling for students to be ignorant or able to ignore above. Your point of the government making school mandatory (private schools are still an option), only goes into the fact that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof". And this still goes into the fact as an arena for thoughts and ideas the classroom is still the most appropriate place for expressing them.

Quote

I didn't say that I had no trouble with hate speech in public. I have trouble with attempts to ban hateful messages in all places at all times.

Your entire arguement suggests otherwise.

Quote

I said that rights can conflict with each other, and there are times when some rights must be curtailed in favor of others. Moral and religious messages are permitted in places where people who disagree with those messages are not forced to listen to them. A person of color should not have to take a school exam, sitting next to someone who displays a shirt emblazoned with the n-word. It can be, to say the least, a bit of a distraction.

Well if rights conflict and should be curtailed then it goes in favor to the right that was clearly handed down over this ambiguous "right" for people to be ignorant and removed from life.

Quote

You fail to distinguish between the promotion of an idea and the idea itself. It is one thing to examine the pros and cons of a given opinion about race, sex, or religion in a classroom. It is quite another to use that restricted venue to actually promote those opinions in such a way as to disrupt the educational purpose of the setting.

Yes, I don't need to distinguash when the "free exercise thereof" means "free exercise thereof". Surprisingly these issues of free speech are so self-evident they could have been decided by the very eight-graders whose interest we're looking out for (supposedly). Sadly others of a one-diminsional mind set can't seem to see what's plain to everyone else.

Quote

Again, you fail to distinguish between promoting an idea in a provocative fashion and discussing it rationally. Reading ideas in a book is not the same thing as having to deal with open hostility in the behavior of one's schoolmates.

Your failure to outline where the shirt promotes behavior (the only evidence of behavior is on the one being violent), how it's anymore hateful then calling a spade a spade, and anymore provocative than the straight-forwardness of "The Mets suck." only shows how much of your arguement is based more on the fallacy of proof by assertion and empty bluster.

Quote

Right. No right is absolute. All are restricted under some circumstances. The courts have the responsibility of judging when and how rights can be restricted.

No, the courts have the responsibility to apply law. Even if the law is shown to be immoral they have no right to strike it down. The First Amendment is law and specificlly prohibits restrictions from the government. And again you face the irony that this so-called "right" to go through life unoffended can be ignored under the same reasoning. I see nothing compelling in favoring one over the other just because you say so. Even less so as I've shown how your reasoning to be contradicting.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2008, 12:35:13 PM »

Bowl,

I see that this post of yours is in part an answer to me and EB, but your second post I think was just to me but I couldn't quite be certain. I assume it is, so I will respond to it in the next post.

Quote

I read it as referring to the injury of the woman as being critical. That also seems to be the general Jewish interpretation which is why Anti-abortionism has never been nearly as prevalent among Jews.

The translation I looked at was the NIV which coincided with the argument made on the STR page you linked to. Here it is again:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

I see that I initially said it was Leviticus 21:22. I'm glad that you caught the error and realized it was Exodus 21.

Now, let me deal with your feeling that it is in reference to injury of the woman and not the child. Your second post seems to have softened on that, but let me address it anyway. There are several reasons for thinking otherwise. The first to note importantly is that the passage doesn't specify the woman. Nor does it specify the child. Conceivably, the passage could apply to both. However, there is a good reason for thinking that it doesn't apply to the woman. The whole matter seems to hinge on the difference between whether or not there is 'serious injury.' If there is not, then a fine is the punishment. If there is, however, the 'eye for an eye' formula kicks in, and that is very important to note.

This formula is the core formula for handling physical infractions, like breaking someone's arm, or, killing them, etc. The point was for proportionality. It wasn't about vengeance. We're talking about a time when it was common for someone to exact vengeance out of proportion of what happened. Ie, you pluck my brother's eye out in a fight so I kill you. No, you leave your passions out of it and settle for the other guy's eye.

Now, that formula is more clearly laid out in Leviticus 24:17-22

Quote

If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution- life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native born. I am the Lord your God.

Now, this fomula is applied to the question of 'injury' in Exodus 21, but if it referred to the woman then it would be unnecessarily redundant. She would be protected under Lev. 24. If a woman is struck and has her arm broken, the other person's arm is to be broken, and that is quite irrelevant as to whether or not she is pregnant or not. The only thing different in Exodus is the woman who is pregnant, and it is much more likely that the 'eye for an eye' formula applies to the child and not the woman. As such, when Exodus goes on to say life for life, this would appear to incorporate the same reasoning of Leviticus 24... it is only justifiable when the life of a human being is in play. Hence, it is more reasonable to interpret this passage as offering instructions concerning the child rather than the woman, and the instructions take as the basis the same basis that elsewhere is applied to human beings.

Furthermore, in the Lev. 24 passage, a distinction is made between humans and animals. If the unborn child is 'animal' status, the 'eye for an eye' formula would not apply, and it could remain a matter of restitution. However, Ex. 21 clearly indicates that the restitution formula is not in play if there is serious injury, rather, its the eye for an eye formula. And yet there still is a fine if there is no permanent harm at all in Ex 21!

As far as I know, there is no passage that invokes the 'eye for an eye' formula or restitution where someone does not actually suffer some injury. In other words, if a woman is slapped there is no law that says the slapper must be slapped back or that the husband gets to fine the dude. Nor can a man demand the payment of a fine (that I know of) if he is kicked but there is 'no serious harm.' And if someone is harmed, it switches right to the eye for an eye formula.

In other words, we have no compelling reason not to think that this passage is addressing the health of the child and other reasons to think it is not talking about the woman.

If this is the case, and I think it is, it clearly raises the child to the status of a 'human being' since the 'eye for an eye' formula as stated in Lev 24 explicitly references human beings.

Author Topic: Neutralize all Haters (Read 3192 times)