His teacher, Julie Millin, asked him to remove the reference to the Bible, saying students were making remarks about it. He refused, and she gave him a zero on the project.
Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork. The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.
OK, that's not going to fly.
The boy tore the policy up in front of Millin, who kicked him out of class. Later that day, assistant principal Cale Jackson told the boy his religious expression infringed on other students' rights.
And those rights would include the right not to have to know that someone else is religious? It figures this took place in Madison, WI.
This school is so out of line, I genuinely and honestly hope that either
a) the school district goes broke in their losing court battle to defend their stupid policy, or
b) people get fired over a policy so clearly unconstitutional.
7 comments:
You are 100% correct, what part of the 1st amendment don't they understand. This is the equivalent of forbidding the wearing of religious jewelry such as a necklace with a cross.
A public school system can't require the giving up of constitutional rights to attend school. Infringe? This case if much worse than infringement. Plus, I've never heard of constitutional right to not know someone is religious.
Of course, lefties have a huge logic deficiency.
Amazing. If he simply refused to do the art project he'd get at least a 50% grade
There's nothing particularly difficult to understand in the First Amendment, or any of the others, so it isn't a lack of understanding but a difference in the perception of themselves and the rest of the human race.
Lefties reject the notion of inalienable rights because it conflicts with their belief that "all men are created equal". Since some, in their mythos, are inherently superior to others the notion of equality before the law doesn't apply.
Consequently, "rights" are really privileges which may be extended or curtailed at the whim of whoever's in authority. And of course, the law doesn't apply to law-makers.
Dang, that should have read:
Lefties reject the notion of inalienable rights because it conflicts with their belief that "all men are *not* created equal".
I still wonder if the policy was one solely used for that class/room, or if it is a school-wide or district-wide policy. Seems like an odd one regardless.
The teacher's reasoning is obviously flawed as well. I could even buy asking the student to change the artistry if it took away the intent of the assignment, but to give a zero seems harsh and unrealistic.
Seemed like a great time for the teacher to sit down with the student and ask why the landscape assignment became a religious piece. What inspired this? Something of that sort could have deepened their understandings of one another, especially since art--not to mention religion--can be such a personal aspect of one's life.
That school failed this test big time.
I found it interesting to find this blog just days before a blog denouncing comminist teachers, or even persons with memberships to any communist party being able to work on school grounds even for charity. Is that truly a better freedom?
If you don't see the difference between government prohibiting the expression of a religion that over 90% of Americans say they hold, and the government's hiring (or not) people whose stated goals are the complete destruction of our constitutional form of government, then we're not going to find any comment ground to carry on a discussion.
Post a Comment