“That’s just it, though. I don’t have strong views on these incidents.”

Why comment then, Jeff?

I wanted to know more about your position.

Why comment then, Jeff?

CIS:

“I would hope that were these students peacefully passing out inflammatory fliers proclaiming the importance of white supremacy in America, you would condemn these actions.”

What a ridiculous comparison.

“As for the GSA, whether you find homosexuality wrong, a sin, evil, etc. or not, I think having groups like the GSA help to raise awareness and prevent repeats of incidents like Matthew Shepard.”

Yes prevention of murder and robbery is an admirable goal, no one would dispute that. Whether one “find[s] homosexuality wrong,” doesn’t matter. The FACT is that it is a controversial topic that is permitted to be promoted in schools. Likewise, abortion is a controversial topic. If the promotion of aberrant sexual behavior is “appropriate” in school, then opposition to killing unborn humans is as well. Tracking better now?

So it’s not your responsibility to come with any facts to a discussion in which you hold strong views?

That’s just it, though. I don’t have strong views on these incidents. Until you posted comment #9, I knew nothing substantial about them. As I become knowledgeable on the subject, I may start making assertions, but until then, I’m just asking questions.

The fact is Jeff, this is a blog. I will not write a fully referenced dissertation every time I post. But rest assured that when I post something, I have done my homework.

Of course, you’re free to say as little or as much as you’d like. If your intent is to do more than just preach to the choir, though, you need to provide at least some degree of support for your assertions. Since you were doing your homework anyways, it doesn’t seem like it would have been much of a burden to include at least some of the content of comment #9 in your main post.

The kind of “detail” you demand every time we engage is a level of detail you rarely offer.

That’s just because you make at least ten assertions for every one that I put forward. More often than not, we’re just discussing a claim that you made. But when I do make an assertion, I’m prepared to back it up if someone disputes it.

So it’s not your responsibility to come with any facts to a discussion in which you hold strong views?

The fact is Jeff, this is a blog. I will not write a fully referenced dissertation every time I post. But rest assured that when I post something, I have done my homework. The kind of “detail” you demand every time we engage is a level of detail you rarely offer.

Jeff, you just set yourself up don’t you? I’ll serve it to you on a platter. Read up and then admit your error:

Sounds like you’ve been punk’s again. This research was easy to do. I wonder why you shot your mouth off without digging juuuuuust a little.

Set myself up for what? Shot my mouth off about what?

All I said was that neither you, nor the article supported your assertion. I didn’t do the digging, because it’s not my responsibility to support your assertions. You’ve offered a number of documents, so now I’ll review them and comment further tonight. If you’re assessment is justified, I will have no problem saying so.

I happen to be pro-choice, but I’m pro-1st amendment first and foremost.

On Oct. 24, Scott Fish and other students attempted to communicate a pro-life message to their classmates through the use of message-bearing T-shirts, armbands, leaflets, and symbolic expression. The school principal censored Fish and the other students because their message might make students “uncomfortable” and allegedly violates the so-called “separation of church and state.”

The principal denied Fish his constitutional rights even after repeated meetings wherein Fish petitioned for relief from the censorship. After ADF attorneys filed suit on Fish’s behalf, school officials promptly agreed to permit student speech through pro-life clothing and leafleting outside of class. The court today ratified this agreement.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/FishComplaint.pdf
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3984

The student’s mother phoned the office of Shenendehowa Central School District’s superintendent at least a week before the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity in October and spoke with a representative about her son’s plans in connection with the event. School officials never informed the mother that her son’s participation would violate any school or district policy.

Yet on Oct. 24, 2006 the school principal told the student to turn his pro-life shirt inside out and cease distribution of fliers. The principal allegedly stated, “Students shouldn’t be thinking about issues like that at your age.” In a school-wide announcement, the principal demanded that all students who received a flier forfeit them to school officials. School officials had previously permitted students to communicate freely on other controversial issues.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3986
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/MGComplaint.pdf

On Oct. 25, Sarah had actually obtained permission to distribute fliers from her assistant principal, but later Sarah’s principal told her to cease flier distribution, vaguely asserting that the message was controversial and “might start a fight.” The principal also told Hollen that even outside of class she must remove a piece of tape across her mouth that read, “Ask Me Why I’m Not Talking,” despite the fact that the school had allowed similar expression by other students.

The principal denied that the assistant principal’s approval had taken place, yet she stated that fliers require approval two weeks prior to their distribution, in direct contradiction to the school board’s current policy.

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SHComplaint.pdf
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3982

On Oct. 24, Raker wore pro-life clothing and distributed postcard-size fliers in support of the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. The following day, he was pulled from class by Millbrook High School’s principal and told that his literature distribution would no longer be permitted because other students might object or consider the materials to be religious in nature. The principal also threatened to suppress Raker’s pro-life clothing and expressed doubt about the propriety of Raker’s desire to start a pro-life student club (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3926).

A letter from school official J. Richard Plaugher informed Raker about a policy, which had not been circulated to students or parents, that requires pre-approval of literature distribution before and after school and bans literature distribution even at lunch time. The policy contains no standards governing the approval process.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3960
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/RakerComplaint.pdf

According to school policy, students and student groups are allowed to distribute and post literature in connection with their activities after obtaining permission from school officials. However, the officials told Hilary Humphrey and other pro-life students they would not be allowed to promote the event, which occurs Oct. 24, because the officials considered the materials to be “inflammatory.”

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3883
http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HumphreyLetter.pdf

Sense a pattern Jeff? Sounds like you’ve been punk’s again. This research was easy to do. I wonder why you shot your mouth off without digging juuuuuust a little.

The administration has previously allowed others to engage in peaceful forms of expression, regardless of controversy. In the past, the middle school students have been allowed to distribute literature and wear clothing with questionable statements.

“Historically, [Gowana] students have worn shirts ridiculing the president, ridiculing the war in Iraq and poking fun at religious beliefs,” Marcelle told WND. “She can’t just determine that Roe. v. Wade and the country’s abortion policy are off limits.”

WorldNetDaily

_________________________

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist.

Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 272-273, and n. 13

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592-593

I had a great Christmas, thanks. I trust you did as well?