Nova Scotia student suspended over "Life is wasted without Jesus" t-shirt

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If he had a problem with the rule, there are many ways to protest besides just wearing the shirt. If I wanna go out and protest that drugs should be legal, I'm not gonna go up to a cop car, make a few rails and snort away while injecting myself with smack while smoking a doobie, because I know damned well I'll be going to jail.

Those things are so far apart that your point is in opposite orbits of planets on the opposite side of the galaxy.

If he wore a shirt that said Choose Pot, or Legalize drugs it would be equivalent.

The Student in question wasn't pursuing an illegal act, he wasn't walking up to Muslims and screaming in their face while stabbing a picture of Mohammed.

He was wearing a shirt with a slogan, nothing more.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

you could argue that the rule goes against individual rights and freedoms though.

Then the student can argue it. Through the proper channels.

But as I said, lots of rights and freedoms are limited for good reasons, and having a rule against shirts that target others (beliefs, culture, race, etc) is a reasonable limitation in a situation where the freedom can't go the other way (i.e. students aren't allowed to leave).

If you removed the rule and let people wear whatever shirts with whatever message they wanted, it would escalate out of control, some people don't respect anyone and just want to watch the world burn.. in fact I think that's a requirement for being a teenager

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Someone has made a pretty weird leap in declaring that slogan as offensive.

It's very close to the line but it is over the line. Add the word My in front and it's fine.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He was wearing a shirt with a slogan, nothing more.

And he was breaking the rules. End of discussion to me. Break the rules, suffer the punishment. If you hate the stupidity of the rule, cool. Doesn't change the fact he got suspended for breaking the rules. Protesting a rule or law by outwardly breaking it will result in only one thing: Punishment.

[MarchHare]

The Student in question wasn't pursuing an illegal act, he wasn't walking up to Muslims and screaming in their face while stabbing a picture of Mohammed.

He was wearing a shirt with a slogan, nothing more.

What if the slogan had said "God hates fags" or "The Jews killed my Lord"? Would those be acceptable to wear to school? He's merely stating his religious beliefs, right?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

No ....who do I sound like HP? Hitler? I bet that's what you were leaning toward.

You can tolerate other "minority beliefs" without undermining/minimizing your own.

Tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

You couldn't tell?

You said you don't care about others having their ability to voice their beliefs and values crushed on behalf of defending "Western moral tradition." For the life of me, I can't see "crushing" in your definition of tolerance there.

It is perfectly clear that you don't actually preach tolerance of any sort. You might wish to disguise your thinly veiled bigotry (remember, tolerance is freedom from bigotry, as per your definition) and close-minded hand-wringing over the supposed destruction of western morality and culture -- and I've heard others claim the same thing, but I've never yet heard what morals and what culture is really being destroyed, or seen any actual examples that aren't disproven by real numbers, so I'm still waiting -- but it's not difficult to see through your facade.

In the end, I suppose I'm happier with being a liberal ninny than whatever the hell you are.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unless the school has a uniform code then its invalid and based upon a enlightened few in terms of what's offensive and what's not.

But, it does have a uniform code, that this t-shirt falls outside of.

The rule may be stupid, but it is a bloody high-school. They all have stupid rules. Follow them or suffer the consequences.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

Originally Posted by photon

It's very close to the line but it is over the line. Add the word My in front and it's fine.

It's over your line, that's fair. It's not over my line or the Captain's. Where is the line? If the shirt had attacked another religion then absolutely that is over the line. But it can only be interpreted as attacking (I can see how it can be seen that way). Maybe I am missing something here. I think a large part of this problem is where the line is

Edit: the press release says anything that may offend someone's beliefs. Fair, I think it's too far but fair. It also says anything that may offend someone's culture or lifestyle. Can't that be interpreted as just about anything?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

No one's limiting his freedom of expression, he can wear his shirt in public, to the store, whatever.

Freedom of expression does not equate to being able to do whatever one wants whenever one wants wherever one wants.

Freedom of expression is frequently limited for very good reasons... I seem to recall you not being on the side of the Occupiers downtown in Calgary, but the court case with them said that their tents ARE part of their freedom of expression, but there were circumstances that had to be considered and when they were it was reasonable to limit their freedoms.

I was anti Occupy because it was literally a protest about nothing, It was more about people sitting in a park, partying, smoking dope, pooping in a public place, denying a group who rented the park from actually using all of a park.

[/quote]This is no different, having rules about wearing offensive shirts is a reasonable limitation on freedoms because a) it just promotes the whole "do unto others" idea b) students can't just leave school if they don't like the shirt and c) keeping peace among teenagers is difficult enough without unnecessary distractions.[/quote]

My disagreement point is that I don't see anything on that shirt that is offensive, I think its a real stretch to make it offensive. I think its a really weak interpretation of offensive by the suspending body, and I think that the punishment is extremely punative in the face of lighter suspensions for fighting for example or a lack of action in terms of bullying that we've read about in the paper over the last two years.

Originally Posted by photon

Wearing a shirt that denigrates others is like trolling the forums, except that people can leave the forums, they can't leave school.

I just don't see it as a denigration of anything, maybe he's born again and this is his testimony.

Originally Posted by photon

I'm sure he does feel that way, I'm sure he feels that everyone who doesn't subscribe to his particular beliefs are going to hell for all eternity.

Where was that stated on the shirt?

Originally Posted by photon

The slogan targets others' religion saying they're worthless, which is against the rules.

Where does it state anything about other religions in that slogan? You can't banish or suspended based on filling in the blanks with your own personal interprestation.

Originally Posted by photon

If the student doesn't like the rule then he can work to get it changed. Of course if it is changed, then there's no problem with wearing a shirt that says "Life is wasted if you're not white." right?

Photes that's a real stretch. The suspension is based on an interpretation, not on hard facts. If the shirt was actually naming other religions, or had a component of hate speech, suspend away, but I don't think that you can punish someone based on your interpretation.

Originally Posted by photon

Weeks of ignoring requests to comply with the clearly outlined rules doesn't justify a suspension? Rules are ok to ignore as long as you really really want to?

You could argue that weeks of ignoring requests is a legitimate protest in this case.

Just playing devils advocate on this, but I would be more interesting in seeing what the warnings were like, if they were written warnings etc.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Regardless of some of the details of this story that I missed (the kid defying orders), you can't deny the general hostility in the public mind towards christianity these days.

Quick, catch those goalposts!

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Those things are so far apart that your point is in opposite orbits of planets on the opposite side of the galaxy.

They're only different in degree, not in essence. They're both protesting a rule by defiantly breaking the rule.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Student in question wasn't pursuing an illegal act, he wasn't walking up to Muslims and screaming in their face while stabbing a picture of Mohammed.

He was wearing a shirt with a slogan, nothing more.

In the context of the school he was doing an "illegal" act. The difference between breaking a school rule while on school property and breaking a law while on school property is in degree; the rules apply to the students just like the laws do.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What if the slogan had said "God hates fags" or "The Jews killed my Lord"? Would those be acceptable to wear to school? He's merely stating his religious beliefs, right?

Nope, that would fall under hate speech, it names and attacks a specific group or religion very clearly and those slogans are extremely anyi Jew and homosexuals, its a long leap from what he wore and those.

Last time I checked, open hate speech and slogans were clearly defined and punishable.

the shirt that this kid was wearing in my opinion comes nowhere close to that line.

[dissentowner]

I would wear this shirt from tshirt hell.

[photon]

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

It's over your line, that's fair. It's not over my line or the Captain's. Where is the line?

Lines like this are subjective, and ultimately the closer you get to a line the harder it is to determine if something is on one side or another.

But the line is:

"If a message can be reasonably interpreted by a person as negative towards another person's beliefs..."

Reasonable people in this thread interpret as negative towards another person's beliefs, as did the people making the decision. I don't see how it isn't reasonable to interpret it that way.

I think adding "My" to the front is useful:

"My life is wasted without Jesus", clearly talking about one's own life
"Life is wasted without Jesus", what is being wasted? Life. All life because there's no qualifier, saying it means any subset of life without a qualifier is adding meaning where none is written. So all life without Jesus, meaning all life that isn't a Christian life (because life with Jesus is by definition Christian).

Originally Posted by M*A*S*H 4077

It also says anything that may offend someone's culture or lifestyle. Can't that be interpreted as just about anything?

Sure. It's a school, if they want to wear shirts that belittle others they can do it after school.

This is why I like uniforms.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by jammies

If you agree with the message, it's a principled stand. If you disagree, it's disrespect for authority.

And... Nailed it!

I look forward to the continuing argument between those who support the right of this kid to be a jerkface - because he's OUR kind of jerkface - and those who disagree with his right to be an annoying git because he's not the right kind of annoying git.

Although, to be fair, there are a few people who have arrived at a rational conclusion - which of course I define as "seem to agree with my assessment of the situation". If only the whole world were so reasonable!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

No ....who do I sound like HP? Hitler? I bet that's what you were leaning toward.

You can tolerate other "minority beliefs" without undermining/minimizing your own.

Tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nope, that would fall under hate speech, it names and attacks a specific group or religion very clearly and those slogans are extremely anyi Jew and homosexuals, its a long leap from what he wore and those.

Last time I checked, open hate speech and slogans were clearly defined and punishable.

the shirt that this kid was wearing in my opinion comes nowhere close to that line.

Yeah I really don't see the difference between this shirt and wearing other religious symbols like crosses, yamukahs, islamic head coverings, sikh turbins, etc....

His shirt basically proclaims that his religion is the best in his opinion. However, when anyone wears a religious symbol of any kind they are doing that.

As for how people interpret it...who cares? You don't have the right not to be offended by others' beliefs. I could easily interpret a Muslim or Jewish symbol to mean that student thinks their religion is better than others. People are allowed to think and express that as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others to their own beliefs.

If this student was going around aggressively attacking or pushing his beliefs on others and this was the last straw, yeah ban the t-shirt. If he's just sitting there with a t-shirt that essentially says "I think Jesus is the best option" and others are reading into it, then we are being way to sensitive.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

Lines like this are subjective, and ultimately the closer you get to a line the harder it is to determine if something is on one side or another.

But the line is:

"If a message can be reasonably interpreted by a person as negative towards another person's beliefs..."

Reasonable people in this thread interpret as negative towards another person's beliefs, as did the people making the decision. I don't see how it isn't reasonable to interpret it that way.

I think adding "My" to the front is useful:

"My life is wasted without Jesus", clearly talking about one's own life
"Life is wasted without Jesus", what is being wasted? Life. All life because there's no qualifier, saying it means any subset of life without a qualifier is adding meaning where none is written. So all life without Jesus, meaning all life that isn't a Christian life (because life with Jesus is by definition Christian).



Sure. It's a school, if they want to wear shirts that belittle others they can do it after school.

This is why I like uniforms.

I think it pretty clearly violates the policy that the school has come up with, but I'm not so sure that the policy doesn't infringe upon his rights. It's a very close call IMO.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

Originally Posted by photon

Lines like this are subjective, and ultimately the closer you get to a line the harder it is to determine if something is on one side or another.

But the line is:

"If a message can be reasonably interpreted by a person as negative towards another person's beliefs..."

Reasonable people in this thread interpret as negative towards another person's beliefs, as did the people making the decision. I don't see how it isn't reasonable to interpret it that way.

I think adding "My" to the front is useful:

"My life is wasted without Jesus", clearly talking about one's own life
"Life is wasted without Jesus", what is being wasted? Life. All life because there's no qualifier, saying it means any subset of life without a qualifier is adding meaning where none is written. So all life without Jesus, meaning all life that isn't a Christian life (because life with Jesus is by definition Christian).



Sure. It's a school, if they want to wear shirts that belittle others they can do it after school.

This is why I like uniforms.

I will agree with most of this. I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret it as not being about other religions and just being about Christianity. It can go both ways. When I saw the headline I was expecting it to be something attacking other religions or other people, this is rather mild. But if that is the way the school wants to go about their business then I can accept and respect that. As long as they remain consistent.

If some kid is wearing their Stamps shirt (I know this is in Nova Scotia so this isn't likely) and it says 'Riders Suck' on it then I would expect them to take similar steps with that kid as it could be seen as offensive to Rider fans.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yeah I really don't see the difference between this shirt and wearing other religious symbols like crosses, yamukahs, islamic head coverings, sikh turbins, etc....

His shirt basically proclaims that his religion is the best in his opinion. However, when anyone wears a religious symbol of any kind they are doing that.

As for how people interpret it...who cares? You don't have the right not to be offended by others' beliefs. I could easily interpret a Muslim or Jewish symbol to mean that student thinks their religion is better than others. People are allowed to think and express that as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others to their own beliefs.

If this student was going around aggressively attacking or pushing his beliefs on others and this was the last straw, yeah ban the t-shirt. If he's just sitting there with a t-shirt that essentially says "I think Jesus is the best option" and others are reading into it, then we are being way to sensitive.

I think this post mostly sums up my thoughts on the matter

[Senator Clay Davis]

I think the moral of the story is this: If you want to get a thread to have nearly 100 replies in two hours, make it about religion.

[CaptainCrunch]

To me its not about religion at all, I think that people are manufacturing a religious slant to it.