| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| CAIR-OH: Suit Over School Ban on 'Islam is a Lie' T-Shirt |
| 2004-12-21 |
| James Nixon's fashion statement did not go unnoticed on Sept. 1 as he stood at his locker at Sheridan Middle School in Perry County. The front of the seventh-grader's black T-shirt proclaimed in white block letters: "INTOLERANT: Jesus said . . . I am the way, the truth and the life. John 14:6." The back of the T-shirt read: "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!" Spotted by a guidance counselor after third period, the 12-year-old was sent to the vice principal's office, where he was asked to remove the garment or turn it inside-out, James' family says in a lawsuit filed Dec. 3. School officials that day told the boy that the wording was offensive and disruptive. After he politely refused to remove the shirt, according to the lawsuit, his parents were told to take him home and James was threatened with suspension if he returned to school wearing it. The lawsuit accuses the Northern Local School District of violating the boy's rights of free speech and free exercise of religion
The school district's code of student conduct forbids clothing "that disrupts the educational process," including dress with "suggestive, obscene or offensive gang-related words and/or pictures..." Executive directors of groups representing Muslims, abortion-rights supporters and gays questioned Nixon's choice of attire. Jad Humeidan, executive director of the Ohio office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, saw dozens of people wearing the same shirt declaring "Islam is a lie" when Operation Rescue/Operation Save America rallied in Columbus in July, principally to protest abortion. "To me, the shirt is very offensive. We have to be careful about hate speech and making sure the civil rights of other students are not violated by persons bringing hateful material into schools," he said |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #39 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." THe kid was within rights. 1) Everything on that TShirt was true to a Christian. 2) It was a free exercise (however inapporpriate) of practice of his religion to state those things. 3) The school was singling out this incident and making a prohibition. So its wrong. The only mitigating factor is that this is a child, not an adult and therby does not have the full use of his rights in a public school. And Aris is correct when he points out that if somone wanted to make fun of the Jewish (old testament) religion, they could wear a tshirt with a line about not eating crustaceans or pigs (plenty of oddities to choose from in the pentateuch). Bottom line, unless they ban ALL shirts with slogans (as my son's school does), regardless of the content of the slogan, as part of the "School Dress Code", then this kid is within their rights. WHen they get into hairsplitting and making the school the arbiter of which words willb e allowed on Tshirts, then you get "arbitrary" prohibiitions liek this and get the usual anti-authoritarian reactiosn as well as the knee-jerk accusations of "discrimination". In the case of a school, better to ban them all then do it subjectively. During school, no child has a need for political or religious expression of that sort in school, especially at that age. As far as the Muslims being offended? TOugh. Welcome to America. If you dont like what we say about your religion, the either deal with it or change your religion: the Koran is farily barbaric in its literal descritptions of how to handle women and unbelievers as sub-humans and unworthy of respect. Catholic immigrants have been dealing with it for over a hundred years, from the KKK in the south to Catholic bashing that goes on in the "Blue State" areas of the country. Time for the MUslims to grow up. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-21 2:09:37 PM |
| #38 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." THe kid was within rights. 1) Everything on that TShirt was true to a Christian. 2) It was a free exercise (however inapporpriate) of practice of his religion to state those things. 3) The school was singling out this incident and making a prohibition. So its wrong. The only mitigating factor is that this is a child, not an adult and therby does not have the full use of his rights in a public school. And Aris is correct when he points out that if somone wanted to make fun of the Jewish (old testament) religion, they could wear a tshirt with a line about not eating crustaceans or pigs (plenty of oddities to choose from in the pentateuch). Bottom line, unless they ban ALL shirts with slogans (as my son's school does), regardless of the content of the slogan, as part of the "School Dress Code", then this kid is within their rights. WHen they get into hairsplitting and making the school the arbiter of which words willb e allowed on Tshirts, then you get "arbitrary" prohibiitions liek this and get the usual anti-authoritarian reactiosn as well as the knee-jerk accusations of "discrimination". In the case of a school, better to ban them all then do it subjectively. During school, no child has a need for political or religious expression of that sort in school, especially at that age. As far as the Muslims being offended? TOugh. Welcome to America. If you dont like what we say about your religion, the either deal with it or change your religion: the Koran is farily barbaric in its literal descritptions of how to handle women and unbelievers as sub-humans and unworthy of respect. Catholic immigrants have been dealing with it for over a hundred years, from the KKK in the south to Catholic bashing that goes on in the "Blue State" areas of the country. Time for the MUslims to grow up. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-21 2:09:37 PM |
| #37 The kid sounds like a punk; but he has a right to be punk if he wishes so long as he is not physically harming others. I don't care if somebody got offended. Too bad. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2004-12-21 4:43:57 PM |
| #36 Sorry, BA and OS, but having endured scatalogical, asinine attacks on my own religion (shit-smeared "madonna" paintings, the "piss Christ" etc) I can sympathize with CAIR and the muslim parents on this one. Arguments about religion's validity? Fine, bring 'em on. Name-calling and insults in the form of T-shirt slogans? That's not the way we want our children to form and express arguments. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-21 2:26:04 PM |
| #35 I'm with 2b on this one. Different standard for 12 year-olds in a school setting than for adults. School's nasty enough; there's no reason to burden the normal, dreary round of bullying and spitballs with political and religious wars. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-21 2:23:23 PM |
| #34 I agree, OS. Either transform your religion, or deal with it. I'm so sick of everyone being "offended" that they get their way. And now, courtesy of CAIR, they know to claim they're offended to silence the opposition. OS summed it up better than I could...he was within his rights, did not violate the letter of the school's policy, and when it gets down to it...this became a "rule of man" (or school official) vs. the "rule of law" (the policy). Our country was founded on the rule of law, and I don't see how one person's opinion (as the kid was a Christian) keeps a Muslim, abortionist or homosexual from practicing what they believe in. |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 2:21:32 PM |
| #33 Those things bug me too, BA, and you're points are well taken. Hatchet buried :-) Good points, too OS. No easy answers here. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 2:15:27 PM |
| #32 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." THe kid was within rights. 1) Everything on that TShirt was true to a Christian. 2) It was a free exercise (however inapporpriate) of practice of his religion to state those things. 3) The school was singling out this incident and making a prohibition. So its wrong. The only mitigating factor is that this is a child, not an adult and therby does not have the full use of his rights in a public school. And Aris is correct when he points out that if somone wanted to make fun of the Jewish (old testament) religion, they could wear a tshirt with a line about not eating crustaceans or pigs (plenty of oddities to choose from in the pentateuch). Bottom line, unless they ban ALL shirts with slogans (as my son's school does), regardless of the content of the slogan, as part of the "School Dress Code", then this kid is within their rights. WHen they get into hairsplitting and making the school the arbiter of which words willb e allowed on Tshirts, then you get "arbitrary" prohibiitions liek this and get the usual anti-authoritarian reactiosn as well as the knee-jerk accusations of "discrimination". In the case of a school, better to ban them all then do it subjectively. During school, no child has a need for political or religious expression of that sort in school, especially at that age. As far as the Muslims being offended? TOugh. Welcome to America. If you dont like what we say about your religion, the either deal with it or change your religion: the Koran is farily barbaric in its literal descritptions of how to handle women and unbelievers as sub-humans and unworthy of respect. Catholic immigrants have been dealing with it for over a hundred years, from the KKK in the south to Catholic bashing that goes on in the "Blue State" areas of the country. Time for the MUslims to grow up. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-12-21 2:09:37 PM |
| #31 I'm gonna drop out of this discussion, BA. You make some very valid points, and there are no easy answers to the problems here. But it seems to me that you are working waaay to hard to turn minor give and take events from everyday life in a headline for a Sean Hannity show. 2b: We agree to bury the hatchet! I guess it personally gets me riled (mostly) b/c the Muslims are "offended" (although, again, the article doesn't say any students complained) and the school kow-tows to them (I assume they're "offended" b/c the article is LINKED at CAIR's website). I'm NOT saying all Muslims are our enemies, but almost all our enemies are Muslim, eh? See my response in the "do away with all property taxes" article. Maybe, just maybe, vouchers and uniforms are the answer! And, I'm also riled up about this, because the policy's being enforced against the very beliefs this country was founded upon! I WHOLLY believe in the "slippery slope" theory...if we let this go, what's next? We can't QUOTE the Koran in response to Muslim's covering up of what their religion "o.k.'s" in light of the infidels? This just makes us appear weak (and, again, this was linked at CAIRs website, so the Muslims know about it, even though the public at large may not). |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 1:37:22 PM |
| #30 soo, when your daughter goes to school, and the boys start calling her a &^^%, and a ^%$# ...and everytime she walks by they say, "I want to *(*&(*&(*&(&(!!!, and she comes home crying every night because they are mean to her - you don't have a problem with that? Hopefully a talk with the boys' parents will convince them they need to teach their kids some manners. If not, well, everyone has to learn that people suck and you have to deal with it. What if they scream in her face, is that ok? Still free speech? I wouldn't be surprised if screaming in someone's face doesn't qualify as assault. And, no, it doesn't matter what's being said, it's the ACT -- and the implied threat of "screaming in the face" -- that makes it so. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-12-21 1:28:15 PM |
| #29 I'm gonna drop out of this discussion, BA. You make some very valid points, and there are no easy answers to the problems here. But it seems to me that you are working waaay to hard to turn minor give and take events from everyday life in a headline for a Sean Hannity show. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 1:24:43 PM |
| #28 #26, 2b: Is that a question to me or to Weird Al's post in #23? |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 1:19:25 PM |
| #27 Another random thought: the right to be offensive should be considered pretty much as an absolute right of free speech, as long as the people around you have an equal right to ignore you &/or walk away, neither of which is true in a school setting. Who says you can't ignore &/or walk away from you in a school? That's the student's choice to either confront or walk away. My point on the uniforms and communism is, again, it's a one size fits all approach (and, in the school's case, probably wouldn't be a bad thing), when our system of gov't is based on individuals, not the "collective whole." I think we'd ALL agree that the parents failed in this situation, which is where the fault (along with the kid) lies, but my argument is, gov't shouldn't be in the businees of enforcing the "right" to not be "offended" if it DOESN'T affect the learning environment, which, as Tom noted, was not the case (no students complained that I could tell according to the story). So, to sum up, one size fits all "punishments" are not the answer (we are individuals) and the fact remains that he DID NOT violate the letter of the school's policy, so why should he be punished? THAT gets into the "rule of law" vs. "the rule of man" (or school personnel in this case). I'm NOT arguing that anyone have the "right" to act like an idiot in school, just that if you can stop someone from wearing something "offensive" it's subjective as to what "offensive" is. I guess we are where we are now, though, when parents DON'T do their jobs, then you have to "enforce" manners somehow. I just long for a day that people act civilized and we DON'T have to have laws for everything (which results in excessive lawsuits). |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 1:13:41 PM |
| #26 soo, when your daughter goes to school, and the boys start calling her a &^^%, and a ^%$# ...and everytime she walks by they say, "I want to *(*&(*&(*&(&(!!!, and she comes home crying every night because they are mean to her - you don't have a problem with that? What if they scream in her face, is that ok? Still free speech? How far do you want to carry it? |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 1:05:28 PM |
| #25 Bring on the guy with the baseball bat, and maybe we could get rid of some of the metal detectors. What a great movie! And the sequal wasn't bad either! |
| Posted by: Crusader 2004-12-21 1:02:26 PM |
| #24 I see absolutely nothing wrong with using the courts to protect free speech, and I don't think the use of baseball bats to attain discipline would be an improvement. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-21 1:00:24 PM |
| #23 Another random thought: the right to be offensive should be considered pretty much as an absolute right of free speech, as long as the people around you have an equal right to ignore you &/or walk away, neither of which is true in a school setting. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2004-12-21 12:55:09 PM |
| #22 #21. Agree, oh boy, do I agree. Several issues lhere: first, where do people get the idea that it's OK to be a "brat" in school? If you follow that line, then it's OK to be an open gang member, sell drugs, etc on school grounds. The bottom line isn't just the schools, it's the fact that discipline in this country is a lost practice. Uniforms in school are communistic? Please. Tell that to the nuns. It's a manifectation of discipline, nothing more. We can sue over everything? Another prime example of our narcassitic (sp?) selves. No one should tell us what to do. "No boundries" as they say in the Outback ads. Bring on the guy with the baseball bat, and maybe we could get rid of some of the metal detectors. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2004-12-21 12:50:15 PM |
| #21 I'm sorry about the pill reference, but this just doesn't excite me. This is really a tempest in a teapot, if you ask me. But if you want to turn this into an example to ponder the limits of free speech, I won't interfere. I think it highlights another more problematic issue, that children and their parents think they can "sue" anytime a teacher tries to enforce even the smallest measure of decorum or discipline. The community/country enables the brats and their brat-enabling parents, because we are all so hung up on promoting our own poltical agendas. I guess we can use this to make the case for free speech, but what will we use to make the case for allowing the public schools to enforce mild discipline of intentionally offensive or bad behavior? |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 12:23:40 PM |
| #20 Tom sums it up. If you are to have these "policies", they need to be enforced across the board...not selectively. I, for one, wish schools would go back to teaching the "Three R's" (and I'm fairly young) and not get into the realm of social issues (with the exception of things that keep other students from learning). Since when should a school have any "clubs" (gay, religious or otherwise)? My neighbor (who is from Mexico) explained it this way..."I've never seen a country where a minority can RULE like in the U.S." If we're a democracy (which I'd argue, we're not, but a Constitutional Republic), then "majority rules," no? Then how can 1 student (or for that matter, one teacher) be "offended" and cause everyone to be punished? |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 12:14:15 PM |
| #19 Tolerance is a two way street. |
| Posted by: gromgorru 2004-12-21 12:11:08 PM |
| #18 I believe that Islam is a lie and that I have the right to say it when and where I choose to within the bounds of legal local policy. To me, the issue is whether or not the shirt violates the school policy and "disrupts the educational process". If another student complained, fine. But as I read it, the shirt was "Spotted by a guidance counselor after third period". No disruption, other than by the guidance counselor to the education of the wearer. If "offensive" is indeed the unofficial school policy, I wonder if the school has a gay students group, which James Nixon would find to be offensive. If so, they need to close it down |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-12-21 12:05:24 PM |
| #17 2b: I don't think I need to take a pill. Maybe it was INTENTIONALLY offensive, but that's what the PCers want...for all of us to think there's a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to NOT be offended. Again, I myself (or my child) wouldn't wear it, and the kid was probably looking for trouble, BUT we don't KNOW his intentions, and THAT is the problem with "hate crimes" laws and/or one size fits all "zero tolerance" policies...they try to get in the head and punish WHY something happened, not just the fact that it did happen. |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 12:03:17 PM |
| #16 drink up Aris, it will get funnier with each swig - for you, that is ;-) |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 12:00:28 PM |
| #15 mmmmm shrimp |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-21 11:59:58 AM |
| #14 Art thou denying the abomination unto the Lord that shrimps and the eating thereof verily is? Thou godless unbeliever! |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-21 11:57:45 AM |
| #13 funny....heh |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-21 11:55:09 AM |
| #12 Drinking from the eggnog, Aris? |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 11:54:41 AM |
| #11 "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!" The amusing thing is that if the T-shirt had been saying "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder, and eating shrimps is an abomination unto the Lord", it would be no less accurate biblically-speaking but the T-shirt would have then been a sarcastic attack on religious conservatives instead. Funny how these things work. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-12-21 11:52:04 AM |
| #10 wow, BA..take a pill. No need to go into orbit over what we all agree was an intentionally offensive T shirt. I agree with Mrs. D. If you have school vouchers, then parents can choose what level of BS they want their kids to put up with. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 11:33:45 AM |
| #9 This kind of BS disappears if you have vouchers. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-12-21 11:27:30 AM |
| #8 You failed to answer how any of the language on his shirt violated the school's policy I never said it did. I just said he was a brat, which clearly he is. I support school uniforms, you support something else. Do we really have a difference of opinion here? OK, true, you never stated that it violated the school's policy. But, then, if it did not violate that policy, are you OK with them threatening suspension? I'm with RC on this one...does "hateful material" include the Koran? Like yesterday's article on the 2 preachers in court in Australia under their "hate crimes" laws, they were not even allowed to quote (directly) the verses in the Koran which allowed (basically) women as property. They were only allowed to quote the citation (Surah? and verse), not what the verse said. That was basically all they had posted on their website, which led to the "hate crimes" charges, and, yet, they couldn't even quote (again, verbatim) the Koran to defend themselves (because the Muslims were "offended")! This event, in a US school, is just a precursor (think: slippery slope) of what Australia's now facing, and Political Correctness can lead to the death of our nation. When we fail to properly call out who our enemies are, we're in trouble! We have a difference of opinion on the uniforms issue, we agree on the violation of the school's policy, so my question to you now is...is it OK to suspend a student if he/she did NOT violate the letter of the school's policy, only that he/she ACTED like a brat? If you say that's o.k., then we have a BIG difference of opinion. |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 11:21:13 AM |
| #7 We have to be careful about hate speech and making sure the civil rights of other students are not violated by persons bringing hateful material into schools," he said Does "hateful material" include the Koran? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-12-21 10:42:33 AM |
| #6 You failed to answer how any of the language on his shirt violated the school's policy I never said it did. I just said he was a brat, which clearly he is. I support school uniforms, you support something else. Do we really have a difference of opinion here? |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 10:35:40 AM |
| #5 I'd be really unhappy if I was a parent and someone in my kid's school wore a shirt like that. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-12-21 10:27:30 AM |
| #4 You failed to answer how any of the language on his shirt violated the school's policy. Personally, and I'm a Christian, I wouldn't have worn it, but the fact remains that this is no less offensive than (to some) wearing certain rap artists shirts, etc. That's the problem with many school district's "zero tolerance" policies...one size DOES NOT fit all, and instead of taking on the one or two students causing problems, they punish the whole bunch. Forcing them to all wear uniforms may be one of a variety of solutions, but I lean toward the "individualistic/libertarian" stripe of letting people wear what they want within reason. The gov't shouldn't be in the business of mandating UNIFORM (meaning applies to everyone) codes, which belittles our individuality. Of course, when parents fail to do their job, what course do you have left but to make policies like we see now. But making everyone wear the same thing b/c 1 or 2 kids caused problems is a communist/socialist answer to me. |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 10:21:55 AM |
| #3 Yes, he is no less of a brat than others, trying to be offensive, but that makes him no less of a brat. Expressing one's free speech to offend is a right, but doesn't mean that one isn't acting like a jerk in the process. He can wear it after school....like all of the other brats should. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 10:12:34 AM |
| #2 2b: Why do you call him a brat? Seems to me that he has as much right to express his opinion as the gays, Muslims and (aborted) babies. And it says he was polite when he refused to take it off. To quote the article: The school district’s code of student conduct forbids clothing "that disrupts the educational process," including dress with "suggestive, obscene or offensive gang-related words and/or pictures..." None of the language on his shirt was "suggestive (assumed sexually), obscene (assumed cursing) or offensive gang-related words or pictures," unless you consider Christianity "gang-related". |
| Posted by: BA 2004-12-21 10:04:15 AM |
| #1 what a little brat - and his parents seem so proud. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as they say. One more reason to demand school uniforms at public schools. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-12-21 9:26:15 AM |