I just don't think there's anything productive from that attitude other than making yourself feel superior to someone else. It certainly doesn't help when people who do ultimately change their minds on the issue are judged and scoffed at as stupid or "not a real activist."
I think it depends on the person and how much they truly change. If their changed stance on homosexuality forces them to take a deeper look into the possible negative effects of all their religious-based belief (and hopefully in doing so, change those beliefs as well), than good for them and for us all.
But if it's one person out there going, "Oh, golly, I guess now that my choice is to disown my kid or to warp my own version of Christianity into something I can deal with, I think the gays are A-OK, and Jesus does too! But we still hate abortions, women's rights, and everyone who doesn't accept Jesus," then fuck them right in the ear.
I have little more than a hunch on this, but I get the feeling that the latter is far more common.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
is north carolina that hardcore? it didnt feel like it when i was there really, felt much calmer and less extreme than sc
Old post, but felt the need to answer.
If you were in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, the surrounding suburbs, some of Greensboro, some or Charlotte, Wilmington or Ashville, you might think NC was tolerant.
Anywhere outside of those places it quickly falls apart.
Go east of I-95 in North Carolina, and you enter crazytown.
In fact, if you broke NC in two with I-95 as the divider, the eastern part of the state would be the poorest, most malnourished, unhealthiest and uneducated state in the country, per capita.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I just don't think there's anything productive from that attitude other than making yourself feel superior to someone else. It certainly doesn't help when people who do ultimately change their minds on the issue are judged and scoffed at as stupid or "not a real activist."
I think it depends on the person and how much they truly change. If their changed stance on homosexuality forces them to take a deeper look into the possible negative effects of all their religious-based belief (and hopefully in doing so, change those beliefs as well), than good for them and for us all.
But if it's one person out there going, "Oh, golly, I guess now that my choice is to disown my kid or to warp my own version of Christianity into something I can deal with, I think the gays are A-OK, and Jesus does too! But we still hate abortions, women's rights, and everyone who doesn't accept Jesus," then fuck them right in the ear.
I have little more than a hunch on this, but I get the feeling that the latter is far more common.
You have no idea really, and your attitude that a person has to do x y and z in order to properly purge their homophobia is counterproductive
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I just don't think there's anything productive from that attitude other than making yourself feel superior to someone else. It certainly doesn't help when people who do ultimately change their minds on the issue are judged and scoffed at as stupid or "not a real activist."
I think it depends on the person and how much they truly change. If their changed stance on homosexuality forces them to take a deeper look into the possible negative effects of all their religious-based belief (and hopefully in doing so, change those beliefs as well), than good for them and for us all.
But if it's one person out there going, "Oh, golly, I guess now that my choice is to disown my kid or to warp my own version of Christianity into something I can deal with, I think the gays are A-OK, and Jesus does too! But we still hate abortions, women's rights, and everyone who doesn't accept Jesus," then fuck them right in the ear.
I have little more than a hunch on this, but I get the feeling that the latter is far more common.
You have no idea really, and your attitude that a person has to do x y and z in order to properly purge their homophobia is counterproductive
I'm not saying they haven't successfully purged their homophobia. They probably have.
It's just a shame they have to be put to the crucible to do so.
is north carolina that hardcore? it didnt feel like it when i was there really, felt much calmer and less extreme than sc
Old post, but felt the need to answer.
If you were in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, the surrounding suburbs, some of Greensboro, some or Charlotte, Wilmington or Ashville, you might think NC was tolerant.
Anywhere outside of those places it quickly falls apart.
Go east of I-95 in North Carolina, and you enter crazytown.
In fact, if you broke NC in two with I-95 as the divider, the eastern part of the state would be the poorest, most malnourished, unhealthiest and uneducated state in the country, per capita.
Aww, I like the Outer Banks in its tourist-trappy-let-us-drive-over-the-animal-nests kind of way.
Maybe that's why I was so surprised by Amendment One....I've never really driven further east than Raleigh. The west is definitely a step up from SC in my experience though.
I just don't think there's anything productive from that attitude other than making yourself feel superior to someone else. It certainly doesn't help when people who do ultimately change their minds on the issue are judged and scoffed at as stupid or "not a real activist."
I think what the lady did was positive, but I also think it is akin to Darkewolfe's example of a "getting hit with a stick hurts" revelation. It's more deserving of a pat on the head than a pat on the back.
Actual scorn is still counter-productive, of course.
I'm not saying they haven't successfully purged their homophobia. They probably have.
It's just a shame they have to be put to the crucible to do so.
Yes, it is. But they did. And they also didn't take the bullshit way out. ("Oh, it's okay that MY son is gay, because he's one of those nice, polite gays with good values, so HE deserves fair treatment, not like all those other freakazoid homos!", say, or "How dare you pry into my son's private life!")
If you've never had an incorrect thought, or a stupid, knee-jerk way of thinking, and never ever changed your mind because somebody showed you that you were wrong, congratulations. The rest of us are not nearly so perfect as your own self.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Now, if mom were hating all gays EXCEPT her son that'd be one thing. But I'm not going to call her a douchebag for realizing that she was wrong and getting over it.
Agreed. Especially since she's now actively trying to change people's minds for the better.
It still weakens her credibility as an activist, regardless.
Being an active "pro-gay Christian" doesn't turn many cheeks when you have a vested and personal interest in the outcome.
Perhaps she should employ a time machine and go to her younger self and make sure she's not a homophobe before her son comes out. That seems to be the only way she could satisfy you.
I don't understand how is anything but a positive good
Is it really so surprising that it takes a crisis to change strongly held beliefs?
It's somewhat surprising to me that so many have such strongly-held beliefs, like opposing homosexuality, despite the facts that tolerance of homosexuality doesn't really affect them one way or the other and that they could very easily find themselves torn on the issue one day, forced to choose their beliefs or their family.
I guess I don't understand why someone would bother being such an active and avowed hatemonger if it didn't really have any bearing on their day-to-day lives.
She had issues, obviously. I found this line interesting: "By the time I finished I felt as big as an ant and I realized just how much hatred I have in my heart toward others." Not, how hateful I have been to gays, or how what I've said about gays doesn't fit with the teachings of Jesus. It wasn't just about how she hated gays and found out her son is gay and so gays are wonderful and she ran out and joined PFLAG. She got a wake-up call that she was a nasty, hypocritical, hateful person, and her son, who she loved very much, gave her a choice: Are you going to cling to being hateful and bigoted even if it means directing that hate at your own child?
The article doesn't say Mom is pro-LGBT rights or now thinks homosexuality is A-OK. It does say "You see, where we live people really do have problems “being Christian unless…” But no longer in this home."
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The article doesn't say Mom is pro-LGBT rights or now thinks homosexuality is A-OK. It does say "You see, where we live people really do have problems “being Christian unless…” But no longer in this home."
True, and I don't want to strip her or her home of that break through. I'm very happy for them.
But in a more macro sense, I have to wonder what the rest of their religious life is like. I grew up in the evangelical Bible belt, and I saw very little expression of religion there that wasn't either vocal hatred of certain groups or proud ignorance of academia. It's basically how Evangelicals define themselves, is it not?
So if this woman is still maintaining a "Christian" household, I just have to wonder what that's like.
Perhaps she is now maintaining an actual Christian household, instead of a "Christian" one.
I don't understand this inability to wrap one's head around "my experience of X is not what all Xs are, were and must always be."
But that IS an actual Christian household. All of this ridiculous argument to the contrary doesn't change the fact that that is what a Christian household usually looks like. Therefore it IS a Christian household. No true scotsman and all that.
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Focus on the Family fighting to amend legislation against bullying in schools to allow taunting and humiliation if said degradation is based in religious conviction.
In Michigan, lawmakers attempted to insert a provision into an anti-bullying bill that would have allowed bullying only on the grounds that it was being done based on a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"
Focus on the Family fighting to amend legislation against bullying in schools to allow taunting and humiliation if said degradation is based in religious conviction.
In Michigan, lawmakers attempted to insert a provision into an anti-bullying bill that would have allowed bullying only on the grounds that it was being done based on a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"
So to you gays, Jews, atheists, and people out there who mix the fibers of their cloth . . . . you're on fucking notice.
So I'm guessing that if I happened to have a "sincerely held moral conviction" that upper class white kids needed a good fucking kicking, then somehow this proviso magically wouldn't have applied?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Focus on the Family fighting to amend legislation against bullying in schools to allow taunting and humiliation if said degradation is based in religious conviction.
In Michigan, lawmakers attempted to insert a provision into an anti-bullying bill that would have allowed bullying only on the grounds that it was being done based on a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"
So to you gays, Jews, atheists, and people out there who mix the fibers of their cloth . . . . you're on fucking notice.
So I'm guessing that if I happened to have a "sincerely held moral conviction" that upper class white kids needed a good fucking kicking, then somehow this proviso magically wouldn't have applied?
I'm just thinking that progressives and agnostics need to join up and start a franchise of churches around the country.
Seems like the only way to get taken seriously these days.
Focus on the Family fighting to amend legislation against bullying in schools to allow taunting and humiliation if said degradation is based in religious conviction.
In Michigan, lawmakers attempted to insert a provision into an anti-bullying bill that would have allowed bullying only on the grounds that it was being done based on a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"
So to you gays, Jews, atheists, and people out there who mix the fibers of their cloth . . . . you're on fucking notice.
So I'm guessing that if I happened to have a "sincerely held moral conviction" that upper class white kids needed a good fucking kicking, then somehow this proviso magically wouldn't have applied?
I'm just thinking that progressives and agnostics need to join up and start a franchise of churches around the country.
Seems like the only way to get taken seriously these days.
Psssh, they tried that. Nobody takes Unitarians seriously.
Focus on the Family fighting to amend legislation against bullying in schools to allow taunting and humiliation if said degradation is based in religious conviction.
In Michigan, lawmakers attempted to insert a provision into an anti-bullying bill that would have allowed bullying only on the grounds that it was being done based on a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction"
So to you gays, Jews, atheists, and people out there who mix the fibers of their cloth . . . . you're on fucking notice.
So I'm guessing that if I happened to have a "sincerely held moral conviction" that upper class white kids needed a good fucking kicking, then somehow this proviso magically wouldn't have applied?
Shit, we need to also quickly amend hate crime laws to allow for religious beliefs and moral convictions!
It is unconscionable that we would deny people the ability to oppress other people.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I assume they were convinced not to by a one word argument "Muslims".
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think there's a legitimate question about how to prevent bullying without stifling religious expression. Since I believe in free speech, I do not think that the answer can be that it is verboten to express the religious conviction that gays are disfavored of god, sinners, and etc. (By the same token, @V1m , I don't think it can be verboten to express the political conviction that upper class whites are the cause of the nation's problems). Instead, there has to be some sort of focus on manner of expression and practical consequence. For instance, the paradigm free speech case is something like founding a club dedicated to discussing and advancing an idea (perhaps that gays need to be saved), whereas the paradigm bullying case involves things like physical force, vandalism, chanting taunts, and so on. How to sort the more intermediate behavior is, I think, a difficult and important question--and one that organizations like the ACLU, which are deeply committed to both free speech and gay rights, are trying very hard to come up with solutions to.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think there's a legitimate question about how to prevent bullying without stifling religious expression. Since I believe in free speech, I do not think that the answer can be that it is verboten to express the religious conviction that gays are disfavored of god, sinners, and etc. (By the same token, @V1m , I don't think it can be verboten to express the political conviction that upper class whites are the cause of the nation's problems). Instead, there has to be some sort of focus on manner of expression and practical consequence. For instance, the paradigm free speech case is something like founding a club dedicated to discussing and advancing an idea (perhaps that gays need to be saved), whereas the paradigm bullying case involves things like physical force, vandalism, chanting taunts, and so on. How to sort the more intermediate behavior is, I think, a difficult and important question--and one that organizations like the ACLU, which are deeply committed to both free speech and gay rights, are trying very hard to come up with solutions to.
I think that even within that context there comes a point where even passive expression can become intimidation and harassment if it persists for an extended period and/or is enacted by a large enough bloc against a much smaller bloc.
A peer should be allowed to express his or her viewpoint on these matters without fear of reprisal, but how often can it be said that someone's intolerance of other viewpoints is being stifled? Furthermore, what situations regularly arise where such viewpoints are called for?
If a student says, "My rights to express my distaste for homosexuals/muslims/loose women is being infringed upon?" in what context would that situation arise? When would this happen? I genuinely don't know.
Further-furthermore, a person who holds those viewpoints is granted no rights beyond holding them and verbal/written expression. They're not legally permitted to act upon them to any degree. So I ask, why are we letting those who most border on criminality try to set the rules for what they can and can't say?
Is it really so surprising that it takes a crisis to change strongly held beliefs?
It's somewhat surprising to me that so many have such strongly-held beliefs, like opposing homosexuality, despite the facts that tolerance of homosexuality doesn't really affect them one way or the other and that they could very easily find themselves torn on the issue one day, forced to choose their beliefs or their family.
I guess I don't understand why someone would bother being such an active and avowed hatemonger if it didn't really have any bearing on their day-to-day lives.
I think that even within that context there comes a point where even passive expression can become intimidation and harassment if it persists for an extended period and/or is enacted by a large enough bloc against a much smaller bloc.
This is true. For instance, I might count it as bullying if all the kids in a gay student's class got together and unanimously wore 'homosexuality is sin' shirts every day, even though politically-motivated clothing choice is pretty prototypical protected speech. But there would clearly be a pointed element to that message, when deployed in that way, such that the gay student might, for instance, reasonable fear for his safety. But if they only did it once a year? Or if only a few people in class did it? Where all these lines lie is the difficult question I was talking about.
A peer should be allowed to express his or her viewpoint on these matters without fear of reprisal, but how often can it be said that someone's intolerance of other viewpoints is being stifled? Furthermore, what situations regularly arise where such viewpoints are called for?
If a student says, "My rights to express my distaste for homosexuals/muslims/loose women is being infringed upon?" in what context would that situation arise? When would this happen? I genuinely don't know.
I think the parallel is instructive: I am 'intolerant' of the rich and privileged insofar as I sincerely think that many of them lead morally bankrupt lives and further a deeply unjust social order. And I have the right to say so! If someone were to stifle my speech on that issue, it would be wrong precisely for the reason that I have the right to say so: everyone getting together in the public square and debating who's behavior is moral and immoral, be it gays or ibankers, is part of the democratic social order.
I think that even within that context there comes a point where even passive expression can become intimidation and harassment if it persists for an extended period and/or is enacted by a large enough bloc against a much smaller bloc.
This is true. For instance, I might count it as bullying if all the kids in a gay student's class got together and unanimously wore 'homosexuality is sin' shirts every day, even though politically-motivated clothing choice is pretty prototypical protected speech. But there would clearly be a pointed element to that message, when deployed in that way, such that the gay student might, for instance, reasonable fear for his safety. But if they only did it once a year? Or if only a few people in class did it? Where all these lines lie is the difficult question I was talking about.
A peer should be allowed to express his or her viewpoint on these matters without fear of reprisal, but how often can it be said that someone's intolerance of other viewpoints is being stifled? Furthermore, what situations regularly arise where such viewpoints are called for?
If a student says, "My rights to express my distaste for homosexuals/muslims/loose women is being infringed upon?" in what context would that situation arise? When would this happen? I genuinely don't know.
I think the parallel is instructive: I am 'intolerant' of the rich and privileged insofar as I sincerely think that many of them lead morally bankrupt lives and further a deeply unjust social order. And I have the right to say so! If someone were to stifle my speech on that issue, it would be wrong precisely for the reason that I have the right to say so: everyone getting together in the public square and debating who's behavior is moral and immoral, be it gays or ibankers, is part of the democratic social order.
I think the difference in the examples is that your line of thought is a political statement about the nature of social justice and collective economic welfare, and in making your comment you're attempting to incite political change, passively or otherwise.
Being intolerant of gays or Jews or atheists has no place because these are viewpoints that are, theoretically, protected from action by our legal system. You can only be intolerant of these things so far before the law steps in and says you're being illegally discriminatory. You can dislike homosexuals, but you can't fire someone for being gay/jewish/female/whatever without legitimate (and typically successful, if prolonged in its coming) reprisal.
I think you should be allowed to speak your mind, but honestly that's only acceptable when someone asks you to, or it has any reasonable bearing on what's going on around you. Don't want to assist an elective abortion as a medical staff member? As long as there's no risk to the patient, sure, go ahead. Want to hear a t-shirt to class expressing your homophobic stance to the gay class members around you? No, and go fuck yourself.
I thought free expression was limited in a public school
Massively so. Administrations are basically allowed to do anything remotely reasonable, though there have been some decisions against them.
It's a quagmire of an issue, really.
By constitutional law, they can't really prohibit free speech, but they have administrative statutes that instruct just that. Basically, the policy is to illegally restrict speech and hope nobody cares enough to tell the media. In the event that policy fails, the contingency seems to be to feign an apology after being sued for 1st Amendment restriction, and maybe fire some random administrator.
It seems to work on the same principle as mail-in rebates; fuck people over just a little bit and hope no one wants to spend the time to recoup the advantage.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I thought free expression was limited in a public school
Massively so. Administrations are basically allowed to do anything remotely reasonable, though there have been some decisions against them.
Not so. For instance: it is illegal to pick and choose which extracurricular clubs are allowed at schools. Once you allow the spirit club to organize and meet on school property, you are legally compelled to allow Gay-Straight Alliances to do the same. This has been, naturally, a thorn in the side of a great deal of conservative school administrators, who were forced to choose between allowing GSAs and shutting down all student clubs altogether. Legal challenges along these lines have made a great deal of practical difference.
It bothers me when people pretend students have no rights, because when students think they have no rights they rarely seek to pursue them. And when they rarely seek to pursue them, it's like they might as well have none at all.
I think the difference in the examples is that your line of thought is a political statement about the nature of social justice and collective economic welfare, and in making your comment you're attempting to incite political change, passively or otherwise.
I wouldn't say otherwise about the homophobes, who are advocating a conception of social and economic justice based more closely on (some version of) biblical teaching and who very much desire to incite political change in order to bring America more closely in line with that vision--for instance, by rolling back gay marriage, workplace protections for gays and lesbians, and so on.
Not so. For instance: it is illegal to pick and choose which extracurricular clubs are allowed at schools. Once you allow the spirit club to organize and meet on school property, you are legally compelled to allow Gay-Straight Alliances to do the same. This has been, naturally, a thorn in the side of a great deal of conservative school administrators, who were forced to choose between allowing GSAs and shutting down all student clubs altogether. Legal challenges along these lines have made a great deal of practical difference.
This. It's especially awesome because the Equal Access Act was pushed by Christian conservatives (Orrin Hatch IIRC) who wanted to make sure Bible-study clubs could meet at school. Oh hey, we didn't mean ALL groups were equal!
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I thought free expression was limited in a public school
Massively so. Administrations are basically allowed to do anything remotely reasonable, though there have been some decisions against them.
Not so. For instance: it is illegal to pick and choose which extracurricular clubs are allowed at schools. Once you allow the spirit club to organize and meet on school property, you are legally compelled to allow Gay-Straight Alliances to do the same. This has been, naturally, a thorn in the side of a great deal of conservative school administrators, who were forced to choose between allowing GSAs and shutting down all student clubs altogether. Legal challenges along these lines have made a great deal of practical difference.
It bothers me when people pretend students have no rights, because when students think they have no rights they rarely seek to pursue them. And when they rarely seek to pursue them, it's like they might as well have none at all.
While its true schools cant ban one club without banning all clubs (we totally abused this when I was in high school...Contemporary Animation Club? We watched Family Guy and Home Movies and stuff, Gentleman's Athletic Club (Women Welcome)? Kickball) schools can limit expression. Punishing kids/sending kids home because theyre wearing offensive shirts is totally okay. I think it comes down to disruptive behavior.
First thing your teacher/advisor will tell you in any US public school journalism class/club; you do not have first amendment protection. Tons of court precedence.
First thing your teacher/advisor will tell you in any US public school journalism class/club; you do not have first amendment protection. Tons of court precedence.
If your teacher/advisor told you this, they were either lying or incompetent and should not hold that position.
Students absolutely have First Amendment protections. In regards to the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, those protections can be limited because they're in a school environment and need for orderly school and insert bogus arguments from SCOTUS here. Essentially, those limits are going to be if the expression advocates illegal activity (exhorting others to burn down the school or smoke pot) or is sexually explicit or actually threatening. Beyond that, yes, students have free-speech rights.
Do you really think a public school can send a student home for wearing a T-shirt that says "Re-elect Obama"? They might as well just place a call to the ACLU and beg to get sued blind and save some time.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
While its true schools cant ban one club without banning all clubs (we totally abused this when I was in high school...Contemporary Animation Club? We watched Family Guy and Home Movies and stuff, Gentleman's Athletic Club (Women Welcome)? Kickball) schools can limit expression. Punishing kids/sending kids home because theyre wearing offensive shirts is totally okay. I think it comes down to disruptive behavior.
As far as I understand, 'offensiveness' is not a sufficient grounds for censorship. Threats or disruption are--however, disruption is required to be severe enough to interfere with the mission of the school, and cannot merely consist in the discomfort that comes with the expression of an unpopular view.
For instance:
DETROIT (2003) - In a victory for students' free speech rights, a federal judge has ruled that the Dearborn teenager who was prohibited from wearing a t-shirt with a picture of President Bush that reads, "International Terrorist" must be allowed to wear the shirt to school.
...
In granting the order, Judge Patrick J. Duggan noted that "there is no evidence that the t-shirt created any disturbance or disruption" in the school and that "the record does not reveal any basis for [the assistant principal's] fear aside from his belief that the t-shirt conveyed an unpopular political message."
Judge Duggan further rejected the school district's argument that the schoolyard is an inappropriate place for political debate. As he wrote in the decision, "In fact, as [the courts] have emphasized, students benefit when school officials provide an environment where they can openly express their diverging viewpoints and when they learn to tolerate the opinions of others."
Bretton Barber, a senior at Dearborn High School, wore the t-shirt to express his concern about the President's policies on the potential war in Iraq. School administrators asked him to remove the t-shirt, turn it inside out, or go home. The school's justification was that the shirt might cause a disruption despite the fact that he wore the shirt for three hours without incident.
So: offensive shirts are not legal grounds for sending someone home. And in this I think the law is right: schools, as Judge Duggan notes, are places where students can benefit from openly expressing their diverging viewpoints and learning to tolerate the opinions of others. Nor do students surrender their rights to free expression as soon as they pass through the schoolhouse gates.
First thing your teacher/advisor will tell you in any US public school journalism class/club; you do not have first amendment protection. Tons of court precedence.
If your teacher/advisor told you this, they were either lying or incompetent and should not hold that position.
Students absolutely have First Amendment protections. In regards to the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, those protections can be limited because they're in a school environment and need for orderly school and insert bogus arguments from SCOTUS here. Essentially, those limits are going to be if the expression advocates illegal activity (exhorting others to burn down the school or smoke pot) or is sexually explicit or actually threatening. Beyond that, yes, students have free-speech rights.
Do you really think a public school can send a student home for wearing a T-shirt that says "Re-elect Obama"? They might as well just place a call to the ACLU and beg to get sued blind and save some time.
Always what? You claimed that public school students in the US "do not have first amendment protection". This is, first of all, sloppy; the First Amendment covers religious freedom as well as free speech. Second, you were wrong. All of us have limits on our free speech - it's not absolute. In the case of public-school students in the US, those limits are stricter. They are not absolute.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Posts
I think it depends on the person and how much they truly change. If their changed stance on homosexuality forces them to take a deeper look into the possible negative effects of all their religious-based belief (and hopefully in doing so, change those beliefs as well), than good for them and for us all.
But if it's one person out there going, "Oh, golly, I guess now that my choice is to disown my kid or to warp my own version of Christianity into something I can deal with, I think the gays are A-OK, and Jesus does too! But we still hate abortions, women's rights, and everyone who doesn't accept Jesus," then fuck them right in the ear.
I have little more than a hunch on this, but I get the feeling that the latter is far more common.
Old post, but felt the need to answer.
If you were in Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, the surrounding suburbs, some of Greensboro, some or Charlotte, Wilmington or Ashville, you might think NC was tolerant.
Anywhere outside of those places it quickly falls apart.
Go east of I-95 in North Carolina, and you enter crazytown.
In fact, if you broke NC in two with I-95 as the divider, the eastern part of the state would be the poorest, most malnourished, unhealthiest and uneducated state in the country, per capita.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You have no idea really, and your attitude that a person has to do x y and z in order to properly purge their homophobia is counterproductive
I'm not saying they haven't successfully purged their homophobia. They probably have.
It's just a shame they have to be put to the crucible to do so.
Aww, I like the Outer Banks in its tourist-trappy-let-us-drive-over-the-animal-nests kind of way.
Actual scorn is still counter-productive, of course.
Yes, it is. But they did. And they also didn't take the bullshit way out. ("Oh, it's okay that MY son is gay, because he's one of those nice, polite gays with good values, so HE deserves fair treatment, not like all those other freakazoid homos!", say, or "How dare you pry into my son's private life!")
If you've never had an incorrect thought, or a stupid, knee-jerk way of thinking, and never ever changed your mind because somebody showed you that you were wrong, congratulations. The rest of us are not nearly so perfect as your own self.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Perhaps she should employ a time machine and go to her younger self and make sure she's not a homophobe before her son comes out. That seems to be the only way she could satisfy you.
I don't understand how is anything but a positive good
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Nope. Habits of belief are quite powerful.
It makes sense to try to change some beliefs, but frustration seems to indicate an unrealistic outlook on the nature of belief.
When you try to change someone else's mind, it's helpful to ask, "Well, how willing am I to change my mind?"
It's somewhat surprising to me that so many have such strongly-held beliefs, like opposing homosexuality, despite the facts that tolerance of homosexuality doesn't really affect them one way or the other and that they could very easily find themselves torn on the issue one day, forced to choose their beliefs or their family.
I guess I don't understand why someone would bother being such an active and avowed hatemonger if it didn't really have any bearing on their day-to-day lives.
The article doesn't say Mom is pro-LGBT rights or now thinks homosexuality is A-OK. It does say "You see, where we live people really do have problems “being Christian unless…” But no longer in this home."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
True, and I don't want to strip her or her home of that break through. I'm very happy for them.
But in a more macro sense, I have to wonder what the rest of their religious life is like. I grew up in the evangelical Bible belt, and I saw very little expression of religion there that wasn't either vocal hatred of certain groups or proud ignorance of academia. It's basically how Evangelicals define themselves, is it not?
So if this woman is still maintaining a "Christian" household, I just have to wonder what that's like.
I don't understand this inability to wrap one's head around "my experience of X is not what all Xs are, were and must always be."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
But that IS an actual Christian household. All of this ridiculous argument to the contrary doesn't change the fact that that is what a Christian household usually looks like. Therefore it IS a Christian household. No true scotsman and all that.
via Jezebel
So to you gays, Jews, atheists, and people out there who mix the fibers of their cloth . . . . you're on fucking notice.
So I'm guessing that if I happened to have a "sincerely held moral conviction" that upper class white kids needed a good fucking kicking, then somehow this proviso magically wouldn't have applied?
I'm just thinking that progressives and agnostics need to join up and start a franchise of churches around the country.
Seems like the only way to get taken seriously these days.
Mr O. Bin-Ladin, that's who.
Psssh, they tried that. Nobody takes Unitarians seriously.
Shit, we need to also quickly amend hate crime laws to allow for religious beliefs and moral convictions!
It is unconscionable that we would deny people the ability to oppress other people.
I think that even within that context there comes a point where even passive expression can become intimidation and harassment if it persists for an extended period and/or is enacted by a large enough bloc against a much smaller bloc.
A peer should be allowed to express his or her viewpoint on these matters without fear of reprisal, but how often can it be said that someone's intolerance of other viewpoints is being stifled? Furthermore, what situations regularly arise where such viewpoints are called for?
If a student says, "My rights to express my distaste for homosexuals/muslims/loose women is being infringed upon?" in what context would that situation arise? When would this happen? I genuinely don't know.
Further-furthermore, a person who holds those viewpoints is granted no rights beyond holding them and verbal/written expression. They're not legally permitted to act upon them to any degree. So I ask, why are we letting those who most border on criminality try to set the rules for what they can and can't say?
This is true. For instance, I might count it as bullying if all the kids in a gay student's class got together and unanimously wore 'homosexuality is sin' shirts every day, even though politically-motivated clothing choice is pretty prototypical protected speech. But there would clearly be a pointed element to that message, when deployed in that way, such that the gay student might, for instance, reasonable fear for his safety. But if they only did it once a year? Or if only a few people in class did it? Where all these lines lie is the difficult question I was talking about.
I think the parallel is instructive: I am 'intolerant' of the rich and privileged insofar as I sincerely think that many of them lead morally bankrupt lives and further a deeply unjust social order. And I have the right to say so! If someone were to stifle my speech on that issue, it would be wrong precisely for the reason that I have the right to say so: everyone getting together in the public square and debating who's behavior is moral and immoral, be it gays or ibankers, is part of the democratic social order.
I think the difference in the examples is that your line of thought is a political statement about the nature of social justice and collective economic welfare, and in making your comment you're attempting to incite political change, passively or otherwise.
Being intolerant of gays or Jews or atheists has no place because these are viewpoints that are, theoretically, protected from action by our legal system. You can only be intolerant of these things so far before the law steps in and says you're being illegally discriminatory. You can dislike homosexuals, but you can't fire someone for being gay/jewish/female/whatever without legitimate (and typically successful, if prolonged in its coming) reprisal.
I think you should be allowed to speak your mind, but honestly that's only acceptable when someone asks you to, or it has any reasonable bearing on what's going on around you. Don't want to assist an elective abortion as a medical staff member? As long as there's no risk to the patient, sure, go ahead. Want to hear a t-shirt to class expressing your homophobic stance to the gay class members around you? No, and go fuck yourself.
Massively so. Administrations are basically allowed to do anything remotely reasonable, though there have been some decisions against them.
It's a quagmire of an issue, really.
By constitutional law, they can't really prohibit free speech, but they have administrative statutes that instruct just that. Basically, the policy is to illegally restrict speech and hope nobody cares enough to tell the media. In the event that policy fails, the contingency seems to be to feign an apology after being sued for 1st Amendment restriction, and maybe fire some random administrator.
It seems to work on the same principle as mail-in rebates; fuck people over just a little bit and hope no one wants to spend the time to recoup the advantage.
Not so. For instance: it is illegal to pick and choose which extracurricular clubs are allowed at schools. Once you allow the spirit club to organize and meet on school property, you are legally compelled to allow Gay-Straight Alliances to do the same. This has been, naturally, a thorn in the side of a great deal of conservative school administrators, who were forced to choose between allowing GSAs and shutting down all student clubs altogether. Legal challenges along these lines have made a great deal of practical difference.
It bothers me when people pretend students have no rights, because when students think they have no rights they rarely seek to pursue them. And when they rarely seek to pursue them, it's like they might as well have none at all.
I wouldn't say otherwise about the homophobes, who are advocating a conception of social and economic justice based more closely on (some version of) biblical teaching and who very much desire to incite political change in order to bring America more closely in line with that vision--for instance, by rolling back gay marriage, workplace protections for gays and lesbians, and so on.
This. It's especially awesome because the Equal Access Act was pushed by Christian conservatives (Orrin Hatch IIRC) who wanted to make sure Bible-study clubs could meet at school. Oh hey, we didn't mean ALL groups were equal!
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
While its true schools cant ban one club without banning all clubs (we totally abused this when I was in high school...Contemporary Animation Club? We watched Family Guy and Home Movies and stuff, Gentleman's Athletic Club (Women Welcome)? Kickball) schools can limit expression. Punishing kids/sending kids home because theyre wearing offensive shirts is totally okay. I think it comes down to disruptive behavior.
If your teacher/advisor told you this, they were either lying or incompetent and should not hold that position.
Students absolutely have First Amendment protections. In regards to the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, those protections can be limited because they're in a school environment and need for orderly school and insert bogus arguments from SCOTUS here. Essentially, those limits are going to be if the expression advocates illegal activity (exhorting others to burn down the school or smoke pot) or is sexually explicit or actually threatening. Beyond that, yes, students have free-speech rights.
Do you really think a public school can send a student home for wearing a T-shirt that says "Re-elect Obama"? They might as well just place a call to the ACLU and beg to get sued blind and save some time.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
As far as I understand, 'offensiveness' is not a sufficient grounds for censorship. Threats or disruption are--however, disruption is required to be severe enough to interfere with the mission of the school, and cannot merely consist in the discomfort that comes with the expression of an unpopular view.
For instance:
So: offensive shirts are not legal grounds for sending someone home. And in this I think the law is right: schools, as Judge Duggan notes, are places where students can benefit from openly expressing their diverging viewpoints and learning to tolerate the opinions of others. Nor do students surrender their rights to free expression as soon as they pass through the schoolhouse gates.
Can be in this case means always.
Always what? You claimed that public school students in the US "do not have first amendment protection". This is, first of all, sloppy; the First Amendment covers religious freedom as well as free speech. Second, you were wrong. All of us have limits on our free speech - it's not absolute. In the case of public-school students in the US, those limits are stricter. They are not absolute.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.