Student Sues School District and Teacher After Being Punished for Expressing His Religious Beliefs

[sedonaman]

Can you provide a source for this, the only apparent fact in your lengthy post?

Too long for you to grasp the point? Apparently so. At the risk of providing you more fodder to go off topic and derail the discussion, here it is thefire.org/article/13383.html.

 

[sedonaman]

Here is the statement by the Howell Public School District in response to the lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center
howellschools.com/news.cfm?story=87857&school=0

It is dated one week ago, so papers may have been served by now.

Not addressed in this statement is why the school district, the school board, and the school [the “School”] were engaging in political advocacy instead of the pursuit of truth. See paragraphs 18 – 25.

1. The School District, in cooperation with the NEA, the MEA, and the HEA, and through its training, supervision, policies, practices, customs, and/or procedures indoctrinate students to believe that homosexuality is normal and acceptable and that religious opposition to homosexuality is harassment, bullying, hate speech, and homophobic. This indoctrination creates a school environment that favors homosexuality and disfavors and/or is hostile toward religious opposition to homosexuality.

1. The NEA, through the MEA, the HEA, and affiliated public schools, designates October as the “bullying prevention month” and, by no coincidence, October is also “LGBT History Month,” which is intended to “bring] awareness to the problems and the achievements of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people.” According to the MEA, “LGBT History Month not only serves as a time to study and celebrate gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender history, but also to focus the public’s attention [on] issues such as discrimination, marriage rights, AIDS and domestic partner benefits.”

1. October 20, 2010, was anti-bullying day at Howell High School.

1. Opposing homosexuality on religious grounds is considered “bullying” by the NEA, the MEA, the HEA, and Defendants.

1. In cooperation with the NEA, the MEA, and the HEA, and in furtherance of the national agenda of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (“GLAAD”), the School District permitted the celebration of “Spirit Day” at Howell High School on October 20, 2010.

1. Spirit Day is promoted nationally by GLAAD, which is an activist group that promotes the acceptance of homosexuality as a behavioral norm. In particular, GLAAD focuses its political agenda on the public schools since it has the support of the NEA, which in turn influences local public schools through organizations such as the MEA and the HEA.

1. As part of its agenda, GLAAD is working “to fight anti-LGBT hateful speech” in the public schools. Plaintiffs’ religious viewpoint toward homosexuality is considered “anti- LGBT hate speech.”

1. Promoting Spirit Day in the public schools is one way in which Defendants, in cooperation with GLAAD, the NEA, the MEA, and the HEA, are fighting harassment, bullying, homophobia, and “hate speech.”

The School along with these organizations should be charged with a conspiracy to indoctrinate students with a particular political point of view. The School in particular should be singled out for prosecution because, as a government entity, it did not maintain a position neutral to religion.

 

[sedonaman]

If the teacher was intent on discussing the topic of homosexuality in class instead of economics, he might have transformed this event from a case of civil-rights infringement into a discussion about politics and morality.

I disagree. The teacher should save the world on his own time.

According to the link, as I understand it, the whole incident was triggered by the teacher’s telling another student to remove his confederate belt buckle since it offended him. It was at that point when the student who opposed homosexuality based on his religious convictions protested that the teacher was being hypocritical.

Agreed.

…Instead, he chose to give the class a very different lesson: one of intolerance toward those who do not think the way we do.

Who are “we” in this sentence?

 

[estesbob]

If the teacher was intent on discussing the topic of homosexuality in class instead of economics, he might have transformed this event from a case of civil-rights infringement into a discussion about politics and morality. According to the link, as I understand it, the whole incident was triggered by the teacher’s telling another student to remove his confederate belt buckle since it offended him. It was at that point when the student who opposed homosexuality based on his religious convictions protested that the teacher was being hypocritical. If the teacher had better teaching skills, he might have converted this into a teachable moment regarding freedom of speech in areas such as religion and dress as they relate to moral issues. Instead, he chose to give the class a very different lesson: one of intolerance toward those who do not think the way we do.

Or better yet the teacher could have said “let’s forget about flags and belt buckles and ones opinion on homosexual behavior and return to our discussion of the impact on Kensyian economic”

 

[sedonaman]

Thanks for the update Looks like the District admits the teacher was wrong. Good for them

They are back-peddling and throwing him under the bus for hyping what the District was promoting all along.

 

[sedonaman]

Or better yet the teacher could have said “let’s forget about flags and belt buckles and ones opinion on homosexual behavior and return to our discussion of the impact on Kensyian economic”

This is true, but it’s not how government bureaucracies work. Their employees are required to compliment the emperor’s new clothes.

 

[GraceSofia]

Quote:
"estesbob:

Acknowledging the sinfullness of homosexual behavior is not homophobic.

Nope, still is.

Calling someone homophobic is insulting; name-calling in an attempt to silence others is a bullying behavior.

It is quite possible to know that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful without having an irrational fear of homosexuals.

 

[nickybr38]

Quote:

Calling someone homophobic is insulting; name-calling in an attempt to silence others is a bullying behavior.

It is quite possible to know that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful without having an irrational fear of homosexuals.

The majority of my friends are homosexual (i know, I know, people always pull this card BUT it’s true). They KNOW I disagree with their actions but they also know I love who they are as people.

Homophobia is an irrational fear of someone because they are homosexual. People who see the actions as wrong are not homophobic because they do not fear the homosexual person, they just hate the homosexual action.

 

[sedonaman]

…Homophobia is an irrational fear of someone because they are homosexual. …

It is not phobic to fear those who form political coalitions to tell you what to think.

 

[nickybr38]

It is not phobic to fear those who form political coalitions to tell you what to think.

I agree. That’s why I said ‘irriational’ fear. But it goes both ways…

 

[Hokomai]

Too long for you to grasp the point? Apparently so. At the risk of providing you more fodder to go off topic and derail the discussion, here it is thefire.org/article/13383.html.

You said: “Never mind the facts of the case, the alleged perpetrator was guilty ipso facto, so he was expelled by his school”. This means he was found guilty because the allegation was made. Your source makes it clear that this was NOT the case, and that the decision was made ‘on the preponderance of evidence’ after a hearing. In my jurisdiction, it is standard to distinguish between the criminal sandard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and a civil standard of ‘balance of probabilities’. It seems the same thing was applied here. Please don’t bother with personal invective in your response if any to this post. I will take it as read.

 

[sedonaman]

You said: “Never mind the facts of the case, the alleged perpetrator was guilty ipso facto, so he was expelled by his school”. This means he was found guilty because the allegation was made. Your source makes it clear that this was NOT the case, and that the decision was made ‘on the preponderance of evidence’ after a hearing. In my jurisdiction, it is standard to distinguish between the criminal sandard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and a civil standard of ‘balance of probabilities’. It seems the same thing was applied here. Please don’t bother with personal invective in your response if any to this post. I will take it as read.

So how do you think this case applies to my original point? [Hint: You first have to figure out what my original point was.]

 

[Hokomai]

So how do you think this case applies to my original point? [Hint: You first have to figure out what my original point was.]

Your original point is that what happened at the school was an outrage and would discourage others from expressing their views. Turns out the school agrees. I think the relevance of my last post to your original point is that unlike the school you did not come to a balanced judgement; rather you assumed the facts of the complainant’s case, and drew false conclusions about the safety of those who wished to speak freely at the school. Using criteria of ‘balance of probabilities’, after looking at the different ides of an issue, can help avoid falling into the traps of false thinking. This is especially true if you have a tendency to anger or irritation. In my experience both these are likely to lead to rash, and false judgements. Thanks for asking.

 

[sedonaman]

Your original point is that what happened at the school was an outrage and would discourage others from expressing their views. …

It is an outrage and would discourage others, but that was not my point in mentioning the case of the student accused of rape.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Quote:

Calling someone homophobic is insulting; name-calling in an attempt to silence others is a bullying behavior.

It is quite possible to know that homosexual acts are disordered and sinful without having an irrational fear of homosexuals.

And calling something sinful and disordered is just a convenient way to cloak your aversion and disgust in religious terminology. Not to mention it is patently insulting and used as the ultimate H-bomb in a conversation. What could possible be more silencing than; “Well, God said so.”

Please. Acknowledge your own behavior and the behavior you support in addition to what it reaps before you come after mine.

 

[Hokomai]

It is an outrage and would discourage others, but that was not my point in mentioning the case of the student accused of rape.

So what was your point?

 

[ConcernedApathy]

:

Homophobia is an irrational fear of someone because they are homosexual. People who see the actions as wrong are not homophobic because they do not fear the homosexual person, they just hate the homosexual action.

Ok, I’ll play along. Homophobia is no more the irrational fear of homosexuals than agoraphobia is the irrational fear of marketplaces. Definitions change mostly because people change them but the truth is its not properly categorized and can’t be lumped in with things like claustrophobia or somniphobia.

But even those definitions aren’t entirely accurate, somiphobia is not just the fear of going to sleep, its the fear of death or nightmares while sleeping. And claustrophobia is not just the fear of small places its a fear of what the body and mind does in response to feelings precipitated from being in that small place. Each of those definitions stretch beyond the simple definition of the two words in question put together.

While homophobic is not technically the best term, at the moment its the best we have in terms of what is universally understood and responded to. And also at the moment the only people who try and defend their prejudice against homosexuals by saying “Well I’m not afraid of them.” are conservatives trying to play semantics. It’s a feeling of irrational aversion, dislike, antipathy, disgust, dismay, revulsion etc. etc. If you want to come up with a new and better word that lumps all that together then be my guest. Until then, the rest of the US has decided to go with homophobic.

 

[estesbob]

And calling something sinful and disordered is just a convenient way to cloak your aversion and disgust in religious terminology.

Actually it is affirming 2000 years of teachings and traditions of the Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. . If you have a problem with that you must ask yourself why you have chosen to to involve yourself in a Catholic forum

 

[nickybr38]

Ok, I’ll play along. Homophobia is no more the irrational fear of homosexuals than agoraphobia is the irrational fear of marketplaces. Definitions change mostly because people change them but the truth is its not properly categorized and can’t be lumped in with things like claustrophobia or somniphobia.

But even those definitions aren’t entirely accurate, somiphobia is not just the fear of going to sleep, its the fear of death or nightmares while sleeping. And claustrophobia is not just the fear of small places its a fear of what the body and mind does in response to feelings precipitated from being in that small place. Each of those definitions stretch beyond the simple definition of the two words in question put together.

While homophobic is not technically the best term, at the moment its the best we have in terms of what is universally understood and responded to. And also at the moment the only people who try and defend their prejudice against homosexuals by saying “Well I’m not afraid of them.” are conservatives trying to play semantics. It’s a feeling of irrational aversion, dislike, antipathy, disgust, dismay, revulsion etc. etc. If you want to come up with a new and better word that lumps all that together than be my guest. Until then, the rest of the US has decided to go with homophobic.

Pardon me but the definition I gave is how the people I know define the term homophobic. So everyone I know has an improper understanding?

In my circle homophobic has always meant being afraid of homosexuals. Being unable to be in their presence because you might ‘catch something’. Hating someone simply because of their sexual habits. That is how it is defined where I am and in my circles so that’s how I understand it.

If others understand it differently then so be it but when I see the term that is what it means to me.

PS: And as I previously stated my circle consists mainly of non-Christians. Outright ‘heathens’ if you would. Haha. Yes, I am the ‘black sheep’ of my friends but they love me anyway.

 

[estesbob]

Ok, I’ll play along. Homophobia is no more the irrational fear of homosexuals than agoraphobia is the irrational fear of marketplaces. Definitions change mostly because people change them but the truth is its not properly categorized and can’t be lumped in with things like claustrophobia or somniphobia.

But even those definitions aren’t entirely accurate, somiphobia is not just the fear of going to sleep, its the fear of death or nightmares while sleeping. And claustrophobia is not just the fear of small places its a fear of what the body and mind does in response to feelings precipitated from being in that small place. Each of those definitions stretch beyond the simple definition of the two words in question put together.

While homophobic is not technically the best term, at the moment its the best we have in terms of what is universally understood and responded to. And also at the moment the only people who try and defend their prejudice against homosexuals by saying “Well I’m not afraid of them.” are conservatives trying to play semantics. It’s a feeling of irrational aversion, dislike, antipathy, disgust, dismay, revulsion etc. etc. If you want to come up with a new and better word that lumps all that together then be my guest. Until then, the rest of the US has decided to go with homophobic.

Homophobia ,like racist, is a term that is been so overused, almost always to try to shut down the discussion, that has lost all meaning. It is like the little boy who cried Wolf, the last refuge of those who have nothing to say.