Nov 25th, 2009
Posted by Brandon Hensler, ACLU of Florida at 4:57pm	Free Speech, Religion and Schools

Anti-Islam T-Shirt Ban Prompts ACLU Lawsuit

Islam is of the Devil.

That is the T-shirt slogan that instigated a hailstorm of debate in Gainesville, Fla., about where to draw the line between offensive speech and speech that is intended to incite harm or violence. The T-shirts in question were worn to school by students of varying ages from elementary to high school.

Initially, students — all members of the Dove World Outreach Center, a Christian church — went to school wearing shirts with “Jesus answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one goes to the Father except through me’” and “I stand with Dove World Outreach Center” on the front and “Islam is of the Devil” on the back. School administrators responded by banning the shirts, and in some cases, suspending the students.

The ACLU of Florida filed a federal lawsuit against the Alachua County School District charging that school administrators unlawfully censored students’ free speech for wearing T-shirts promoting their religious beliefs about Christianity and Islam in school and at school events earlier this school year.

While school officials have a responsibility to both protect students and ensure that all students are able to pursue their education free of disruption, harassment, discrimination and intimidation, they failed here by banning free speech. Regardless of the offensive nature of the message on the shirts, it is protected speech.

The Alachua County School Board’s policy allowing school officials to ban messages that are “offensive to others” is very subjective, and fails to hold officials to clear standards setting out what speech can be banned. No disruption ever occurred in the school to warrant the T-shirt ban. Indeed, the school board eventually banned the T-shirts even with the back covered so that the message could not be seen because everybody would know what was underneath!

Furthermore, in an event that made it clear school officials were willing to go to any length to ban the shirts, administrators instructed police to eject the students and their parents from school property during an Alachua County high school football game in October. The students and their parents wore three different versions of the shirts to the game and did not disrupt the game or engage in disruptive behavior with other fans. They were still removed from the premises because school officials found the message offensive.

In an attempt to prevent litigation, the ACLU submitted 27 different slogans that the students wanted to wear and asked the district which would be banned — the district refused to offer any guidance. The students have not worn the shirts to school since the October incident for fear of disciplinary action by the school officials.

The ACLU, which has a rich history of defending religious freedom, is seeking a court order so that the students can begin wearing the shirts to express their religious viewpoint. The views of these students may be in the minority, but that is precisely why they need protection: so their views are not trampled by the majority. Free speech for one; free speech for all.

A recent Independent Alligator editorial summed it up well:

Were it not for the freedom of the press and other freedoms we enjoy as Americans, we might not have the opportunity to share views about this church or other contentious issues.

Permalink |	Free Speech, Religion and Schools

1. Fran Ingram Says:
   Nov 25th, 2009 at 7:27pm

   I agree 100%. If we do not speak out, American freedom is lost and there will be many many more Fort Hoods and 9/11 s coming, along with Sharia Law and the Islamification of America. Stand up! Thanks Dove World Outreach Center and the ACLU!

2. Heather Currey Says:
   Nov 25th, 2009 at 8:50pm

   While I very much agree with the ideals of free speech, schools have been traditionally known for stripping rights of individuals in the hopes that they can provide a positive influence on their charges. Just as we do not let school children where advertisements for alcoholic beverages, drug references or explicit images, we shouldn't breed non-tolerance in the public school system, though out of school is completely and morally legal. But this would see quite an extreme jump if we can't allow other images and ideas in the school dress codes.

3. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 25th, 2009 at 10:20pm

   Where do you draw the line? Does the school get to ban a T-shirt that says "John Doe believes in the Devil"? I can see how these types of shirts would be disruptive to the educational environment. And if I were John Doe, being targeted by these shirts, I would certainly feel unwelcome.

4. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:55am

   So my donation to the ACLU is being used to waste public education tax dollars in Alachua County FL by requiring the school district to answer a law suit to protect a religion-bashing hate speech campaign in its public schools. How quickly would your supporters in this action defend a campaign of "Jesus is the Devil" or "Judaism is of the Devil" t-shirts in the same schools? Would Christian or Jewish children get the same education in such an environment? And what will you say when this hate speech turns into direct threats and physical intimidation?

   Freedom of Speech is not absolute anywhere, and by case law is restricted in a public school from we expect in open society. Go ahead and wear the back-side hate message in public, but not in public schools. (Positive front side should be OK in school though IMHO). Belittling the argument that covering the hate message still conveys the message is effecting a childish naivete: of course the covered message would still communicate the message. As far as the sporting events are concerned, school sanctioned functions are covered by essentially the expectations as the school campus (I am not a lawyer though).

   The only point made is that the school dress code policy is too subjective and open to interpretation... like many other policy statements have to be in order to occupy less than 1000 pages and still be comprehensible to the general (non-lawyer) public. 1: Our faith is a great faith!, seems positive, so lets say that is OK. 2: Our faith is the ONLY great faith! This is implicitly negative, but focused on the positive. Is this allowed or not? 3: Our faith is the only true faith AND ALL OTHERS ARE FALSE!. Explicitly negative but general, blunting the statement. OK or not? 4: Our faith is true, YOUR FAITH IS EVIL! Explicitly and and specifically negative. How many of our tax dollars go to write a policy that clearly and objectively defines where in this spectrum are the permitted messages allowed by the public school dress code? If someone or some professional organization in this country has such an objective policy, could they share it with our school districts to make better use of school boards' meager budget?

   The school district could have worked this hate-mongering campaign better in several respects, no doubt. But that does not indite them as suppressors of free speech, nor does it justify using ACLU (and then public school to answer) resources to protect hate-mongering in a public school system.

5. mike Says:
   Nov 26th, 2009 at 9:36am

   fuck you and your stupid free speech. so free speech entiltles me to say jesus was a bitch and christianity is a stupid religion and your pope is an ugly monkey. u know nothing but your stupid free speech got this country where it is today

6. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 26th, 2009 at 12:10pm

   I like the shirts and would really like too know where they got them!!!! The ACLU are a bunch of pussies that don't have enough nuts to stand up for themselves, so they get together like a "thug gang"! Hell with faggots, muslims, and liberals in general. And you all wonder why everyone hates the ACLU and watches FOXNEWS!! Happy Thanksgiving and MERRY CHRISTmas...oh did I offend you...GOOD!!!!!!!

7. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 26th, 2009 at 1:55pm

   if this is free speech then let them put something like "holocaust never existed"
   then you will see the whole school board fired and the president of U.S.A himself apologize to the Jews.

8. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 26th, 2009 at 4:49pm

   I'm tired of everyone being offended over everything. If you're offended by me saying this, I'm not surprised.

   Can't we all just get along? Believe what you want and leave me to my beliefs.

   Things have gotton completely out of control with this offending idea... I will say "Merry Christmas" if I want, Christmas is what it is called and is about CHRIST. If this offends you....then I DON'T CARE! if you want to call it holiday, then go ahead, I DON'T CARE,, but dont's stop me from calling it CHRISTMAS.

   Kids should be able to wear whatever they want on their shirts if parents give approval, isn't this part of free speech?

9. Anonymous Says:
   Nov 26th, 2009 at 5:50pm

   ACLU is just a bunch of douche bags. They know it, but they're whole purpose is to hide that fact from you. But, I guess that's just what happens when you have freedom of speech.

10. P.M. Prescott Says:
    Nov 26th, 2009 at 10:37pm

    In my classroom if someone put down another student verbally (calling them stupid, using profanity, looking suggestively at a female student or saying something abuot her breast size, racist terms, etc) I would be fired if I didn't respond. It's called sexual harrassment or a hostile learning environment. The school would be sued for allowing this.
    Speech which denegrates, demeans or offends other students is not protected under freeedom of speech in the classroom or at the school and it's functions.
    The number one right of students at a school is the right to learn, this endangers that right. The number two right of students is the right to safety. These T-shirt legally constitute "fighting words" or saying something so offensive that it can cause a fight. Again if a school allowed this and a fight did break out at the school or against another school at a game and students were harmed the school would be sued.
    The school does the legally required precaution of not allowing a hostile learning environment and gets sued for not allowing freedom of speech.
    Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
    What the ACLU (and I support the ACLU on many of its issues) doesn't figure into this lawsuit is that the money spent on these lawsuits amounts to grant theft from the coffers of the taxpayers who pay to educate their children not enrich lawyers.

11. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 26th, 2009 at 11:57pm

    No 10 you are absolutely right .
    the schools are meant for education not for warmongering ,spreading hate and intolerance.dressing code should be respected,we don't need those t-shirts with hateful slogans ,plain t-shirt or t-shirts calling for green planet for example should be OK .

12. Oath Keeper Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 12:58pm

    OathKeepers will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

    Learn More!
    www.Oathkeepers.org

13. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 5:11pm

    ACLU-Are you completely insane? Or is this law suit part of your pro-Israel campaign?

    Do you not have the decency to at least leave children out of the fight for your political agenda? A school should be a place where children can feel safe and focus on learning and growing-regardless of their religion. I applaud the school board for banning this hate speech.

    ACLU-you have lost your credibility.

14. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 6:00pm

    Have a Merry CHRISTmas and remember Jesus Christ is the reason we celebrate

15. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 10:09pm

    Merry CHRISTmas

16. SSC Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 10:37pm

    C'mon guys. This is why I hesitate to donate to the ACLU. This is a terrible case, these people were disrupting the learning environment and targeting a minority group with hate speech.

    Let's take up REAL cases, defend people whose rights have ACTUALLY been infringed upon. The girl can say she hates islam all she wants on any street corner (and if she can't, bring a suit), but a classroom is not the place to do it. You are WASTING taxpayer dollars with this law suit, as well as donation money.

    PS: To all the "Merry CHRISTmas" posters- the ACLU is protecting your right to say that, not infringing upon it. Merry CHRISTmas to you too, albeit an early one.

17. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 11:30pm

    Merry Christmas and God Bless You all

18. roald Says:
    Nov 27th, 2009 at 11:33pm

    Protecting the free speech is right. Organizing more free speech to let the Dove Outreach Center know how wrong they are is right and necessary. Free speech should include speech on both sides of an issue to help people to make up their minds.

    I am amazed at all of the posters who hated the ACLU so much that that they have abandoned their pro-Christianity, anti-everyone else positions to take a pot shot.

19. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 8:02am

    Dear Friends,

    As a muslim and as a person from Middle East, I would like to congratulate ACLU for their courage to take legal action on this very controversial matter to ensure that the freedom of speech and freedom of expression of this initiative are not hindered or restricted under any circumstances.

    Freedom of speech is an essential and precious right. Everyone should be able to express themsleves regardless of sex, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. The hypersensitivity in this matter is caused by the belief that the members of this organization are aiming at provoking the public and causing controversy. Well, speech is provocation, expression is provocation. The right path to battle hate and ignorance is not through oppression and violance but through more speech and more expression. If we think that the conduct of some people (especially children) is unacceptable and alarming we shouldn't simply choose to silence them - We try to win them through tolerence and patience, always remembering that they benefit from exactly the same rights as we do no matter how much we might disagree with them.

    More prograssive friends who are critical of ACLU and their position in this matter are probably overlooking the fact that ACLU don't necessarily support the statement itself but rather the freedom to express that statement.

    Lastly, there are three questions I would like our more conservative friends to ask themselves: Would I be supportive of a similar collective initiative that explicitly conveys statements like “Mohammed answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one goes to the Father except through me’” or “Christianity is of the Devil”? Do I think there are or there should be double standards as to what, how, where and under what circumstances opinions and thoughts should be expressed? Am I aware, no matter how the mainstream media wants to portray it, that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally the same and usually support the same kind of beliefs and behavioral patterns?

    If anyone tried to answer one of the questions above for just one second then this text hasn't been written in vain.

    Thank you very much for reading.

    Merry Christmas.

20. Bailey Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 1:12pm

    It seems that the ACLU and this Christian organization are missing one important part of our country's backbone which would be separation of Church and State. A persons religious affiliation or beliefs should not be censored unless it causes harm to a group or individual (it may just be biased editing, but the article doesn't mention what Islamic students and/or teacher thought of the message) that is something I would agree with. However, the children had no right to wear those shirts inside school property for two reasons: one, it is a public school and the school board had every right to ask the children to remove it; two, it is obvious that the children were negatively targeting a specific group and in wearing this message on a t-shirt they were not giving Islamic children or staff a chance for rebuttal.

    Personally, I think that both the front and back messages are offensive. It doesn't matter what my personal religious affiliations are, but if I were to read, or was to be told that the only way I could reach God was following a certain religion I would be offended because the message reads that these people think I am a heathen. By allowing these children to have the message on the back, we are confirming their beliefs that Islam is not only lesser than their religion, but evil. Children are extremely susceptible to outside influences and peer pressure and if enough children start believing that those who follow Islam are something to be hated, there might not be violence (yet) but damage has most certainly been done.

    It seems to me that this has very little to do with free speech and more to do with power. And I very sincerely hope that the hate speech that these children are dealing will hit the deaf ears of their peers.

21. A Fla Woman Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 2:09pm

    I so agree with SSC. This is not an appropriate fight for the ACLU. The school has a right to pursue Education. Anything that distracts from that goal should be removed.Let these "Christians" practice their "faith" in their church, homes, and in public places. Thsy are just looking for confrontation and justification. This is hate, pure and simple. This is why I stopped supporting your org. You seem unable to follow common sense.

22. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 5:46pm

    MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, and remember that Jesus is the reason for the season!

23. Braden Smith Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 10:40pm

    Thank you ALCU. You guys get a lot of shit from people, especially when you take cases like this. I applaud your willingness to take the hard cases. I know many of you may be uncomfortable working to protect hateful people like this, such as when you worked in the case of the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.

    This is why I am such a strong supporter of the ACLU. You guys are always willing to do what needs to be done to protect our civil liberties which are so vital to this country.

    Thank you, ACLU.

24. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 28th, 2009 at 10:54pm

    Sadly the younger children are simply a pawn of a parent, no different than the parents who bring babies, toddlers, and young ones to anti-abortion rallies.

    The children are probably unaware of exactly what the shirt means to many. The real issue is any parent willing to send a child to school and place them at risk for an attack or fight because of a shirt the child has no clue about in the first place.

    Children should never be used by adults, that is pure exploitation.

25. Kat Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 2:22am

    Firstly, I want to make it VERY clear that I hate every single type of person there is; white, black, hispanic, asian, christian (and all subsidiaries). I do not, however, support hate without reason - the "war on terror" does not count, in this case, either. I am only stating this to show just how stupid this issue is.

    The problem with allowing children to wear anti-Islam T-shirts is that it is not a matter of free speech. Now, I know this is not considered a "hate crime" per Se, but this reinforces worldwide hatred of the US. kids are often pawns of their parents, though many times they are simply being childish and want to rebel in any way possible.

    Allowing anyone to wear something like this would be completely ridiculous. I do not care if it "impedes" your "rights". These ignorant people need to get used to the fact that the world does not revolve around them, and that there are a variety of people throughout this nation.

    I think the REAL issue with this is that the majority of grade-schoolers (K-12) do not like or approve of what they do not understand. This should really be a moot point, considering there is no basis for this sort of action. I completely agree with SSC & A Fla Woman; this is completely inappropriate.

26. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 5:11am

    God,Guts&Guns Made America lets keep all three.
    If you dont like it,dont read it!

27. jm Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 12:23pm

    I wholeheartedly agree with SSC:

    Many violations of civil liberties have as consequences profound human suffering. How about starting by taking care of those?
    Free speech is endangered when a particular opinion can't be expressed in a media whose role is to spread a diversity of messages. Clothings worn at school is not such a media, by comparison to newspapers, manifestations, private conversations and so on.

    In most school, you can't swear, display affection or wear sexy clothes, I don't applaud those restrictions, but I understand them and they don't constitute a limitation of the right of free speech, which can still be exercised out of school premises or inside the school in selected occasions like class debates or school newspaper.

    Freedom of speech is not about insuring everybody the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime! This is clearly impossible. Free speech is insuring that every message can be heard in a proportion fair to the number of people wanting to propagate the message. You can't hope for more, since the human capacity for attention is finite. One of the role of education is to give a kid the ability to critically direct their attention at the messages they choose, this suppose that they do not have this capacity yet! They must therefore be protected from some influences.

28. B. Arkell Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 1:27pm

    Wow. I don't know what I think anymore. I can understand both perspectives. This is really a dicey issue. It has to be peeled open, cut apart, and analysed in a logical manner in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

29. B. Arkell Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 1:40pm

    Come to think of it, I can see where the ACLU would be misguided on this issue.

    I can see where this is not protected freedom of speech, but borderline malicious harassment. In Washington state, at least, an individual is not allowed to express views which give a targeted group reason to fear for their safety--they don't actually have to be harmed yet. The harm is imminent. One doesn't have the freedom to give threats to a targeted group.

    I don't know any school that would allow students to wear a t-shirt that says, for example, 'niggers are evil', 'faggots go to hell', or 'women are cunts', so, if these epithets are not protected freedom of speech, then I don't see why 'Islam is evil' should be.

30. B. Arkell Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 1:58pm

    That is, one doesn't have the protected freedom of speech to explicitly threaten the safety of a targeted group, on school grounds or anywhere else within the jurisdiction.

31. B. Arkell Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 2:01pm

    In fact, in many countries, students are compelled to wear generic uniforms, which would be a fair exception to freedom of speech I think.

32. Frank Phillips Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 2:01pm

    WWJD This is the wrong way for Chritians to act.The message should be is to show Gods LOVE. That God sent his only Son into the world so that we could have life through him. So throw away the stupid shirts and just LOVE and pray for each other.I know that the FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT has made a lot of lawyers rich.

33. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 2:26pm

    WOW FRANK YOU NAILED IT! LOVE IS THE ANSWER BECAUSE GOD IS LOVE THOSE WHO LIVE IN LOVE LIVE IN GOD,AND GOD LIVES IN THEM.DEAR FRIENDS,IF GOD LOVED US THAT MUCH WE ALSO SHOULD LOVE EACH OTHER

34. J.Jones Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 2:39pm

    Come on people lets have unity and become the nation that makes a statement that yes we are a Christian nation but we are going to love everybody no matter what faith you are because we are commanded to love your enemies and pray for those who hurt you

35. Adam Selman Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 5:13pm

    Wearing those shirts are not speech or expressing views, it is a straight forward harassment! They wore those shirts to harass Muslim school children not to convert them to Christianity. I can’t believe ACLU is that stupid to see this. This is not a case for freedom of speech it is a case of majority’s freedom of harassment of the minority. If you just read the comments of people who support this lawsuit you’ll see I’m right. By the way, if you learn about the history of Christianity, about the Inquisition, people burned out at stake, tortured, you’ll know what is from Evil! Just learn your history better! You, not knowing your history does not mean those atrocities not happened, it just means you are bunch of idiots don’t know what you are talking about.

36. Mike Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 5:57pm

    As a former school board member- and chairman of the policy committee, I say get the policy right and let IT dictate who can wear what.

37. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 7:29pm

    No 30: Washington State is a very corrupt state! The whole justice system there is based on the government winnig every case by corrupt judges who don't care about the Constitution. Just read through a few cases and you will know this rogue state reality very well.

38. Anonymous Says:
    Nov 30th, 2009 at 9:08pm

    I question the ACLU as to who they protect and who they are. As I see it they are on the side of the criminal and not protecting the innocent. I feel that they are a group of criminal defense lawyers setting out to make sure that they have work. I myself like my bad guys in jail doing hard time and not running around robbing and harming innocent people. I would like the letters ACLU to stand for American Criminal Liberation Union.

39. Daniel Says:
    Dec 1st, 2009 at 4:54pm

    When I first saw this I had the 'Why is the ACLU supporting hate speech?' reaction but thinking through it more I understand that this is not necessarily about the message on these particular shirts but about setting a strong precedent on what is and isn't allowed to be worn at school. Now, I don't know what sort of cases have come in the past that have sought to define what is and isn't appropriate. 'niggers are evil', 'faggots go to hell', or 'women are cunts' from post 30 all seem out of line. But where do we draw the line. I think the fallout of this case will be a better knowledge of our own country and where it stands on this issue. If there are going to be any rules, the line must be defined. It seems like there is no good definition at this time so cases like this will come and go until it is settled. So let it play itself out and let's either let the courts embrace hate speech in school or ban it once and for all. Thanks ACLU for drawing a line in the sand. It feels like you're playing devils advocate (haha) but after the dust settles the whole picture should be clearer. Keep us posted on this case, please.

40. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 1st, 2009 at 5:46pm

    The argument of posters 10 and 11 is invalid. When a person examines the issue of free speech and freedom of peaceful assembly, the main focus needs to be on whether or not any real life harm is being incited or actually committed. The article here which is so far undisputed by the school and the school district tells us that there was no misbehavior by anyone, and that the action taken against the speech in question was a pre-emptive one at that. Being that the school is NOT a private school, they cannot decide what speech is allowed unless it is blatant in it's value towards inciting or causing real life harm. If, for example these t-shirts said "All Islamic people should be executed" or "Kick an Islam", then there would be blatant intent with knowledge of hateful action by the person spreading the message. Also, posters 10 and 11 are pushing a very certain agenda in which they clearly say that they don't want speech being brought across except for speech they approve of. That is not consistent with the meaning nor the spirit and intent of the First Amendment. Poster 11 stated a specific green movement slogan as an example versus the right of these students to make their faith beliefs public in a public place paid for by public funds, and is by law in their state, stated to be a place of municipal business, namely, education. Poster 20 has it all correct. There is then an issue of separation of church and state. The school is not sponsoring these children's religious activities nor are they sponsoring these children's religious expressions. The children are not attempting to convert anyone by force, so this argument is a moot point. Go ACLU! Thanks to poster 20 for reminding people that free speech has to exist and that we have to advocate a person's right to say what they want, when they want, how they want, and as long as they do it without acting threatening. A message on a shirt is not a threat, and people tend to forget what the meaning of the word "threat" is in the legal sense when hate comes into play, or the fear of imminent harm. A threat has to be direct. "Faggot go to hell" or "Niggers are evil" is a statement, not a threat. A threat would be "I'm going to kill that Islam piece of %^#$@!" or making a specific directed threat of harm directly to a group or a person who is a member of that group. In the context of the First Amendment, the words on the back of these shirts about Islam being evil amounts to a stetement, not a directed threat.

41. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 1st, 2009 at 6:23pm

    Oh my freaking goodness. People are scared that because there is an anti-islam t-shirt we might have another fort hood? Rediculous...that gives islamic muslims a reason to terrorize others...that is not freedom of speech...why are muslims allowed to burn out flag, effegys, the Jewish Flag that has the Judaism symbol on it? ACLU, fair is fair...now let's get lawsuits against MUSLIMS. I will wear anti islam whatever and where ever I want.

42. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 1st, 2009 at 6:24pm

    inciting hatred is just a way for people to abuse the (already limited) right of free speech we have in this nation. christians (like most religious groups) have a tendancy to either be extremist, or say that, "your not reading my holy book correctly", which is funny because one interpretation is no more valid than another. lastly, the first ammendment does not include hate speech. if i wore a shirt that said niggers are drug addict criminals, i would be punished. just like if i wore something slanderous to homosexuals. this is rediculous. cut the shit aclu!! (who, by the way, usually tend to get things right)

43. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 1st, 2009 at 9:00pm

    We're not a Christian nation. Explicitly not. That's the core of the separation of church and state, and the injunction against establishing a state religion. That said, yay for unity and loving everyone. Unfortunately claiming that someone's faith is "the devil" is not exactly loving and tolerant. If this happened in the workplace, the rules against a hostile work environment would ensure that the T-shirts would not be worn for long. Shouldn't we ensure that we do not have a hostile learning environment?

44. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 2nd, 2009 at 4:30am

    @35 That's fine and dandy, Mr J. Jones, but the US is not and never was a "Christian nation." (see Treaty of Tripoli, among other early documents penned by the founders) @6 You don't offend me at all. I actually find you rather sad and pathetic with your childish insults and unwillingness (or inability?) to engage in civil discourse, hoping you can lower the bar to your level; typical flame troll behavior. You apparently don't even seem to realize that the ACLU took the side of the anti-Islam "Christians" in this case. Guess that's what happens when you let Fox News do your thinking for you. @8 Honestly, do tell me--who is trying to hold you down and force you to not call the Christian holiday Christmas? Such paranoia is ludicrous. To me Happy Holidays is not anti-Christmas; it just includes other holidays which fall at this time of year AS WELL AS Christmas. A of people would agree that the "holiday season" begins with Thanksgiving. I would think most would also say it includes New Year's Eve and Day which are not religious holidays. So why should a wish to enjoy the entire festive season be soooo offensive to anyone? Actually, I wish we could be so festive later in January and February, when winter is so bleak. (well, for the northerly parts of the country, of course.) and in closing, to all a Blesséd Yule -- the reason for the season before Jesus came along and co-opted by the early Christians (sorry if facts offend you).

45. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 2nd, 2009 at 4:39am

    @1 Fran, I never will understand how people like you can be such jingoists, simultaneously believing the US is the toughest, baddest most kick-ass country in the world and that tomorrow your deepest fear will be realized and "furners" will have magically taken over. You don't even understand what "American freedom" really is. Now THAT's evil.

46. Sustainablepeace Says:
    Dec 2nd, 2009 at 1:43pm

    The U.S. is a constitutional republic. It's political quagmire has resulted from the failure to read the US Constitution within the context of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the original Constitution. –Many of you are taught that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, but Article Six refers to the Articles. Therefore, they must be referred to in order to understand Article 6 where is says in pursuance of the Constitution. --There is constitutional intent. The complaints listed in the Declaration of Independence clearly show where this republic ought not go; the liberty of one country is not the oppression of another. The Articles of Confederation envision perpetual friendship. The preamble of the Constitution defines the purpose of government, which talks about establishing justice. Justice will never be established until tranquility is ensured domestically, defense is provided for in common, welfare is promoted generally, and these blessings of liberty are secured to us. It is true that many people are Christians, but the Christian religion is a political band that binds people together in like-mindedness. Christians are not soldiers because Christians turn the cheek; they eat what Christ ate and walk the talk of peace not war. This republic is for people, all people who humble enough to live according to the rule of law, i.e. people who do not aspire to be rulers of the law.

47. Alicia Says:
    Dec 4th, 2009 at 4:59pm

    I think that if a student were to wear a shirt with their church name on it, or one that promotes their religion, I doubt that would have been cause for concern. However, when a person goes beyond promoting their own religion and begins to demote anothers beliefs or ideals - doesn't that cross the line? Isn't that what the ACLU stands for? Not only to allow the freedom of speech, but also to protect those in a minority? Who is protecting those who are offended by this saying in those schools? besides, school rules specifically say that no clothing is to be worn that could cause a disturbance. So school officials accted accordingly, they prevented any disturbances, instead of waiting for one to errupt.

48. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 5th, 2009 at 10:17am

    no. 19, i am a christian and i do not agree with the t-shirt because i imagine, for example, your child feeling hated and unsafe in their own school where they have the right to learn. Conservative i am also, and i did not spend one second trying to answer your rediculous questions, though some people obviously need to look at the first one. i am aware of major differences in our religion and that is yours wants to rule the world and doesn't your koran say go to war with all who r not muslim? Yeah sure... the t-shirt should be allowed that way muslims can start degrading all other religions in schools and threaten children just like this christian group that took things to far. Banning the shirt is not oppression, it's stopping more negative expression so that the school doesn't become divided by hate. Could you imagine an extreme muslim group reacting with a hate message for christians and the controversy these kids would be forced to deal with when they are there for an education, not a religious war. Making this ok only allows for more hate.

49. Anonymous Says:
    Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:52pm

    As a Christian, I agree with the front of the shirt. However, NO WAY would I ever condone the back! We are to love one another, not be hurtful. I am with the school for banning the shirt. If the back part wasn't there, then they wouldn't need to ban it.

50. Bigun in TX Says:
    Dec 7th, 2009 at 6:24pm

    I thank the ACLU for defending Christians and our right to free speech as well as non-Christians, however misguided their efforts are. We can also thank them for removing God from our schools and the downhill slide of this nation since doing so. It would be great if everyone in this country would visit http://www.wallbuilders.com/ and learn about the framers of our Constitution and this great nation was founded by Christians. They had no way of forseeing all the foreign religions that would introduced to this country but I would be safe in saying they intended this nation to under God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and not some dead guy named Mohammed. To #32 & #33 you speak well but at the same time consider Paul and Silas were told not to preach in the name of Jesus but they refused. Islam has two directives ...

    1. kill the infidel (non-Islam believers) and
    2. 2) world domination.

    I love an Islamic's soul as much as any other Christian but I am not about to allow Islam to take over this country nor will I bend over and kiss their Koran even on the threat of death. If you two spent more time sharing the Gospel and telling others what Jesus has done for you, then you wouldn't have to spend so much time praying for your enemy. I'll assure you Islam is the enemy of Christianity just as the ACLU (Anti Christian Laden Ultranationalism) has been the pawn of liberalism leading to the degradation of our society. The only thing that can save this country ... "

    if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land

    ." -God (2 Chronicles 7:14)

• 
• 1
• 2
• 

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Case-sensitive.