ACLU sues for students to wear anti-Islam shirts in Florida schools

[WillowTree]

It used to be that WillowTree only supported a Catholic priest's right to rape and sodomize young boys. But now she supports the rights of all religious figures to rape and sodomize young boys.

Of course that's just my opinion. With just as much a basis in actual fact as the assertion that the ACLU ever opposed Christianity.

Don't hate on me for having a different opinion.

the ACLU supports NAMBLA.. and terrorists, and illlegals.none of which is in the best interest of Americans,, hence they are anti American..and the ACLU absolutely opposes Christianity. Why else did they make the city of LA take the cross off it's logo?

they support everyone's rights and defend them no matter who they are. they took teh cross off b/c christian crap shouldn't be on city property.

but they are fine with the crescent and the menorrah.. ever hear of the aclu suing to have those emblems removed? newp!

 

[Si modo]

The ACLU needs to be held accountable for cases they lose. There should be some court costs paid. It would help limit cases with little merit.

I TOTALLY agree with that.

The courts should bitchslap the one bringing ANY frivolous case to the court with harsh fines.

I love how you are willing to break and bend laws just to punish a group you don't like. very american of you

What group do you think I don't like, blu?

 

[saveliberty]

The ACLU needs to be held accountable for cases they lose. There should be some court costs paid. It would help limit cases with little merit.

I TOTALLY agree with that.

The courts should bitchslap the one bringing ANY frivolous case to the court with harsh fines.

I love how you are willing to break and bend laws just to punish a group you don't like. very american of you

It is customary to pay court costs if you lose. Gee, they even make you pay when you win sometimes. When the ACLU wins they usually win a cash judgement. Just trying to be equal and fair.

 

[Si modo]

the ACLU supports NAMBLA.. and terrorists, and illlegals.none of which is in the best interest of Americans,, hence they are anti American..and the ACLU absolutely opposes Christianity. Why else did they make the city of LA take the cross off it's logo?

they support everyone's rights and defend them no matter who they are. they took teh cross off b/c christian crap shouldn't be on city property.

but they are fine with the crescent and the menorrah.. ever hear of the aclu suing to have those emblems removed? newp!

You are assuming that someone was actually offended by the use of a cresent and a menorah and went to the ACLU with a complaint. The ACLU decides to act or not on complaints it receives.

 

[blu]

I TOTALLY agree with that.

The courts should bitchslap the one bringing ANY frivolous case to the court with harsh fines.

I love how you are willing to break and bend laws just to punish a group you don't like. very american of you

It is customary to pay court costs if you lose. Gee, they even make you pay when you win sometimes. When the ACLU wins they usually win a cash judgement. Just trying to be equal and fair.

ok, sorry that I misread your post before. should wake up more first

 

[saveliberty]

the ACLU supports NAMBLA.. and terrorists, and illlegals.none of which is in the best interest of Americans,, hence they are anti American..and the ACLU absolutely opposes Christianity. Why else did they make the city of LA take the cross off it's logo?

they support everyone's rights and defend them no matter who they are. they took teh cross off b/c christian crap shouldn't be on city property.

but they are fine with the crescent and the menorrah.. ever hear of the aclu suing to have those emblems removed? newp!

I'm okay with the crescent. Its the freaking loud speaker call to prayer six times a day.

 

[Polk]

Let me just point out something here. Columbia University invites it's speakers. When they invited the minutemen I think they knew what the topic would be. So I only conclude that they knew that they would invite them to speak and then would cut off that free speech. They gave Immadinnahjacket a pass.. See? they know what they hell they were doing. So the suffer a terrorist regime and throw chairs at Americans they disagree with.. Oh the irony.

1. The university did not invite Gilchrist. He was invited by the university's chapter of College Republicans.
2. Ahmadinejad wasn't even remotely given a pass. In the introduction, the president of the university called him a "cruel and petty dictator" and said he was "astonishingly uneducated."

did they throw chairs at immadinnajact? shout him down? storm the stage? yes they gave him a pass. And, it wasn't college Republicans who denied Gilchrist his right to be heard,, it was guess who? liberals, thanks for making my point. The college allows speaker to be invited or not.

If you think savaging the guy is "giving him a pass", that only speaks to your unusual definitions. Also, it never said it was the people who invited him who did not allow him to speak. You made the claim that the university invited him to give a talk. That is not accurate.

 

[Polk]

they support everyone's rights and defend them no matter who they are. they took teh cross off b/c christian crap shouldn't be on city property.

but they are fine with the crescent and the menorrah.. ever hear of the aclu suing to have those emblems removed? newp!

You are assuming that someone was actually offended by the use of a cresent and a menorah and went to the ACLU with a complaint. The ACLU decides to act or not on complaints it receives.

Yeah. I'm trying to think of an area in which you would have a critical mass of either of those groups that would give rise to such an issue.

 

[manifold]

It used to be that WillowTree only supported a Catholic priest's right to rape and sodomize young boys. But now she supports the rights of all religious figures to rape and sodomize young boys.

Of course that's just my opinion. With just as much a basis in actual fact as the assertion that the ACLU ever opposed Christianity.

Don't hate on me for having a different opinion.

the ACLU supports NAMBLA.. and terrorists, and illlegals.none of which is in the best interest of Americans,, hence they are anti American..and the ACLU absolutely opposes Christianity. Why else did they make the city of LA take the cross off it's logo?

If you really believe any of that then you truly are an ignorant twat.

 

[Modbert]

If you really believe any of that then you truly are an ignorant twat.

Mani, why are you treating common knowledge as if it is breaking news?

 

[Si modo]

they support everyone's rights and defend them no matter who they are. they took teh cross off b/c christian crap shouldn't be on city property.

but they are fine with the crescent and the menorrah.. ever hear of the aclu suing to have those emblems removed? newp!

I'm okay with the crescent. Its the freaking loud speaker call to prayer six times a day.

 

[Polk]

The ACLU needs to be held accountable for cases they lose. There should be some court costs paid. It would help limit cases with little merit.

I TOTALLY agree with that.

The courts should bitchslap the one bringing ANY frivolous case to the court with harsh fines.

You realize one can lose a case without the suit being frivolous, right?

 

[saveliberty]

The ACLU needs to be held accountable for cases they lose. There should be some court costs paid. It would help limit cases with little merit.

I TOTALLY agree with that.

The courts should bitchslap the one bringing ANY frivolous case to the court with harsh fines.

You realize one can lose a case without the suit being frivolous, right?

You are correct, but the losing party often pays court costs. Is that an unreasonable expectation for the ACLU. They don't have a problem taking money when they win.

 

[bodecea]

ACLU sues for students to wear anti-Islam shirts in Florida schools - USATODAY.com

...

The ACLU used to only be anti-Christian, just like most liberals. Then Muslims started beheading infidels and they realized they had to do something or lose what little credibility they still had. So they came up with the idea that all religions are bad, not just Christianity. Ten years ago, this would not have happened.

You have no clue how they've fought for freedom OF religion, have you?

 

[Diuretic]

That's why schools have to go with uniforms. The ACLU also thinks gang symbols are ok. Most parents do not. Children do not have the same freedom of speech rights as adults. The ACLU won't accept that.

Just a tiny bit off topic but that reminded me of this;

* School-related deaths, school shootings, and school crisis incidents have been identified through print and electronic news sources, professional contacts, and other nationwide sources, by Kenneth S. Trump, President, National School Safety and Security Services, Inc. (Cleveland, Ohio). This is not presented as an exhaustive list or as a scientific study. Additional incidents may be added pending review of additional items on file and new information received during the course of the school year.

Honest Truth : DYING TO GO TO SCHOOL SHOOTING STABBINGS AND BEATINGS

 

[Diuretic]

People are free to express hate and promote violence anywhere on the internet or at the dinner table. CHILDREN cannot do that at school. They cannot say it; write it; or wear it. It is not about the LAW - it is about maintaining rules and standards of conduct in the classroom. It is despicable that they would want to prevent educators from TEACHING acceptable behavior. I'm hopeful they will lose.

That seems reasonable and perhaps that's how it will pan out. Perhaps the ACLU is simply stepping up to put up a defence on principle to try and clarify the law or at least the policy position. It seems reasonable for a school not to put up with any behaviour that isn't aligned with the purposes of education and student management.

 

[Diuretic]

Incoming! Ferriner opinion!

I thought the ACLU was about protecting the constitution. This looks like a First Amendment issue. Religion and the state is another constitutional issue isn't it?

So it's not inconsistent for the ACLU to go to bat to support these brats, sorry, these students and their right to freedom of expression and yet in another instance support the issue of the state and religion (all I know is that it apparently is a stricture against a state religion but I think it's been interpreted a bit more broadly now).

Didn't the ACLU go in to bat the Nazis in Skokie, Ill.?

Whoops. Freudian typo - didn't the ACLU go in to bat FOR the Nazis in Skokie?

(Look it's not me, I just happen to have a leftist keyboard, okay?)

It's 'go to bat', you damn ferener.

Yes, the ACLU defended the rights of Illinois Nazis to have a demonstration in Skokie because the freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and in our Bill of Rights. Protection from being offended is not.

Both that case and this case make perfect sense to me.

I remind myself of that old movie where several OSS agents are in occupied France trying to blend in. In one scene they're in a restaurant and about to eat dinner when one of them - the fool! - picks up his knife and fork and cuts the food on his plate, then sets down his knife and transfers the fork to his right hand and begins to eat.....uh-oh......

"Go to bat" - I need to write that out a hundred times

 

[Diuretic]

We get a great deal of moral relativism from folks here on USMB. Obama is at least better than Bush. Republicans have problems too. So on and so forth. Accepting less than a standard is a big problem for America. We excuse politicans, educators, employers and ourselves for falling short.

I agree. And I also read earlier that someone said that libs tell everyone what they can do and conservatives tell people what they can't. Decent generalization that I can somewhat agree with. But as far as children... Don't get me started. Kids need boundaries - and for the most part - they respect them. It's the loonies that keep moving the goal post - to the detriment of those they claim to support. I'd like to see one of these kids try to get a job wearing those shirts. Aren't schools supposed to prepare children for the "real world"?

I was with you up til the bold part. No, schools are not supposed to prepare kids for the real world. They are to teach them math, reading, writing and other skills. PARENTS are supposed to prepare them for the real world.

My kids went to private school K-12. It wasn't the teachers that made the difference. It was the expectations of the parents, imparted to the kids. This translated to a peer group that championed learning and excelling.

I don't want to be pointed but if you quickly scan the history of education - and I mean all over the world - you can see where learning for its own sake gave way to learning for the real world. I think the marker is the Industrial Revolution. Workers were needed for the factories and other businesses, so education (previously the province of the well-off) had to be industrialised to produce people ready for work in the new economy. Yes parents bring their children up for the real world for sure, but schools have a hand in that too.

 

[saveliberty]

I agree. And I also read earlier that someone said that libs tell everyone what they can do and conservatives tell people what they can't. Decent generalization that I can somewhat agree with. But as far as children... Don't get me started. Kids need boundaries - and for the most part - they respect them. It's the loonies that keep moving the goal post - to the detriment of those they claim to support. I'd like to see one of these kids try to get a job wearing those shirts. Aren't schools supposed to prepare children for the "real world"?

I was with you up til the bold part. No, schools are not supposed to prepare kids for the real world. They are to teach them math, reading, writing and other skills. PARENTS are supposed to prepare them for the real world.

My kids went to private school K-12. It wasn't the teachers that made the difference. It was the expectations of the parents, imparted to the kids. This translated to a peer group that championed learning and excelling.

I don't want to be pointed but if you quickly scan the history of education - and I mean all over the world - you can see where learning for its own sake gave way to learning for the real world. I think the marker is the Industrial Revolution. Workers were needed for the factories and other businesses, so education (previously the province of the well-off) had to be industrialised to produce people ready for work in the new economy. Yes parents bring their children up for the real world for sure, but schools have a hand in that too.

Learning for learning's sake is sort of the definition of a liberal arts education. It is still there last time I looked. I don't mind school's having a hand in it. Many use it as an excuse for the school to lead.

 

[Diuretic]

I was with you up til the bold part. No, schools are not supposed to prepare kids for the real world. They are to teach them math, reading, writing and other skills. PARENTS are supposed to prepare them for the real world.

My kids went to private school K-12. It wasn't the teachers that made the difference. It was the expectations of the parents, imparted to the kids. This translated to a peer group that championed learning and excelling.

I don't want to be pointed but if you quickly scan the history of education - and I mean all over the world - you can see where learning for its own sake gave way to learning for the real world. I think the marker is the Industrial Revolution. Workers were needed for the factories and other businesses, so education (previously the province of the well-off) had to be industrialised to produce people ready for work in the new economy. Yes parents bring their children up for the real world for sure, but schools have a hand in that too.

Learning for learning's sake is sort of the definition of a liberal arts education. It is still there last time I looked. I don't mind school's having a hand in it. Many use it as an excuse for the school to lead.

I'm quite happy to agree with the purpose of a liberal education. It should produce someone with critical faculties who can see through bullshit. Unfortunately that seems to have fallen by the wayside in many places. We seem to be producing people who don't like to think and are ready to accept whatever appeal is made to them provided it's done so artfully.

While I support and appreciate the idea of learning for it own sake I recalled a line from A.N.Whitehead from "The Aims of Education". I must tell you the first time I read this I was affronted. Now not so much.

Culture is activity of thought, and receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God’s earth. What we should aim at producing is men who possess both culture and expert knowledge in some special direction. Their expert knowledge will give them the ground to start from, and their culture will lead them as deep as philosophy and as high as art. We have to remember that the valuable intellectual development is self-development, and that it mostly takes place between the ages of sixteen and thirty. As to training, the most important part is given by mothers before the age of twelve. A saying due to Archbishop Temple illustrates my meaning. Surprise was expressed at the success in after-life of a man, who as a boy at Rugby had been somewhat undistin-guished. He answered, “It is not what they are at eighteen, it is what they become afterwards that matters.”

Alfred North Whitehead "The Aims of Education"