Student's 'Jesus' shirt sparks feud with school

Originally posted by Annee

I support political - sports - music - interests - etc.

As long as they are not accompanied with an inflammatory message.

So you would ban a school sports team from playing if any of its team members used foul language?

As an atheist, I have to say you either ban all controversial T-shirts, or none of them. We deserve no preferential treatment!

So if controversial "Jesus" shirt is to be banned on school grounds, then the SAME should apply to any shirt that causes controversy, including political, anti-theist, satanistic or pro-gay variants. There is no reason why these should be somehow above "Jesus" shirt at all.

But Id rather go the other route, allow them all and turn it into a nice learning experience for students, to show them what it means to tolerate other opinions and respect freedom of expression.

reply to post by Maslo


But that's in an environment where the teachers are willing to host such conflicts, or are capable of keeping such interactions under control.

The crux here is that the school was not willing to play host to such a game of conflicting personalities...which to me is understandable, yet extremely unfortunate.

They save that kind of thing for college.

"It isn't Jesus...it's just a fella."

www.youtube.com...

From Whistle Down the Wind

Originally posted by IronArm

Student's 'Jesus' shirt sparks feud with school

news.ca.msn.com

A Christian student suspended from a high school in Nova Scotia for sporting a T-shirt with the slogan "Life is wasted without Jesus" vows to wear it when he returns to class next week.

(visit the link for the full news article)

tho it sucks to not have the freedom of speech to wear something as simple as a Christian t-shirt whilst others are sporting t-shirts that are disrespectful or far more controversial....the kid should use his smartickles and just wear it in other public places and show Christ through his behavior.....then get a tattoo when he's older if he wants to have a symbol to evoke conversation in order to witness or bear testimony. :-)

reply to post by Annee

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by milkyway12

 

There are certain atheists who like to throw around the insulting word "Jeebus" because they think it will hurt Christian's feelings.

And there are also Atheists like me who always show respect by capitalizing: Jesus - Christians - Him - etc.

"There are those who truly walk in His footsteps" - - - unfortunately few and far between.

Yet - - the respect is rarely returned.

You sure turned into an atheist mighty quickly! Just the other day you were claiming to be a Christian! Would you like me to link to it?

Additionally:
The word "atheist" is not a pronoun, so there is no need to capitalize it unless it is the first word in a sentence.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


That would be because I will not have my tax money being funneled into the coffers of Religion Inc. That would be because it would be a political tool used to "game the system", if you will. It's been done before and it was an abject disaster. If it were a tax credit, I would not have too much of a problem with it. However, it wouldn't cover the entire cost, and most likely would barely be enough to pay for textbooks. Children going to public school are going there on the dime of the majority of people who either do not have children, or their children are no longer in school. The parents of any given child are barely paying any of their child's education through their own taxes. If they can develop a tax credit system that takes into account the specific amount any given parent actually contributes to the public education system for their child, in their given community, then I'm all for it. But I'm pretty sure it'd be a pittance.

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Society now is that if anyone feels "made uncomfortable" by anything at all, they can have it removed. There is nothing at all "liberal" about this, this is hard, cold fascism.

This isn't society.

This is high school.

Wait. I thought high school prepares you for society?

That's what MY teachers always told me.

Seriously, where do you pull this stuff from? Your little book of comebacks?

The truth is that John Dewey who pioneered modern educational techniques believed that children are little cogs in the great wheel of society/State and the State is supreme and that the educational system was for preparing (read indoctrinating) the little cogs to function in society and that they existed for the State. That is absolutely historical and one can easily find it in his writings.

reply to post by LuckyLucian


Why should parents pay for both a private education for their kids and the public education they will not be using? Just a question. Wanna give me a logical answer? Well I will tell you that this is exactly what socialism is about. It is about forcing people to do certain things according to the Supreme State and for the benefit of the State, and circumventing any private methods of doing things.

It seems that while you are busy using tax dollars for public education, you seem to believe that people who are not using public education should be forced to pay for your kids.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Annee

 

Hold on. Religion is an innate part of our country...our country was founded based upon Christianity. Christianity plays a key role in a huge part of our history. Religion plays a key role in the whole world.

So we're going to teach about ancient Egyptian gods, but not about Christianity? That's discrimination.

Are you suggesting discrimination in our educational curriculum?

You're right that religion has played a key role, a negative role.

Your question about the Egyptian gods, is valid IF the christian god was one based in a dead religion and something being taught as part of antiquity (where it belongs). Until that is the case, you want to learn about your god, go talk to your preacher and he'll be sure to tell you whatever he thinks will keep you coming back and keep you giving money.

Would you like Islam being taught?

Derek

funny, i find red t-shirts are highly offensive. so does my friend over here. oh and my friend over there. not to mention some other people that we know are also offended.

therefore we should ban all shirts that are red?

I read the article, and the school was definitely in the right. For one, he wore it every day, and two people said they were offended by his shirt. Also, he (the kid that got in trouble) said the principal would have accepted a shirt with the slogan, "My life is wasted without Jesus." Has nothing to do with the oh-so laughable "war on christianity".

Maybe you guys should try reading the story instead of the part the OP only wants you to read in order to support his own agenda.

Originally posted by neo96
Bet they would not have been suspended if they wore a shirt that said:

Your life is wasted if you do not believe in global warming!

Prove that aint a religion

edit on 3-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Global Warming is supported by facts and evidence (which ironically those who claim it's a religion convienently ignore), and is also acceptable by the majority of the scientific community, so that was a pretty stupid thing to say.

Religious education should allowed in school and held up to scrutiny and discussion rather than attack and vilification.
To simply ban things does not make them go way.
I doubt it has changed the lads beliefs
We all hold beliefs and those beliefs differ.
If we say a belief can not be expressed then how does that educate anyone
Beliefs should be discussed in a proper manner not banned

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Annee

I support political - sports - music - interests - etc.

As long as they are not accompanied with an inflammatory message.

So you would ban a school sports team from playing if any of its team members used foul language?

We are talking about what is printed on a shirt.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Many proponents of the Global Warming theory do indeed worship Gaia, the Earth Goddess, and they believe that Gaia is angry at the "human parasites". It is indeed a religion with a deity.

“Whatif Mary is another name for Gaia?
Then her capacity for virginbirth is no miracle,
it is a role of Gaia since life began.
Sheis of this Universe and, conceivably,
a part of God. On Earth,she is the source
of life everlasting and is alive now;
shegave birth to humankind
and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock , Ages of Gaia.

The Green Agenda

Anyone who has studied theglobal green movement has no doubt heard of "Gaia".Believers in Gaia, or ‘Gaians’ as they often refer tothemselves, claim that the earth is a sentient super-being, anancient goddess spirit, deserving of worship and reverence. Sir JamesLovelock, in his book Gaia: ‘A new look at Life’, statesthat “all of the lifeforms on thisplanet are a part of Gaia - part of one spirit goddess that sustainslife on earth. Since this transformation into a living system theinterventions of Gaia have brought about the evolving diversity ofliving creatures on planet Earth.” Gaians teach thatthe "Earth Goddess", or Mother Earth, must be protectedfrom destructive human activity. It is this belief that fuels theenvironmental movement, sustainable development, and a global pushfor the return of industrialized nations to a more primitive way oflife.

www.sodahead.com...

The modern Gaia hypothesis was originally formulated by James Lovelock. Dr Lovelock is one of the worlds most famous and influential scientists. He has degrees in numerous areas, including medicine, chemistry and physics. Lovelock worked for NASA during the 1960's as a consultant to the Viking spacecraft project. His task was to develop methods for detecting life on Mars. He claims that while searching for suitable methods he realised that conditions that allowed life to exist on Earth could not occur ‘naturally’.

The Gaia hypothesis was eagerly accepted by the emerging new age movement in the 1970s as it combines neatly with eastern mysticism and neopagan theology, but “science” was needed to convince biologists. For these people, Gaia was made palatable by Lovelock's Daisyworld model, a mathematical and scientific theory designed to refute the criticisms of Darwinism. Just as evolution eliminates the need for a divine creator, the Daisyworld model provided a theory of evolving life on earth that incorporates natural selection with a sentient lifeforce. It eliminates a personal yet separate God, and makes humans a part of the divine spirit that is Gaia.

Interestingly climatology was the first branch of science to actively endorse the Gaian theory that Earth was a single, self-regulating system. Steven Schneider, Professor of Climatology at Stanford, organised the first international scientific conference to discuss “the implications of Gaia.” It was Schneider who later became the most vocal climatologist supporting Global Warming and once famously stated “we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” The Gaia hypothesis, absent the spiritual connotations, has now been accepted into mainstream science and renamed the Gaia Theory. It can be found in most environmental science textbooks.

www.green-agenda.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Annee

I support political - sports - music - interests - etc.

As long as they are not accompanied with an inflammatory message.

So you would ban a school sports team from playing if any of its team members used foul language?

We are talking about what is printed on a shirt.

No we are not talking it about really - So how is one's life wasted if one does not believe in Jesus should be discussed in class and all views should be allowed

Just goes to show you the true power of Jesus.

Thats some bad ass schnitzel on a bagel.
Shabbat Shalom

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Many proponents of the Global Warming theory do indeed worship Gaia, the Earth Goddess, and they believe that Gaia is angry at the "human parasites". It is indeed a religion with a deity.

No they don't, and no it isn't. Anyways, this isn't about global warming, it's about a kid getting in trouble for a religious T-Shirt. If you want to make stuff up about global warming and the people who accept it, then go find a global warming thread and do it there. I was just replying to some post making a lame joke which had nothing to do with the thread.

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Annee

I support political - sports - music - interests - etc.

As long as they are not accompanied with an inflammatory message.

So you would ban a school sports team from playing if any of its team members used foul language?

We are talking about what is printed on a shirt.

No we are not talking it about really - So how is one's life wasted if one does not believe in Jesus should be discussed in class and all views should be allowed

I am 100% separation of church and state. Which includes public school.

So - - NO religion of any kind belongs in a public school curriculum.

You want religion - - choose your church.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I have zero clue what your rant about socialism is even about. We are taxed. Education is extremely important. The government spends our tax money on an education system. If that's the 'evils' of socialism manifested, well, it seems the problem is in your perception and not its reality. Damn "socialism" and its police and firefighters and education and military and... There are no doubt flaws with the education system, but the dangers you refer to stem from laziness. Not taking an active role in your (not you specifically, any parent) child's education.

The question you posed, I already answered in my last post. I have a question for you. Why should I pay for some parents child to get a private education when they have made that choice? I should be punished monetarily because they made a different choice? How does that make sense? If those parents choose to hire a private security firm to protect their family, should I pay for that too? Should I pay for them to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers installed as well? That's what vouchers do. Just trying to show you the other side of this argument.