Banning Fliers About Jesus Violated 4th Grader's Rights

[MrsSpringsteen]

Sometimes I think the things you write are so silly, that they do not deserve a response.

That's rude

Well thanks-I could say the same to you but I think that's really not allowed according to the FAQ here as far as insulting other members.

The fact is that some of what you post comes across as just as narrow minded and stereotyped as the people you are railing against.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[verte76]

I think this is a bit excessive. I don't care that she's passing out Christian literature. But that's a good point about the two mommies. She'd catch hell for that.

 

[U2Bama]

well, i do think it's true that, statistically, there aren't nearly as many Jews in the south as there are in, say, Westchester County (and it is true that my boyfriend had never met a Jewish person until he moved to DC), but you're absolutely right, there are Jews in the south.

we did all see "Driving Miss Daisy," didn't we?

i'm not so sure i agree that it's "tolerated" in FYM as opposed to other groups, though you are dealing with the simple fact that white evangelical southerns do not have a history of oppression in the same way that other groups (women, Jews, gays, blacks) do, so i think that's where a stronger resistance to stereotyping of said traditionally marginalized groups comes from. we're more preconditioned to be sensitive to sterotyping of the traditionally marginalized. but i do agree, in essence -- a stereotype is a stereotype, a cheap shot is a cheap shot.

however, i would argue that the political positioning of many evangelicals and their stated political agenda (as determined by those in leadership positions, who of course proclaim to speak for all but we know they do not speak for all) as well as a fundamentalist outlook on things such as, say, Biblical inerrancy or the whole "Jesus is the only way," does, to my mind, invite dialogue and objections -- some of which might be mocking -- in the same way that any political platform invites criticism. and i think it's perfectly legitimate for some groups to feel threatened by this clear political agenda when it seeks either your conversion or destruction, should your life somehow be lived in opposition to a specific set of "rules."

thus, i think the fliers this poor little girl was handing out were deserving of ridicule. i see no reason to be respectful of a belief that is, at it's core, disrespectful of anyone who disagrees with it. i can respect the student and defend her right to express herself, but i cannot sit by and nod at a belief that i find outrageous and socially piosonous. i feel sorrow for the student, i express scorn for the parents.

I have never seen "Driving Miss Daisy."

I understand the demographic ratios of Christians:Jews:Other are different in the south than they are in New York or South Florida, but I wouldn't expect them to be much different in the Birmingham metro area than in parts of upstate New York which I have visited. The original Alabama comment just came across as dismissive of Alabama in general and perhaps I am wrong to have taken it that way. It is perceived that we are all a bunch of vanilla wafer folks with confederate battle flags on our vehicles who all attend the same Southern Baptist megachurch, etc. but I know from living here my entire life that such is not the case. I would have thought Mississippi would have had a higher ratio of Jewish citizens than Alabama has.

You are right about the political posturing of, I will say, some evangelicals, but even within the category of "evangelicals," not all of us are fundamentalist theocrats. Even within the most recent Republican primary for Governor of Alabama, both candidates would have considered themselves "evangelical," but the ultimate winner has always promoted the cause of reforming our state constitution and tax code because of its immoral treatment of our poorest citizens, while the loser Judge Roy Moore perceived it his "evangelical" duty to implement an official state 'Christian' government and intimidate people into submission but placing the Ten Commandments all over government buildings. I consider Riley to be "evangelican" (as am I and most United Methodists, southern Episcopalians/Anglicans, and even some Southern Baptists I know), while Moore is clearly a fundamentalist. When they try to campaign politically on their fundamantalist platform or legislate fundamentalism, they clearly set themselves up for debate and, if you see fit, ridicule.

But as a 4th grader or as an adult, I have never felt embarassed or ashamed for being a Christian and telling people about it. Granted, I've never done it via tracts, but I wouldn't have ridiculed another student for doing that or tried to make her feel ashamed for it.

~U2Alabama

 

[Dreadsox]

~U2Alabama

Happy Easter bamma....

I am glad you are posting.

 

[U2Bama]

Happy Easter bamma....

I am glad you are posting.

Happy Good Friday (4 minutes remaining), Holy Saturday, and Easter. I just went downstairs and had a Whoppers Robin Egg.

I am glad to be posting, intermittently.

~U2Alabama

 

[maycocksean]

just to be clear, i was trying to make the point that -- while, yes, when reading the full text of those fliers i find them easy to mock, and i don't see why i need to tread lightly when people talk to me about lakes of fire -- this girl's parents should at least have some sort of basic self-awareness to predict that they are setting their daughter up for mockery and ridicule.

as for the "two mommies" issue -- i brought that up as a counterpoint to this flier. surely her parents, if they are so concerned about lakes of fire, would find such material as offensive as i, or others, might have found the original fliers? i'm not saying whether or not i think it's appropriate to distribute such fliers, and if/when i adopt my very own Maddox and Zahara, i'm sure as hell not going to send them to school with fliers that are going to amplify whatever difference they might have with their classmates. such evangelicalism is evidence of narcissism on the part of the parents.

The irony is that I wasn't thinking of you when I made that statement. In fact, the opposite, I felt you were one of the few posters that DIDN'T indulge in easy fundamentalist bashing. You made it clear you didn't care for the message she was passing around, but you stayed on the issue at hand--whether kids have the right to free speech--which I appreciated.

I dislike the whole flier methodology as well and I agree that any highly political or religious fliers shouldn't be passed out at school. I just got the sense that the virulence of people's reactions might have been less if the views being promoted the child distributing the flier was one we agreed with.

 

[Dreadsox]

That's rude

Well thanks-I could say the same to you but I think that's really not allowed according to the FAQ here as far as insulting other members.

The fact is that some of what you post comes across as just as narrow minded and stereotyped as the people you are railing against.

The fact is I agree with both of you!

Upon further reflection....it may be one of the few times I could say that about both of you....

 

[onebloodonelife]

If a girl was handing out flyers about her two mommies my post would remain the same. In every thread that has been presented on "free" speech in k-12 schools, my stance has been consistent, that the "free" speech does not exist in these schools.

School is meant to be a learning environment that best provides support to meet students' needs. That does not include giving them the right to free speech. The Bill of Rights does not apply to children. Kids can't even vote! So I don't understand why they are trying to exercise first amendment rights at school. I certainly don't see kids pressing for any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights to apply to them. So why this one??? When kids violate laws, they are tried in different courts. So why are they expecting the same rights in their schools that adults have?

Well, free speech does exist in schools, whether you believe in it or not. It is protected just the same as if the students were off of school grounds. Now, there are some limitations.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation...625/k.38D1/Free_speech_and_public_schools.htm

Students and teachers are free to speak their minds on public school grounds. They can even wear T-shirts with messages, dye their hair funky colors, and wear jewelry or buttons that make a social statement. But, even with First Amendment protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, there are limits in the school setting.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the single most influential U.S. Supreme Court case on school free speech. The memorable line emanating from the case: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The 1969 case involved Iowa students and their right to wear a black armband in school to symbolically protest against the Vietnam War.

The issue with this girl is that she wanted to pass out flyers telling students about Jesus. The school district had a clear policy about flyers: they must be approved first. The mother refused to submit the flyers for approval, so the child didn't get to pass them out. The girl could have worn a shirt that said: "Jesus saved me, ask me about it" or anything else like that with protection by the 1st Amendment, but she didn't, she wanted to pass out flyers.

In regards to other amendments, those apply to students as well. Again, there are limitations. School officials can search lockers, for example, because they are school property. But, if an official wants to search a student's backpack, a search warrant must be obtained, because of the 4th Amendment's protection to illegal search and seizure.

The issue in this case is that the child violated school policy.

 

[onebloodonelife]

How many fourth graders do you know or have you known? The ones I have had the pleasure of knowing are some of the most intelligent people I have EVER met.

My sister is in sixth grade now, so I've known her and many of her friends when they were in fourth grade. I never said that fourth graders aren't intelligent. I was saying that fourth graders haven't had enough experiences to decide if they want to be so heavily involved in religion. Hell, I'm 17, and I don't think that I have enough experiences to decide that.

 

[Irvine511]

I have never seen "Driving Miss Daisy."

its a great movie. the interaction between Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy is a joy to watch.

But as a 4th grader or as an adult, I have never felt embarassed or ashamed for being a Christian and telling people about it. Granted, I've never done it via tracts, but I wouldn't have ridiculed another student for doing that or tried to make her feel ashamed for it.

i might be wrong, but i'm guessing you don't talk about lakes of fire. as i've said all along, anyone is free to talk about whatever they want, and i'm free to mock them for it. there are certain brands of Christianity -- and i appreciate your distinction between different stripes of evangelicals -- that make me very uncomfortable, and i'm not going to let a belief that i find offensive and outrageous (everything from lakes of fire to The Rapture to those that don't believe in Jesus are going to hell) go unchallenged. the mockery and ridicule i was talking about wasn't in support of such actions, but rather the response i think might be engendered by a group of 4th graders.

and if this girl and her parents see enduring mockery (or whatever) as a form of struggle for Christ, and wish to compare themselves to being throw to the lions or whatever, all the more power to them.

and i'll echo Dread -- it is good to have you post.

 

[yolland]

Sometimes I think the things you write are so silly, that they do not deserve a response.

Why not just follow your own advice and say nothing, if that's how you feel about it. The subsequent post didn't require a preface and this one hardly says much for your defense.

The issue with this girl is that she wanted to pass out flyers telling students about Jesus. The school district had a clear policy about flyers: they must be approved first. The mother refused to submit the flyers for approval, so the child didn't get to pass them out. The girl could have worn a shirt that said: "Jesus saved me, ask me about it" or anything else like that with protection by the 1st Amendment, but she didn't, she wanted to pass out flyers.

The issue in this case is that the child violated school policy.

I agree, based on what I could gather from reading over the text of the decision. From the school's POV it didn't seem to be so much an issue of what kind of speech was acceptable; rather one of their right to regulate the distribution of printed materials. Based on their prior policy as explained in the decision, I think it's highly unlikely a "my two mommies" flyer would've passed the bar either (not a 'nonprofit community-based organization', etc.). It's true the policy was probably at least partially intended to prevent 'disruptions of the environment' in the first place (which as Dread mentioned, may explain why the court upheld the student's right to pass out her flyers outside of class time), but I got the impression the school district officials had more been annoyed with the mother's insistence on her right to an exception to that policy than with the content of the flyers per se.

As I said, I don't really have strong feelings about the decision (or the content of the flyers) one way or the other, but I still think this was a pretty lame thing to file a lawsuit over, and see its potential to perhaps invite "flyer wars" as problematic.

we did all see "Driving Miss Daisy," didn't we?

I've never seen it either, though I do remember it pissing off quite a few of my friends at the time; I gathered maybe more due to how they perceived its popular reception than to the film itself (seen as heartwarming and inspiring rather than an uncomfortable and somewhat sad social statement, etc.). It's set in a wealthy neighborhood in Atlanta during the Jim Crow era, isn't it?

however, i would argue that the political positioning of many evangelicals and their stated political agenda (as determined by those in leadership positions, who of course proclaim to speak for all but we know they do not speak for all) as well as a fundamentalist outlook on things such as, say, Biblical inerrancy or the whole "Jesus is the only way," does, to my mind, invite dialogue and objections -- some of which might be mocking -- in the same way that any political platform invites criticism. and i think it's perfectly legitimate for some groups to feel threatened by this clear political agenda when it seeks either your conversion or destruction, should your life somehow be lived in opposition to a specific set of "rules."

thus, i think the fliers this poor little girl was handing out were deserving of ridicule. i see no reason to be respectful of a belief that is, at it's core, disrespectful of anyone who disagrees with it. i can respect the student and defend her right to express herself, but i cannot sit by and nod at a belief that i find outrageous and socially piosonous. i feel sorrow for the student, i express scorn for the parents.

I can understand why you think the flyers would likely attract mockery (in the same way earnest torch-bearing for pretty much anything most people around you don't take seriously will), but I wonder if you might not also be seizing on broader social and political agendas you associate with certain evangelicals and projecting them onto a situation where they're not necessarily warranted. If the flyers, or for that matter people, were targeting specific social groups as particularly deserving of 'lakes of fire' (which I know what being on the receiving end of that is like, and I know you do too), then that's different--and not particularly funny either, which to me is what mockery usually conveys, making it not always a smart way to express sincere indignation as that point may be lost on the receiver. But, I'm not sure that's the case here, and I'm also doubtful whether 4th graders would detect the same nuances an adult would.

 

[Irvine511]

I've never seen it either, though I do remember it pissing off quite a few of my friends at the time; I gathered maybe more due to how they perceived its popular reception than to the film itself (seen as heartwarming and inspiring rather than an uncomfortable and somewhat sad social statement, etc.). It's set in a wealthy neighborhood in Atlanta during the Jim Crow era, isn't it?

Director Bruce Beresford's affinity for the subtleties of southern life is apparent in this adaptation of Alfred Uhry's Pulitzer Prize-winning play. Starring Jessica Tandy as Daisy Werthan and Morgan Freeman as Hoke Colburn, the film opens in late-1940s Atlanta. Since Miss Daisy is becoming a menace behind the wheel, her son, Boolie (Dan Aykroyd), ignores her protests and hires Hoke, a black chauffeur. When the feisty matron decides to resist necessity and walk to the store, the equally stubborn chauffeur follows her in her car. As he says to Boolie, "I used to rassle hogs down to the ground...ain't nary a hog got away from me yet." But Hoke's methods are gentleness and patience, and as the years elapse in his ongoing tug-of-war with the temperamental Daisy, she begins to tacitly acknowledge his wisdom. When she expresses annoyance over the demands of the nascent civil rights movement, Hoke points out to the Jewish woman the similarity between the attack on her synagogue and Klan attacks on black churches. But it is only after many years together that they can finally admit to the depth of the friendship they have shared. The two stars give unforgettable performances, and Beresford's direction is a model of restraint.

the film does fall into the trap of rounding out the white characters more than the black characters, as well as avoiding the racism of the era and choosing, instead, to focus on the friendship between Miss Daisy and Hoke. not sure why it would piss people off, though.

but it's still a lovely picture with two smashing lead performances, and it's what Jessica Tandy (the original Blanche DuBois, i think) won an Oscar for.




[q]I can understand why you think the flyers would likely attract mockery (in the same way earnest torch-bearing for pretty much anything most people around you don't take seriously will), but I wonder if you might not also be seizing on broader social and political agendas you associate with certain evangelicals and projecting them onto a situation where they're not necessarily warranted. If the flyers, or for that matter people, were targeting specific social groups as particularly deserving of 'lakes of fire' (which I know what being on the receiving end of that is like, and I know you do too), then that's different--and not particularly funny either, which to me is what mockery usually conveys, making it not always a smart way to express sincere indignation as that point may be lost on the receiver. But, I'm not sure that's the case here, and I'm also doubtful whether 4th graders would detect the same nuances an adult would. [/q]



yes, i'm taking a step, but in my experience, "lakes of fire" are reserved for very specific groups of people, and if we were to look in the Bible at aforementioned lake of fire, i think we'd figure out who belongs there, and they just need a big dollop of Jesus to get them out. in fact, i don't think you can mention a lake of fire and have it NOT evoke specific groups of people.

 

[Vincent Vega]

But make sure that we will meet there
In the lake of fire with some fellow interferencers.

 

[onebloodonelife]

I agree, based on what I could gather from reading over the text of the decision. From the school's POV it didn't seem to be so much an issue of what kind of speech was acceptable; rather one of their right to regulate the distribution of printed materials. Based on their prior policy as explained in the decision, I think it's highly unlikely a "my two mommies" flyer would've passed the bar either (not a 'nonprofit community-based organization', etc.). It's true the policy was probably at least partially intended to prevent 'disruptions of the environment' in the first place (which as Dread mentioned, may explain why the court upheld the student's right to pass out her flyers outside of class time), but I got the impression the school district officials had more been annoyed with the mother's insistence on her right to an exception to that policy than with the content of the flyers per se.

As I said, I don't really have strong feelings about the decision (or the content of the flyers) one way or the other, but I still think this was a pretty lame thing to file a lawsuit over, and see its potential to perhaps invite "flyer wars" as problematic.

Exactly, I could honestly care less what's on the flyers, but it's ridiculous for the mother to think that she is somehow above the policy. At my high school, the only flyers allowed to be posted were about school related functions and the occasional posters from the local music venue. Even if the mother would have submitted the flyers for approval, they wouldn't have been accepted by the school because it would be promotion of one religion over another, but she chose not to submit them. Probably because she knew they would be denied, but regardless, she has nothing to sue over. As you said, it was a pretty lame thing to file a lawsuit over.

 

[deep]

Why not just follow your own advice and say nothing, if that's how you feel about it.

I was fine with letting this go and just moving on
but since you asked

I did try ignoring her first post, this one

I think it's quite a stretch to assume that her parents are out to "save" and/or insult Jewish people, and I'm sure there must be Jewish people in Alabama.

I agree that it is subjecting that girl to teasing etc. She can be involved in her church but to have her do that around school is only going to cause her problems. She'd be better off doing charity work or something like that and spreading her message in that way.

Then she came back a second time mistrepresenting my posts,
and I chose not to ignore it

 

[yolland]

It came up a second time because U2Bama brought it back up. We don't shrug off stuff simply because it's limited to one post, you know that; there are various factors we consider but that's not one of them. I wasn't saying you shouldn't correct someone if you feel they're misinterpreting your posts--that's fine, but I don't see how replying that they don't deserve a reply achieves that. If you feel someone is chronically hounding you and not simply misunderstanding, then that is better taken up privately.

That said, yes, let's move on.

 

[U2Bama]

and i'll echo Dread -- it is good to have you post.

Thanks; I don't want my scattered infrequent posting patterns to make me appear troll-like, but I do like to join in on the discussions when time permits, such as a 3-day weekend when it's too cold outside to enjoy it.

~U2Alabama