Hypocrisy

Since there are a bunch of left leaning folks in SL, I was wondering your thoughts on this enlightening article.

JV

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/2/182342.shtml


Free Speech – For Liberals Only
Gary Aldrich and Ashley Varner
Friday, Oct. 3, 2003
A Michigan teenager has won the right in court to wear to his high school an extremely offensive message on his clothing. The reason this hateful message is allowed in school? It offends only those who actually respect our president and support the country during a time of war.

The 16-year-old was ordered by his assistant principal to take off the shirt, bearing the label “International Terrorist” under a picture of President Bush. The student wore the shirt to school in February on the day he was to give a speech to his English class comparing President Bush to Saddam Hussein.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan upheld the student’s free speech rights, stating, “There is no evidence that the T-shirt created any disturbance or disruption.”

The ACLU declared victory, stating, “The court’s decision reaffirms the principle that students don’t give up their right to express themselves … once they enter school.”

Oh, REALLY??

Someone should remind the Cal Poly State University Judicial Affairs Office. Cal Poly actually punished a student, Steve Hinkel, for posting an advertising flier in the student commons area for a campus-approved speech by a conservative author.

For this serious offense, Hinkel was sentenced by the Judicial Affairs Office to write letters of apology to each of the offended students, and was threatened with expulsion if he did not comply.

Where is this student’s First Amendment right?

Likewise, a Texas senior center now forbids its elderly patrons to bow over their food before they eat. The concern is that the senior center is a public place, and someone may be offended by observing Grandma or Grandpa saying a prayer before their meal.

Where are the rights of these senior citizens?

The answer is: The First Amendment doesn’t apply to these people.

You see, Steve Hinkel is a conservative student whose speech promoted conservative values such as love for country, independence from government and personal responsibility. But we can’t have any of that garbage passed around in public.

And the senior citizens? Their prayers are not welcomed by someone who doesn’t believe in the same God, and we can’t have a bunch of older people silently proselytizing by praying to themselves in front of others.

What we can have is the kind of hatred spewing forth from this Michigan kid, whose speech served no other purpose than to display utter contempt for our nation and president, and cause division amongst the student body.

Who ARE these people who get deeply offended by hearing about what a great nation they live in, or are scarred over observing someone else pray at mealtime??

And yet we are supposed to sit back and smile, knowing that this brat in Michigan is just “exercising his right” to demoralize our country?

Can we just pass an amendment to the First Amendment?

Because we really need to clarify this whole “free speech” thing. A majority of the country is terribly mistaken about how “freedom of speech” works, and they need to be educated.

What happened to Steve Hinkel and these senior citizens is outrageous, but can be anticipated by anyone promoting conservative values. Anyone who professes a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, supports the military and our troops in combat, and wishes to expand capitalism and uphold freedom from a tyrannical government sees the legal door slammed in their face time and time again.

However, anyone who wants to make obscene or polarizing statements about religion, our country, its leadership or our way of life gets the green light more often than not.

The entertainment community chastised the American public for boycotting the Dixie Chicks after one of the singers made an anti-Bush statement during a European concert. The American people were offended by the Chicks’ display of hatred toward their president, but were scolded by other rockers for not letting the Chicks exercise their First Amendment rights.

The message is clear: Free speech applies only to those who seek to tear down America and her freedoms and opportunities.

Conservative values are just plain offensive – that’s what we are to believe when we can’t display them anywhere.

It’s high time conservatives take back the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights was written for every citizen, no matter what the liberals try to tell us.


Gary Aldrich is the author of the recently released hard-hitting book, "Thunder on the Left: An Insider’s Report on the Hijacking of the Democratic Party," an exposé of the clear and present danger the Hard-Left’s agenda presents to our national security and our freedoms. Available now at Amazon.com!

Write Gary Aldrich at [email]PatHenCntr@aol.com[/email]

Ya wanna know what I think? It's in Michigan, and reported by NewsMax. That's what I think.

yep i agree completely.

the extreme left has hijacked this country's 1st amendment.

for instance.

i forget the state and school i could look it up but there is a white student who wanted to start a caucasian club much like the latino clubs and black clubs in the same school.


immediately she was criticised for it,the aclu which of course backs all various minority clubs said something to the effect of "it will create division among the students" and such.

why the double standard?

or there was a group trying to setup a rally in support of the war awhile back on campus just like amny students who had organized anti war protests.

they harrassed for it,their posters were torn down and they were suspended for passing them out because it was considered hate speech of some sort.

I'll tell you what this all boils down to - schools dont want to be sued - they are probably terrified of it. Oh no! Someone was offended! What if they sue us?! Everyone loves to make a quick buck and jump at the chance to sue incase they happen to hit the lottery. Well, now society can reap what it's sown.

Case in point:

My kid is not allowed to bring peanuts to school. So, to test the system, I gave him peanuts to take to school one day. He told my right away 'no daddy, we don't like peanuts.' I then had the happy job of un-brainwashing him, and REALLY dont appreciate the schools giving the impression that kids shouldnt like something.

But oh no! What if Billy eats a peanut and dies then his parents sue the school! God forbid we actually TEACH Billy to look out for himself.

That my take

Well, usually majorities don't get "clubs"....

But anywho, it's not really the far left that highjacked it, it's the communists.

Oh wait, same thing...

well now we're agreeing on something!

Just because newsmax is reporting on it doesn't mean its not true.

Everything on newsmax is not a lie...

JV

I never said it was a lie, I said it was conservative.

LOL I think a child could have figured that from the text....


Silly Darwin, Liberalism is for kids

JV

Conservative paper writing about liberal hypocrasy = bias.

What they don't mention is the overwhelming republican hypocracy. Really guys, it 'ain't just the liberals. We ALL do it. Yes, even the Indipendents.

Overwhelming republican hypocrisy? Give some examples, I'm sure there are some, though I'm likely biased I see alot of it on the left and can't really recall anything major on the right....

This article just points out that the ACLU who's charter states that they are there to protect the bill of rights (but they conveniently ignore the 2nd ammendment), only protect the lefts rights and actively attack the rights rights (does that make sense? lol).

I see it at my school, the liberals put up tons of protest papers talking about marches and such, I've put up one or two conservative papers or rally ads, and they are promptly ripped down, if I were to rip one of their's down they would complain that I am suppressing their free speech. Double standards.

MaineGOP

It depends on where you live, I got a snide look from the DMV when I registered as a democrat. (is that actually how you spell it?) Either way, at the high school I graduated from, they allow students to form a big circle and pray for whatever they want... and they only allow the christians to do it. Do I complain? No, because I would get it thrown in my face. New England is generally democratic, most of the "south" and the mid-west is republican. It all depends on where you are... Hell... I'm not even outspoken in SL about it, even though Im pretty political, mostly because I was born and raised until I was 12 in Ohio, and now I live in Florida, and republican/neo-christian stuff has been thrown in my face all my life. Having an opinion in a repulican/conservative state is difficult.

My question is are you disagreed with and argued with or are your views repressed? Disagreeing with you and argueing your views is just them expressing their right to speech too. But if you are silenced then that is different.

I would love to know more about this high school you graduated from, I find it very hard to believe that in this day and age the ACLU has not attacked a school as such for allowing god forbid people to pray and if it is as you say and they don't allow others to pray I find it astonishing the ACLU hasn't attacked them yet.

Unless its a christians school?

JV

I'm not sure if it's no other religions are alloed to pray, or if they're terrified to ask... near sept. 11th, a girl that was muslum got punched in the face by some guy, just because she was muslum. They're too afraid to bring something up (and besides, you need a faculty sponsor) because they're certain that someone will attack them for some reason. My town isn't exactly the most... well... let's just say that chickens live in the middle of downtown, and you can go to jail for 5 years for running one of them over. It's kinda a hick town, but not so much that no one lives here. The school had like 3,000 students last year.

Anyway, I would have to go with repressed, as I've almost failed out of some classes just for writing papers that certain teachers disagreed with. (this was usually in lower grades, and my teachers tended to get more accepting as I became older) I won't play their game, and it gets me in trouble a lot. (I do follow rules, and I only got a referal once, so it's not like I'm some lunatic, I just won't alter my opinions to please them.) MMmmmm... tangent-y

First of all don't confuse racist assholes that hit women with conservatives, true conservatives would never do that. Some people claim our tag but merely tarnish our name. True conservatives are the ones who freed the slaves and voted for civil rights, we would never condone a muslim woman being hit for any reason. especially for what she can't help being.


Interesting, in my elementary schools, middle schools, high school, and college the majority teachers I've had were liberals (this encompasses 3 states, Maine, Ohio, and PA.)

I have almost failed many classes for voicing my opinion. You will find in most of the followers of certain beliefs on either side to not get it, or to do things wrong, but I think when you look at leadership and organizations that back ideologies I have found much more of this on the left than the right, once again that is my bias as you have a bias, as we all do, but if having a bias meant we couldnt' discuss things noone would ever debate.

JV

Is that so? Wow, I thought the history books were written by the winners! Go figure...

This will probably completely shock you JV but I think that Cal Poly was completely wrong to punish that kid. He was naive if he thought posting a flyer for the author of a book called "It's Okay to Leave The Plantation" wouldn't offend some people, but to me the real criminals here are the students who complained. People are such cowards about being confronted with ideas they don't like. The ironic thing is that the author of the book, which urges blacks to curb their reliance on government programs, is black.

As for prayer in public schools... it has no place there. People are free to pray silently to themselves all day long if they want to, or even out loud if it's not disruptive. No one is trying to tell them they can't. But when the school allows sanctioned prayer meetings or prayer circles that's going way too far. I'm an atheist. I send my kids (well, if I had kids) to school to learn math and writing and science, not to be indoctrinated into a religion through peer pressure. Religous people need to start teaching children two things... first, flaunting your religion in public places is inconsiderate and unecessary, and second, god doesn't give a shit how you do on your math test!

You do know that Lincoln was the first republican president right? And that though Kennedy and Johnson sponsered Civil rights, it was the Republicans in congress that supported it while the majority of the democrats (called the dixiecrats) opposed it.


I think you are just mistaken that because the Republicans own the South now that they always did, it wasn't until after civil rights that the republicans took hold in the South.


JV

Yes, Lincon was one of the best presidents America ever had. And yes he was republican. BUT...

The fact is that most of the South at the time WAS republican. They just didn't follow Lincon (as breaking from the Union inferred). Sadly, those are the republicans still in the south (well, not quite so extreme maybe, but still...).

As for the Civil Rights movement; this was a very confusing time indeed, and the truth is no one had a clear idea. Both Republicans and Democrats were split down the middle when it came to this issue.

I'm glad to see you agree about the double standard there, its why I can't respect the ACLU period, a group like that should be protecting everyones rights not just those they agree with.

As to what you said that he should have expected some people to be offended, it was a school approved speaker, so... whoever got the speaker to come should have been punished too no? Remember the speaker and writer of the book was black too, if blacks are allowed to call each other the N word, I think they can tell each other its ok to get off the plantation too.. Especially since he was trying to help black people rise up from the poverty. At least that is what I gleam from it.


As to the second item, I agree and disagree. I'm glad you say that people can pray silently or even aloud if not disruptive, you are proving to me you are not what I thought you to be at first. But you are wrong that noone is trying to tell them they can't, you did read the second half of the article where it said the nursing home forbid elderly people from praying silently at meal time. I dont' feel like looking right now, but i'm sure I can find a case of a student getting in trouble for doing exactly what you said.

I agree that school sanctioned prayer is iffy. But not unconstitutional. I want to dispel a notion right now that has crept into our world. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Show me one place in the constitution where it says this and i will send you $50. The constitution protects FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. The difference is OF means that it protects all religions and their right to practice freely, this was because in england certain religious groups were persecuted. FROM would mean that people do not have to witness or see religion and they are protected from it. The only requirement of this as far as the gov. is concerned is that it may not establish a state religion, that does not mean that politicians, schools, etc... can not have religion in them, just as long as they don't say that everyone has to follow that religion.

So legally school sanctioned prayer is ok, where it gets iffy is what you pointed out, certain kids may feel left out or wierd, personally I think that kids should be able to handle peer pressure and that our society is protecting kids from too much and they won't be able to handle the real world. so what it comes down to is I think that its fine for kids to pray at school, its fine for them to get together in a group after school and pray, and if a teacher is of that religion he may pray with them too, but in the interest of fairness they should not get funding nor an official status because then every religion would have to have one and it would get complicated. The war against christianity is sad, and understand I am not religious at all but I see a lot of good that religion can do.

JV

the ACLU is an evil organization these days,it was started to protect civil rights,but these days it has been hijacked by the FAR extreme left and twisted to do as they want.

also the fact that the ACLU supports NAMBLA shows the level they've sunken to.


(if you dont know nambla is an organization that wants it to be legal for adult men to have sex with underage boys)

Christians could very easily teach whatever they wanted to in public schools, all they would have to do is declare that they are not a religion and deny Jesus and God, and swear that none of their moral values have any other than human inspiration.

It's easy enough - psychologists and psychiatrists have been doing it for decades, and it has really caught on. They now have nearly ten million kids taking their drugs and relying on their every word. It's easy enough to see how they could do this. Take a system traditionally meant to instill in children those skills and values that will make them into good and productive adults, then remove any mention whatsoever of morals and values from spiritual sources. What happens? The gap is filled with values from somewhere. All that was left was a source that denied the existence of spiritual nature entirely, because any other would violate the "separation of church and state".

So we end up with a nation of confused and drug-addled children. But that's ok. At least we didn't try to tell them what to think!

Why do you think I put it in quotes? There is no line in the Constitution that states that there must be a separation of Church and State, but this is an interpretation of the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment that has long precendents in the courts.

In any case, what I am trying to point out here with my sarcasm is that it is dangerous to presume that just because we have succeeded in removing religious influence from the schools, does not mean that we have made our children safe from efforts to control what they believe. We've decided that schools belong to the 'State' part of the equation, although I would dispute this, in the interest of providing a good civil education to all children, regardless of their backgrounds. Unfortunately, nature abhors a vacuum, and where religious messages are forbidden, non- and anti- religious messages are given free rein.

So, be on guard when your children go to public school. You still have to worry about what they are being taught to believe.

actually seperation of church and state is a rule BUT,not like people are doing with their witch hunts these days.

the law simply states that the government will never make any law respecting a specific religion or resricting the practice of it.

so in a sense the banng of prayer in public is actually against the law,and its BS no one gets offended seeing someone pray and if they do thats THEIR problem,and the person should still have the right to pray.

and for instance the pledge where people want it removed simply for the reference to god.

or the monument in alabama.

no where in the constitution does it say that anytihng religious related in any possible way must be stricken from any kind of government property or should be forbidden in public.