Now if there was a band who wanted to play there and sing songs about Satan worship, would you let them play too? Or a Wiccan group?
Be honest now.
posted by Guest at 08:10 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 15, 2004 #
Christian bands to *not* belong in public schools. If the school wants to host a Christian band off-hours, that's fine as long as they don't give any funding or undue promotion to it. But to have it during school hours is a school endorsement of their message, and therefore a school endorsement of a given religion.
There are lots of non-Christian students, and we don't need to isolate them any further than they already are. Picture yourself as a Christian living in the Middle Eastern theocracy. We don't need to go down that road.
Josh Woodward - http://www.joshwoodward.com/
posted by Guest at 09:27 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
The constitution only prohibits the establishment of a religion; for example the federal government or the state governments could not establish something like the Church of Ohio or basically anything resembling the Church of England. This clause of the constitution has been so misused that the government is really close to establishing atheism as the nation religion.
posted by mike2004 at 10:16 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
The precise meaning of "establishment of a religion" can be debated ad nauseum, but when it comes down to it, US public schools are not the place for religion. You'd be the first in line to beat up the school board if they voted to host a Satanic band for a school assembly, and many non-Christians feel the same way when this stuff is brought into their world.
Leave it at home, leave it at church. Public schools are a place to get an education, not an indoctrination.
Josh Woodward - http://www.joshwoodward.com/
posted by Guest at 12:41 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
"Now if there was a band who wanted to play there and sing songs about Satan worship, would you let them play too? Or a Wiccan group?"
Sure, if they were promoting an anti-drug message, which is what the assembly was about. The assembly was not about promoting Chr*stianity. It just so happens that Pawn is a Chr*stian rock band that sometimes mentions G*d and J*sus in their lyrics in a positive way.
It may be shocking to some adults, but there are teenagers looking for something positive to believe in. There's too much on TV and in magazines that implies if you're not tall, thin, muscular, beautiful, smart, popular, athletic, then you are worthless.
Besides, I don't think Pawn asked to play at Rossford High School. I could be wrong, but I think the school invited the band to peform at the school's assembly. Then a parent objected because of Pawn's lyrics. The school contacted lawyers, and blah, blah, blah. So you would have to ask the school leaders to invite a Satan-worshipping band.
And why not let the students decide too, or would that make too much sense? If the students vote not to have Pawn or any other band, so be it.
"There are lots of non-Christian students, and we don't need to isolate them any further than they already are."
That makes for good theater. Isolated how? What's in the public schools today that promotes Chr*stianity and isolates the non-Chr*stians? I'm guessing that it's a lot harder to publicly be a Chr*stian teenager than it is to publicly be a non-Chr*stian kid. I believe peer pressure is still a powerful force.
And mike2004 is correct. The original idea of the separation of church and state has been bastardized by the anti-Chr*stian groups to mean something completely different today. Hanging the 10 Commandments or the Wiccan Code in a public place is not forcing a religion on anyone.
posted by jr at 01:02 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
"Public schools are a place to get an education, not an indoctrination."
Education. Indoctrination. What's the difference when you're talking about a public school?
By your statement, history should not be taught in public schools, since there are many history teachers who spew "their" version of history, basically indoctrinating the kids with anti whatever-political-party-the-history-teacher-opposes crap.
Ditto for some science. Science today has become too political.
Stick with math, English, and reading. Kids could be out of school by Noon.
Oh wait, can't teach Math in public schools, because little Johnny's or Susy's feelings could get hurt when the teacher scolds the kids for getting 2+2 wrong.
Can't use red ink pens in schools anymore to mark up students' mistakes on papers, because red is too insensitive. Some or many teachers are using purple ink now instead of red in order to not embarrass and traumatize the students.
And now a school in Texas has banned the colors red and green from the school's holiday party.
"A school district has banned the colors red and green from a "Winter Break Party," requiring parents to bring only white plates and napkins."
But white is offensive too, isn't it?
"Commenting on the white-only policy for party supplies, Shackeford quipped, "I guess nobody has told them white could symbolize the purity of Christ. They'd probably ban white!" "
It's as if the schools and other orgs are trying to out-do each other in how abusrd they can be. It's hilarious. Theses so-called intellectuals have made themselves into distorted cartoon characters.
And the educators scratch their heads and wonder why other countries kick our ass in math and science.
posted by jr at 01:36 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
There are wackos on the extremes of either side of the issue. Don't make me pull out examples of what the extreme right-wing Christian nuts do, because it's not pretty. :)
History can, and should, be taught without bias. Even religion can be taught without bias if done correctly. In fact, I think that a religion class would be a valuable option for high schools *as long* as they give proportional attention to all religions. About a quarter to a third of the time would be devoted to Christianity (proportional to the world's xtian population), and the rest would be given to unbiased coverage of the others. If nothing else, kids need to know that there are actually... *gasp*... other options.
Religion is an important topic and everyone should be educated about it. Hell, a good chunk of the world's troubles stems from misunderstanding and distrust of other religions. However, it's a hot button topic and it needs to be addressed fairly and without bias.
Back to the issue at hand, an anti-drug school assembly carries the implication that the message is endorsed by the school, right? If Christianity is mixed in with the message, then the school is endorsing that message as well. This is bias, plain and simple.
Josh Woodward - http://www.joshwoodward.com/
posted by Guest at 02:05 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
Far too many Americans believe that this is a "Christian" country and that Christian beliefs should be the foundation for government, education and esthetic mores. As a non-Christian, I am offended whenever any religion is used in public schools, except as a matter of reference in history or political science courses.
My children both played musical instruments and participated in band, orchestra, choir and school plays. Each time I attended a choir concert, I winced whenever the name "Jesus" was used. Christian liturgical music should never be selected for use in a public school. Much choir music exists without reference to a religion. It was offensive to me and to my wife.
It is equally inappropriate to bring such music into a public school and then use the excuse that "students may opt out of the concert in favor of a study hall." I am well aware (from personal experience) of the ostricization and psychological damage that occurs when students become disenfranchised as a result of "opting out." They often are ridiculed or demeaned for being non-Christian. Opting out results in splitting the student body into the "good Christians" against the "bad Jews/Moslems/Buddists/atheists."
Public schools should never use a band that promotes one religion. If people want their children to hear a Christian band, they should send their children to a parochial school, or buy tickets for such a concert away from a public school building. Bringing such a band into a public school leads to descrimination against those who are not Christian, if not by act then by belief.
posted by Chaz at 02:41 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 16, 2004 #
Jr. - Public schools do not always know what is appropriate, ESPECIALLY when one of Pawn's musicians is the son of a Rossford School Board Member!!!! Ahh, now we know why THIS band was "invited" to play. So this whole controversy is really about money/greed, hidden behind the mighty shield of Christianity, which is then hidden behind a liberating message (in this case anti-drug). I must ask the American public why does this type of "Christian liberation tactic" sound familiar but in a much bigger, global and historical way? WAKE UP AMERICA! WE ARE ANTS MARCHING, BRAINWASHED, HATED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD, A COUNTRY BASED ON A FREEDOM THAT IS SLIPPING FROM OUR GRASP BECAUSE IF WE DON'T WANT TO SEE A CHRISTIAN ROCK BAND WE ARE BANISHED TO STUDY HALL, AND IF ONE ANT OBJECTS IT GETS OSTRACIZED, SO WE MARCH ON, BRAINWASHED, HATED....but I digress. Religion (of any kind) does not belong in a public school. And by the way, "support the troops," but not the war.
posted by Guest at 04:00 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 17, 2004 #
WAKE UP AMERICA! WE ARE ANTS MARCHING, BRAINWASHED, HATED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD, A COUNTRY BASED ON A FREEDOM THAT IS SLIPPING FROM OUR GRASP BECAUSE IF WE DON'T WANT TO SEE A CHRISTIAN ROCK BAND WE ARE BANISHED TO STUDY HALL, AND IF ONE ANT OBJECTS IT GETS OSTRACIZED, SO WE MARCH ON, BRAINWASHED, HATED.
If I was still in school, and chose not to see an assembly that featured rappers, I would be sent to study hall and if I objected to it I would be ostracized. Society does have many different sets of standards.
posted by Guest at 05:51 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 17, 2004 #
You should be ostracized if you object to a group of rappers coming to the school because it is not the MESSAGE you are objecting to but the fact they are BLACK. That is different.
posted by Guest at 12:23 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 17, 2004 #
The problem is that they carry a Christian message. It has nothing to do with their color, ethnic origin, age or gender. Christian messages, like messages from any other religion, do not belong in a public school. If you want Christian music, send your kids to a parochial school. There are plenty of them available.
posted by Chaz at 08:00 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 17, 2004 #
Hey this is one of the members of the band pawn. I am not going to pipe in right now on this current discussion.... I actually would just like to say if you support our cause, please visit our website on after Saturday night the 18th of December and follow the link to buy a CD. Thank you for your prayers and continued discussion.
www.pawnband.com
posted by Guest at 12:10 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 18, 2004 #
You should be ostracized if you object to a group of rappers coming to the school because it is not the MESSAGE you are objecting to but the fact they are BLACK. That is different.
“That is Different” must be the favorite three words of hippocrites the world over. My problem with rap is actually about the message. I do not like the way it disrespects women by refering to them as bitches and glorifies drug use and violence. I do not care if that garbage is spewed by Snoop Dog or Eminem, I dislike it either way. So it is not about race. However, the second one person objected to some rappers performing at a school assembly, the first thing the politically correct left would do is play the race card.
The problem is that they carry a Christian message. It has nothing to do with their color, ethnic origin, age or gender. Christian messages, like messages from any other religion, do not belong in a public school. If you want Christian music, send your kids to a parochial school. There are plenty of them available.
I would like to be able to send my kids to parochial school, however I’m a middle class guy who makes about 45K a year, and I just cant afford it. Perhaps the system could allow me to deduct the amout the amount I paid for my childrens education agianst my property taxes and I would be able to afford it. I’m sure the public school system will go for this because the tax dollars I pay are earned by myself, a christian, and it’s very important to keep christianity out of the schools.
posted by mike2004 at 08:59 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 18, 2004 #
Mike 2004 - You said "“That is Different” must be the favorite three words of hippocrites the world over. My problem with rap is actually about the message. I do not like the way it disrespects women by refering to them as bitches and glorifies drug use and violence. I do not care if that garbage is spewed by Snoop Dog or Eminem, I dislike it either way. So it is not about race. However, the second one person objected to some rappers performing at a school assembly, the first thing the politically correct left would do is play the race card."
You just played the "close-minded right-wing stereotype card" by generalizing that all rap uses lyrics of poor taste so you refuse to listen to it. We want America to be open minded about different races, religions, and cultures. Is public school the right place to teach this? Yes. Is public school the right place to preach just one religion? No. BTW - Are you one of those people who complain about movies like The Passion of Christ or Fahrenheit 911 without ever seeing them? Talk about hypocrites.
posted by Guest at 01:06 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 18, 2004 #
Yes, I did play the “close-minded right-wing stereotype card”. I assumed that just because many rappers disrespect women and glorify cop killing, they all do it. That’s one point for you. Another point for you is that you have the liberal wisdom to know when to stereotype and generalize. For example, that Christian band Pawn, if you allow them into the school, they will burn the Star of David and the Koran and convert all your children to Christianity.
The government not recognizing the separation between church and state has, personally victimized me myself. When I was in school in the late 70’s early 80’s a rabbi was invited into the classroom. Having a rabbi in the classroom must violate the church separation clause, as the left sees it. The rabbi wasn’t there to discuss the merits of Judaism, much as Pawn wasn’t going to the school to discuss the merits of Christianity. The rabbi was there to discuss the holocaust; he was a holocaust survivor. This has damaged me because I can’t laugh at a joke, such as “did the turkey scream when you put it in the oven, no, it must not be kosher then”. Also when I run across a holocaust denier, I cant help but tell them they are full of shit.
posted by mike2004 at 12:29 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 19, 2004 #
A piece of FYI handed out in Rossford:
---------------------
1. In the Good News Club case decided in 2001, the United States Supreme Court ruled that excluding a religious group or organization from a school because of their religious beliefs or message was viewpoint discrimination and violates the First Amendment. The constitution requires that speech with a religious viewpoint be treated equally to speech with a different viewpoint. Persons otherwise allowed to speak in a school cannot be excluded on the basis that the speech will have a religous viewpoint.
2. The assembly Pawn had been invited to perform at was not a mandatory assembly. Kids could go other places. It was totally voluntary. The school was not forcing religious beliefs or a religious message on anybody.
3. This was not the school speaking. Private individuals were the ones communicating the message that was deemed objectionable. The Supreme Court has made the distinction between public and private speech. The Establishment Clause, which is the provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution that controls government involvement with religion, is violated when the government engages in speech proselytizing a religious viewpoint.
4. The school invited the group to sing and then censored them. This is what the Supreme Court calls a prior restraint, which is stopping a person from speaking before they have a chance to speak.
5. The context was an anti-drug message. Pawn's purpose was to further this message, not to force their religion on any student.
-------------------
I guess this is why we need lawyers, to make sense out of all this crap.
As to point 1., if I understand the "Good News Club v. Milford Central School" case correctly, that involved an after school Christian club. I take it the Pawn concert was during school? A key difference?
A comment on viewpoint discrimination:
"Finally, if "viewpoint discrimination" really is unconstitutional, then how can "diversity," i.e., racial preferences, be justified on the grounds that it is necessary to reward and encourage certain viewpoints?"
Because it's selective for some. Certain groups define free speech and democracy by that which they agree with. If it's something they disagree with, then it must be censored.
Point 5 about the assembly being an anti-drug message, I thought the parents and the guardians of the kids were the anti-drug. Why would an anti-drug assembly even be needed? Is it because the school knows that a large number of parents don't give a damn about their kids?
As if the assembly will have any real impact. The kids just want an excuse to get out of class. And if it's voluntary, why would druggies go to an anti-drug assembly? Maybe the assembly should be directed at the parents and not the kids.
Etc.
Pawn, Breaking Point and Red Letter Life will be playing at The Mill on News Year's Eve.
Pawn will be on the Fox cable news channel's program Dayside with Linda Vester.
Vester's comment:
"Hello? By the way, attendance at the rally next week was not mandatory, so no kids were going to be forced to listen to the music. Someone please tell me what is going on here? I can think of a long list of other things for people to get up in arms about and this sure doesn't make the cut."
Rossford School Board meeting on Monday, Dec 20 at 5:30 p.m. at the Glendale School.
Because of all the local and national attention this story has gotten, the Blade ran a follow-up story:
"After the story appeared in The Blade on Wednesday, several local television and radio stations interviewed band members. The story received more than 280,000 hits on The Blade's Web site during a 24-hour period. Glenn Beck, host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show, discussed the issue yesterday and the band is scheduled to appear Monday on the national cable network Fox News Channel."
Nowhere in this Blade story was it mentioned that Matt Drudge had a link on his website to the Blade's original story. I'm guessing that was a major reason for the number of hits to the Blade server.
And finally, but not surprisingly, there are some who believe Pawn orchestrated this whole thing to get attention for themselves. Supposedly, their band's manager, Dave Kleeberger, is behind it all.
Okay.
Let's see, getting the band invited to the school, yeah, that's doable.
But somehow Dave got parents to object to the band's content.
Somehow Dave got the school board to check with their lawyers in Akron.
Somehow Dave got the Akron lawyers to recommend that the Rossford school cancel the concert because the lawyers thought the concert "wasn't appropriate."
Somehow Dave got the school to agree with the lawyers and cancel the concert.
Somehow Dave got the Toledo Blade to cover the story and publish it on the front page of their newspaper.
Somehow Dave got Matt Drudge to post a link to the Blade story on the Drudgereport.
Somehow Dave got a local TV station to cover the story.
Somehow Dave got the Fox News channel to interview Pawn.
Somehow Dave got local and national radio shows to discuss the story.
Somehow Dave got other news outlets to mention the story.
Somehow Dave got other websites to mention the story.
Holy shinola. With that much power and control, maybe Christians should be praying to Kleeberger instead of God. Or maybe mathematicians should bow down to Kleeberger, since that's some serious calculating.
My advice to these conspiracy theorists: quit scooping your drinking water from the Maumee river. You know, pollutants and all. And maybe you want to check to make sure you're not accidentally taking your pets' medication. It's cold out there. Protect your brain from freezing by wearing a hat.
You know, if no parents had objected, this topic doesn't exist. There's no story. It's the information age. How quickly a story develops and spreads. Mmmm, maybe that's what Kleeberger was counting on. Savvy. If so, then he needs to be hired as a PR person for a Fortune 500 company.
posted by jr at 07:14 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 19, 2004 #
You digress. The issue is whether a band with a Christian message should be playing in a public school during school hours. In that event, a Jew/Moslem/Buddhist/atheist would have two choices with equally bad results. They could go to the concert and choke on the Christian message (as I was forced to hear about Jesus when in public school as a child 40 years ago) or they could go to a "study hall" to be ostracized later as "anti-Christian." Both choices are cruel to kids who are not Christian.
If that statement bothers you, then I pose this question: How would you feel if your Christian kids had to endure a band with messages from the Koran or the Talmud at least once each year? Might you feel threatened for your children's "Christian" future?
To the middle class parent (above) who lacks the funding to send his kids to a parochial school... Are you trying to justify acts which ostracize non-Christians simply because you don't have enough money to send your kids to a parochial school? Is there any logic in that?
It's not the music that counts, it's the message. And in a public school, a message that promotes Christianity is inappropriate, intolerant and insensitive.
posted by Chaz at 05:38 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 20, 2004 #
HA, HA, HA - even though a Pawn band member said, "A number of people signed petitions and I would say about 95 percent of the student body wants [the concert]" (ABC-13) now, at the Rossford School Board Meeting, they said they doubt they would even play after school. Perhaps they know that 95 percent of the student body won't go if it is after school. How embarrassing! My guess is, students would probably sign up for a Nazi rally if it meant it would get them out of class.
posted by Guest at 01:44 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 21, 2004 #
Okay...let me start off by saying that this is a huge issue...I'm writing from Lancaster...ya know way down in Hickville Ohio.
Is this what we are all coming to? Someone of a different race looks at you and you scream racist? Or as you pass someone on his or her way to church you scream bigot without knowing them? This is appalling.
Just because Mr. Kleeberger is on the school board doesn't mean that that is the soul reason that Pawn was invited to participate in the assembly.
Did you ever think that it could have been because they are talented? *SHOCK* Wow...yes they are a Christian band, but did you listen to their music? Did you like the instrumental elements? Did you like the vocal elements? Or did you just focus on the fact that they are praising their God.
Yes I understand that America was founded on Christian beliefs, and yes I understand that there are other religions that are present in America.
Did anyone say it was a bad thing? When did you see a scandal like this over another band of religious affiliation? You don't. And why might that be? Because these other religions are being persecuted in America? No...because America has become PC or rather they have wrapped everyone up in bubble wrap so that no one will get hurt. An example...not being able to say God bless you to someone when they sneeze. Seriously this is just about as ridiculous as calling French Fries Freedom Fries. *rolling of the eyes* Really now...do we need to go this far?
Okay before you jump down my throat...I know that there are people of religious affiliation that are not embraced, as well as people who are not affiliated. I understand that. What I don't think that some of you understand is that 20 years ago Christianity was still embraced...still accepted. Now it seems that people are pushing Christianity as far away as possible. Does this make it right? Of course not, nor does it make it right that my little sister comes home with mini books on Kwanzaa and Hanukkah but nothing on Christmas.
Personally I am a Christian. And honestly, I have hit some really rough times...times when it was hard to say I am a Christian. But ya know what...these hard working young men have busted their butts to get their band name out there. Why would they want this kind of publicity in a town they love? It has really shown a negative side of Toledo to me as I'm sure it has to other people in America who have seen the information on this story.
To use a favorite phrase on this topic page "but I digress"
The point is that there were no other religious bands mentioned that were interested in playing in the assembly. Why is that? Are there any? And why is it bad that those young men wanted to share (notice not shove) their beliefs but most of all their talent with their peers, which takes a lot of guts.
Are the majority of you out of high school and college? Maybe you don't remember what it was like to have a friend in a band, or be in a band yourself. The hardest group to play in front of is your friends. So combine that with sharing your beliefs, and then sharing why you choose not to do drugs. Sorry ya'll I find it hard to believe that any of you would be jumping up and down for the opportunity to ostracize yourselves from your peers in that way.
Again...it was voluntary. There were other groups that were going to participate. It was not just Pawn that was going to be part of the assembly. Are you telling me that you want your children to be just as bigoted as you say Christians are? Hmm...puts it in a different perspective doesn't it.
According to Chaz the school is inappropriate, intolerant and insensitive because it was asking some students of that school to show their talents for a good cause.
Wow...really? You don't think that maybe...just maybe...we could all sit through a moment of discomfort to hear someone tell their side?
Uh-oh...is that what this is? Wow then apparently I was just subjected to inappropriate, intolerant and insensitive behavior. What? Oh you say that it’s MY CHOICE to read this? And it’s MY CHOICE to add in MY BELIEFS? WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO? Oh wait….isn’t this kind of like the situation?
Seriously...what are you more upset about? A group of teenage/early 20's guys that are against drugs and have morals and talent or are you upset that your son or daughter might be subjected to a religion/group of beliefs that YOU (not necessarily your child) disagree with?
Can we just quit being so freakin PC about everything? You know it is possible to be friends with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Jews, and just about any other group you can think of. Try embracing everyone...maybe then the rest of the world won't seem so inappropriate/intolerant/insensitive anymore. Good luck with continuing to be angry, through the Christmas Season (which I'm sure a few of you who are not religious participate in.) I'd also like to say that I understand your points of view to a certain degree, as I hope you understand mine. God bless, and to the members of Pawn, and their families - Be proud. You have created a following that I'm sure not even all of you have realized. To the parents - you have raised some wonderful children who are talented, moral, and all around mature young men who seem to be holding themselves well through a difficult time. To Pawn – Keep up the great work guys. I love your music and I think that as you continue to be strong through this ordeal God will open many more doors for you to witness to some of the non-believers who have opened their hearts to the message. God bless you all and have a wonderful Christmas season as you celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior.
Sorry that this is a novel...I felt it necessary
posted by Guest at 02:08 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 21, 2004 #
Why would they want to play after school with town members like you "supporting" them? Grow up!
Get over yourselves and learn a little tolerance. I totally agree with the person from Lancaster.
Quit being so darn PC and angry. Really...its not attractive.
Plus a rally like that to get out of class? I don't think so. They were going to have to talk about not doing drugs either way. Why not listen to classmates in an assembly as opposed to a 1981 video or "studying" in study hall.
You are all ridiculous and childish. I agree with this statement: You know it is possible to be friends with Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Jews, and just about any other group you can think of. Try embracing everyone...maybe then the rest of the world won't seem so inappropriate/intolerant/insensitive anymore.
Why don't you all learn to be tolerant of people's differences. No one was forcing anyone to listen to their music. So get over it and get down off your stupid soap box.
posted by Guest at 08:25 A.M. EST on Tue Dec 21, 2004 #
Tolerance is exactly at the center of this issue. Understand that non-Christians do not want their children to hear about Jesus in a public school, except as a reference point in history, philosophy or political science courses. And don't ask our children to "opt out" and go to some study hall, after which they will be branded as the "evil" people who ar not Christian. Be tolerant of the fact that we are not Christians and we do not wish to hear your message. Christian messages belong in parochial schools.
This is not a Christian country.
posted by Chaz at 05:39 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 21, 2004 #
On Pawn's web site they say, "Pawn's main purpose is to spread the word of God to those who do not know Him, and in doing so, give people the love of Christ. We want to reach people for God." So, if this is the case, why don't they just play a *gasp* free concert after school...for Christ's sake?
posted by Guest at 08:22 P.M. EST on Tue Dec 21, 2004 #
Chaz says, "This is not a Christian country."
Then it's also not a non-Christian country. So what's your point? I'd say being exposed to many religions would make for fascinating learning.
Get politics out of the schools too. No more social studies, history, and political science taught in public schools. Why would a parent of kid in a public school want their child exposed to a teacher's political dogma? If you want political science, go find an appropriate charter school.
And no more art in the public schools either, since some artists are offensive. Some artists' idea of "free speech" makes others cringe. If you want art, then attend the Toledo School for the Arts. Art has no business being taught in the public schools.
Some of you people have skin so thin that it's transparent.
The latest from the Blade:
"Rossford school officials may let a Christian rock band play at school after all. A week after Superintendent Luci Gernot rejected a request to allow Pawn to perform, prompting a flood of national attention, she said the group may play. But it would be after school and at an event sponsored by local businesses."
I attended the Rossford school board meeting on Monday evening. I got there early. When I walked in, there was a little orchestra of about 10 adults, playing Chr*stmas songs. I didn't pay too much attention to all the songs. One was Jingle Bells, so no biggie. But I believe they also played Hark the Herald Angels Sing. That's a Chr*stian song. What's up with that?
There was a Chr*stmas tree in the room. It was a green tree, not sure if it was real or not. It was sparsely decorated with just some colored lights and a star on top.
The Super spoke first on the Pawn issue. She said after viewing the band's website, the school felt Pawn playing during school could be a problem. She said the school's decision would be the same no matter what type of singing group. And blah, blah, blah.
Her statement was brief and insignificant, because of what was behind her. Plastered on the wall in big letters was "We Wish You A Merry Christmas." What a hoot.
This meeting took place in the Glendale grade school. It's a public school, so why are these words, music, and tree allowed?
Several people took the mike and spoke about the issue. Each spoke politely and intelligently. There was no arguing. No fire and brimstone. There were at least 100 people present, so it got warm quick. Without any fireworks because everyone was so nice, it would have been easy to doze off.
Local NBC and Fox news stations were present. I bet they were disappointed that a Pistons-Pacers-like brawl didn't irrupt.
One person who spoke called Pawn "artists." He added that Pawn was not being allowed to express themselves. You know, a lot of artists have gotten away with crap, literally, all in the name of "art" and freedom of expression.
Another person said that at 8:00 p.m. Monday night, she was going to the Rossford school's Chr*stmas show in some school's auditorium. I don't know if it was being put on by grade school or high school kids. School kids were in the show. The person said kids would be singing Chr*stmas songs. She said the performance was part of the kids' grade. I'm not sure if the class was an elective or did the kids have to take the class.
But what about all that? This is like what Chaz was talking about, when his kid had to be in Chr*stmas shows. Now this one on Monday was obviously after school, so maybe that's their out? But if a kid's grade depends upon participation, how can that be permitted?
Why isn't this Rossford school Chr*stmas show viewed as being offensive? Where's the lawsuit? Where's the outrage from parents? It's probably because the teacher in charge of the Chr*stmas show doesn't have a website.
How can the Rossford school board censor one type of Christian music and allow another type of Christian music? Hypocritical.
posted by jr at 04:39 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 22, 2004 #
My point about this being a non-Christian country means that it is inappropriate to bring the message of any religion into a public school during school hours and sponsored by the school. It would be just as wrong if the band was spreading a Hindu or Muslim message. But jr tries to twist my words into something they are not. It is VERY appropriate to discuss Christianity (along with other major religions) in Social Science, Political Science, Philosophy or Religion COURSES.
Christianity was forced down my throat at Christmas-time 40-50 years ago in public school. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Kids are also ostracized by those "opt out" scenerios. It spearates the "good" Christians against those "bad" Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc. It is intolerant to force a Jewish or Moslem child to listen to Christian-oriented music during school hours and outside of a political science course.
Evangelical Christians (and you know that they are involved here) must learn that their religion has no corner on the market for truth, accuracy or validity. Jews never try to get others to change their religion. Why can't evangelicals leave us alone? We don't want to hear their message. If they want to pretend that my "soul" will burn in hell, that's OK with me. They can play that rediculous thought out as much as they want. But I do not want to hear about it. And I certainly don't want my public school grandchildren to hear about it in public school. This is NOT a Christian Country.
posted by Chaz at 05:40 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 22, 2004 #
I just LOVE how Jr. starts his debate with "Then it's also not a non-Christian country" but unwittingly shows all the Christian messages all around us, whether we like it or not. Ha, Ha, nice rebuttal. Even a member of the band Pawn talked about how he felt that his band and religion were being discriminated against. Discriminated? I think not. Where was the Chanukah Menorah or the Kwanzaa Kinara? We are not being exposed to many religions - only Christianity and thankfully some members of the Rossford community stood up and said enough is enough!
posted by Guest at 10:49 A.M. EST on Thu Dec 23, 2004 #
I agree that most of you have such thin skin it is transparent. This is ridiculous. Read what this country was founded on and you will see that in fact IT IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY! There is freedom of religion but it was based on Christian principles. Also...try picking up a dictionary every so often...some of you might sound a little more intelligent when you don't write like a 2nd grader. GOD BLESS AND MERRY CHRISTMAS!
posted by Guest at 06:22 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 23, 2004 #
A little 2nd grade history for you: America was first inhabited by the native Indians (non-Christians) and then invaded (founded) by the Puritans. As aggressive Christianity spread i.e. "convert or die" the natives lost. Seems they had no choice. The rest, as they say, is history...but the witch hunts continue. (For more fun Christian reading check out the Crusades which lasted almost 250 years waged against the Arabs/Muslims. Then connect the dots to today's "Crusade" in George W. Bush's own words). Truly, it is upsetting that Americans do not even understand nor care to understand their own history yet question why the rest of the world loathes us. WAKE UP AMERICA!
posted by Guest at 02:38 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 24, 2004 #
All good thoughts and points. So we know Chr*stianity and any other religion should not be in public schools. Okay, we got that.
But what about my idea of removing art and history from the public schools too? It's for similar reasons: offensive to some and teachers proselytizing. That word has been used a lot recently.
Eliminating art and history, it's a progressive idea, in my opinion. Let's keep the progressive ball rolling. Get the art and history and anything related to politics out of the public school. Put those subjects in a club after school. Or let the kids learn art and history from their parents. Or go to a charter school for art or political science.
Through their work, some artists express their social, religious, and political beliefs. Can't have that. A lot of what happens in history is based upon some kind of religion. Therefore, no more history in the public school. Not to mention the political dogma spewed by some history or political science teachers. Offensive.
Cash-strapped schools could save money by no longer employing art and history teachers. And they'd save money by not paying for art supplies.
Merry Christmas everyone!
posted by jr at 09:49 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 24, 2004 #
Unfortunately Jr. a lot of what you say is already coming to fruition. As charter schools and private schools become more popular and public schools struggle to get enough funding, more and more children are being segregated. The children of the rich, the religious and the ethnic are all separating. So much for America's melting pot. And as for children learning any cultural diversity and tolerance toward those cultures, fogetaboutit. Case in point - Rossford!
Interestingly, I went to Rossford High School and graduated in 1990. We NEVER learned about 1936 Rossford High School graduate, atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, then known as Madalyn Mays. Probably the most historically significant person to ever walk the halls of Rossford, no one ever mentioned. (I certainly I would remember this because of my connection to Rossford). I also asked a graduate of 1983 and a current senior of Rossford and neither one ever heard of Ms. O'Hair until this whole Pawn thing broke the news. Why do you think this is? It would be like saying, after the fact, "Gosh, I didn't know Martin Luther King Jr. went to Rossford. Why didn't anyone tell us?" It just shows what little cultural (other than white Christian) education we get. Everything, in America, is based on a Christian viewpoint. Our American history books were written by white Christian men but a whole heck of a lot of important people and cultures formed our great country.
And by the way, as a baptized Lutheran white male, I have no pc problem saying the more appropriate HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
posted by Guest at 06:14 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 24, 2004 #
I agree Happy Holidays to everyone.
However, I disagree with the majority of these comments. The original inhabitants were Native Americans, but even they have religion. The United States of America was founded on Christianity...which is probably why the name God is found everywhere. To shove religion on people? No, because the founding fathers felt that He was (and is) such a huge part of uniting a group of people.
Besides what does it matter? Were these boys holding a bible study and forcing people to come and participate? No! They were partcipating in an anti-drug concert! Were they going to share why they don't do drugs...yes! That is the point of an anti-drug anything!
People, why can't we step back and look at the big picture. If your child was in that audience would he/she just hear a Christian saying why they don't do drugs? No, I'm sure there would be several other people who share their reasonings who aren't affiliated with the Christian faith. Besides, if your child was frying their brain wouldn't you want someone...anyone to try to convince them that it is bad for them?
I agree with whoever said that maybe we all need to become friends with people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds. I have never pushed anyway away because of their background or heritage. Unfortunately I seem to be one of the only ones who can honestly feel that they aren't relying on that to find a friend.
Think about this statement...do you consider yourself prejudiced?
No matter what, you are. When you notice a bigger woman walking down the street, you are prejudiced for seeing her weight. When you see a man who is in a wheel chair you see him for his disability.
A prejudice is to judge prematurely and irrationally which can cause harm.
If you disagree with this statement, I hope that eventually you will see that everyone is prejudiced because we all see these things. It is only when we wear "rose colored glasses" that things can maybe seem a little more clear.
Leave the boys alone. They were trying to prevent the possibility of brain damage to America's youth. There were other people involved in the assembly, stop giving yourselves bad publicity. Attempt to see the good in people as opposed to the "poor me; everything always affects me" syndrome that some of you seem to have.
posted by Guest at 01:17 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 26, 2004 #
"I agree with whoever said that maybe we all need to become friends with people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds." -Guest.
Well, Guest, proposing that this country is a "Christian" country based upon support of the "Christian God," will gain you no new non-Christian friends. And who, exactly said that God was a Christian in the first place? As a matter of historical perspective, more people were killed by Christians against non-Christians than in all of World War I and World War II. Yes, the Crusaders killed every Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist and atheist that they saw. So, how could a Christian God really be one worthwhile to worship?
But I digress. Public Schools must refrain from sponsoring any activity that promotes in any way, any particular religion. Even if the goal is to diminish drug use, the tool is inappropriate. They could sponsor a band that discourages drug use without promoting a religion. Plain and simple... that's the rule. If you don't like it, move to Canada.
posted by Chaz at 07:40 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 26, 2004 #
Chaz, No matter how loudly we beat the drum our message obviously falls on deaf ears. We get called the hypocrites and we get called the prejudiced just as the minority has been called (and killed) for thousands of years. The point is clear: we feel that a CHRISTIAN rock band (or any religious band for that matter) should not be allowed to play during school hours in a PUBLIC school. The lawyers agree with us, the ACLU agrees with us and the Supreme Court agrees with us. End of story.
posted by Guest at 02:55 P.M. EST on Wed Dec 29, 2004 #
"End of story."
I love people who say that. Their arrogance, their inflated self-importance, their pseudo intellectual superiority. As if these people are the final authority on any topic. As if they are God.
Apparently, when these types have spoken, no one else is allowed to say anything, because the story has ended. Keep it up Guest. We need pods like you to laugh at.
And this Guest user demonstrates its phony tolerance for others. How can you be so insensitive, Guest, with your "deaf ears" comment? Deaf? Shouldn't that be hearing-impared or some such thing? Please, show some sensitivity.
Once again, we got this religious thing in public schools resolved, so let's focus on getting art out of the schools.
A 1999 story
"At Maricopa High School, yearbooks featuring artwork created by the yearbook adviser, who is also an art teacher at the school, were censored after the school board deemed one of the works offensive."
"The work was a picture drawn by adviser Deborah Leavitt at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. The picture shows a crumpled American flag with a gasoline nozzle lying on top of it, soaking it with blood. Leavitt said the piece was intended as a protest of the United States' economically motivated involvement in the war."
"[Maricopa School District Superintendent Barry] Lindaman said a majority of the school board members said the picture was not appropriate for a yearbook. Lindaman said his decision to censor the yearbooks was justified under California's student free expression law. Lindaman said his actions were legal because the yearbook staff thought it had edited the picture out of the yearbook. He also cited the section of the California law prohibiting student expression that is obscene, libelous or slanderous."
"But Michael Small, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said Leavitt's work does not violate the section of the law Lindaman cited. "It's not obscene," Small said. "It's not libelous. It's not slandering." "
Why is the ACLU so selective? Why do they support some offensive work and rail against other offensive work?
One thought about that.
"Someone erects a work of art in a public place. Most passers-by do not understand it. Some are even offended by it. There is an uproar, with efforts to get the thing removed. The arts community and the civil-liberties groups rally to its defense."
"A work of art, they say, must be respected in itself. As for the controversy, that is a good thing. Public art is simply doing its job when it provokes the public to open its collective mind to ideas and perceptions it is not used to."
"This scenario is repeated over and over again throughout the country, occasioned by museum exhibits funded by taxpayer money."
"So why is it different when the work of controversial art depicts the Ten Commandments? Courthouses around the country are having to censor their monuments to the stone tablets of Moses. Why isn't the arts community offended at this assault on artistic freedom? Where are the civil-liberties groups defending artistic expression?"
"It cannot be because the Commandments have a religious subject matter. Other controversial art has had religious content. The painting of the mother of Jesus that was defaced with animal dung and festooned with cutouts from pornographic magazines, that was defended. If someone cleaned the manure off of the painting and took off the porn clippings, would the arts advocates stop defending it? Then would they think it should be removed from a taxpayer-supported museum, as a violation of the separation between church and state?"
And art should be removed from public schools if it's deemed offensive by at least one student, no matter if it's being taught by the teacher or created by another student.
Right? Consistency here, right?
More Obscenity and Absurdity crapola:
"The artistic expressions of modern American culture are, for the most part, not simply indifferent to the Christian outlook on life and values, but positively hostile and hateful toward it. Doug Bandow reminds us in a syndicated column that "art has been used as an ideological weapon throughout history." Today's art functions as a powerful tool for the tearing down and wearing down of a Christian view of the world, of man, and of ethics."
"What is even more outrageous, however, is that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) -- a government agency financed by the public treasury -- is responsible, directly and indirectly, for the partial funding of the obscene exhibits mentioned above and the crucifix dipped in urine. The taunting of Christians is paid for by the taxes of Christians! We are expected to subsidize those who detest our values. It is perfectly understandable that a tremendous public outcry was raised against NEA's audacity."
Free Expression Policy Project
"FEPP takes a non-"absolutist" approach to free expression. For example, sexual and racial harassment, threats, and false advertising are types of speech that do not, and should not, have First Amendment protection. But a painting or photograph with sexual content is not sexual harassment, and a work of literature or scholarship is unlikely to constitute a threat. Protected speech may be offensive or controversial - but that is all the more reason to protect it. Unprotected speech should be narrowly and specifically defined, and have a direct, tangible, demonstrably harmful effect."
posted by jr at 02:25 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 30, 2004 #
It is not legal to have somone in a public school tell students that Jesus was the son of God. Is the law too much to ask of school board members? Christian beliefs belong in parochial schools.
Evangelical Christians feel that they MUST convert (subvert) non-believers to their version of religion. They will never stop this objectionable behavior because they won't admit that their religion might not really be the only accurate religion. They won't allow non-Christians to be happy with their own religion. They will never understand how intolerant they are with others.
How would they feel if their kids came home from school and said, "Mommy, Mohammad is the only true prophet and only He is next to God, not Jesus, who is a false prophet"? How can Americans say that Christianity is better, true or more accurate than Islam or Judiasm, or even Buddhism? Who has a monopoly on GOD?
Keep religion OUT of public schools. This is NOT a Christian country and Christians do not have the right to place Christianity in front of my grandchildren in a public school. Virtually every Federal Court has said this. The US Supreme Court has agreed to this. Please keep your Christianity to yourself! You have no right to inflict Christianity upon my progeny in a public school.
posted by Chaz at 08:14 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 30, 2004 #
"How would they feel if their kids came home from school and said, "Mommy, Mohammad is the only true prophet and only He is next to God, not Jesus, who is a false prophet"?
If my child came home and told me that, I'd probably say to my kid the same thing as any other day: "Get upstairs and clean your messy room. Do your homework. Do the dishes after dinner. Practice whatever. Only a half hour of TV before lights out."
Mohammed, Jesus, Shaq Daddy, wouldn't matter to me as long as my child can read, write, and do math well. The rest is jibberish. The rest the child can figure out on his or her own or learn from family. Math, math, math. Can't stress math enough. Don't like math? Learn to like it. Kids should be mentally abused with mathematics. Kids should come home from school with blood trickling from their ears due to learning so much math.
Are the schools in Japan, South Korea, India, and elsewhere hung up with to be religious or not to be? I'm guessing no. Those kids are getting mathematics pounded into their skulls, and then kicking our ass in the high tech job industry.
As more and more computer programming jobs and other highly-skilled work moves from the U.S. to India, fret not, because we're winning the battle in the U.S. on getting religion out of public schools and anywhere else in public life. The U.S. is "cornering the market" on political correctness and phony sensitivity.
Oh boy. Golly gee. That will really come in handy someday. Yessiree Bob. We may not know jack-shit about Differential Calculus, but damnit-to-God, at least we ain't got none of that there religion being thrown in our face.
It's amazing how hot and bothered you anti-Christian zealots get. You end up becoming the epitome of that which you condemn. You probably foam into a serious lather when you learn that a ham radio operator tapped out the words "Jesus Christ" in Morse Code. I'm thinking spontaneous combustion is not out of your realm of possibility.
. -. -.. / --- ..-. / ... - --- .-. -.--
posted by jr at 02:26 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 31, 2004 #
Wow Jr, you seem to have taken a tangent rambling on about art and math. Stay focused. The point we are discussing is religion in public schools. It does not belong. It is not legal. Get it? At least we agree that the students’ time could be much better spent learning than attending a concert...drug-free, Christian or whatever. Good morals (and religion) need to be taught in the home.
Speaking of which, I find it quite disturbing that if your child came home after being influenced by some zealot you would ignore them, send them up to their room and tell them to do their homework. But at least he can do math! I think the Unabomber was good at math too.
I know you were just trying to make a point and though I think I understand what you mean (as in: this has all been blown out of proportion), a child's mind is very influential and unfortunately many parents (if there even are two parents) don't listen and don't care about what their child does, or what they learn, or who they hang out with.
By the way, Religion and the State In Japan:
"Article 20 of the 1947 Constitution states, "Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all. No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority" (see The Postwar Constitution, ch. 6). Contemporary religious freedom fits well with the tolerant attitude of most Japanese toward other religious beliefs and practices." (Source about.com.) Religions in Japan are classified into Shinto, Buddhism, Christianity, and other miscellaneous religions.
Note the word tolerant.
posted by Guest at 01:48 P.M. EST on Sat Jan 01, 2005 #
"What hath God wrought!" Morse certainly was a very Christian man Jr. Yes he was. In fact...
Not only was Samuel Morse the inventor of the telegraph but he also had a reputation for radical politics. An avid anti-Catholic, he wrote a series of newspaper articles (collected in a best-selling book in 1835) that denounced the Roman Catholic church and opposed immigration of Catholics into the United States. According to Morse, Catholic immigration to the eastern United States would soon put America under the sway of Catholic despotism. Before Morse's articles appeared, Americans had considered immigration beneficial because it would help populate the nation's vast territories. But by linking immigration to Catholicism, Morse's articles (which went through many printings when republished as a book in 1835) helped spawn an anti-immigration/anti-Catholic movement that would persist for generations. Source - William Kloss, "Samuel F. B. Morse" (1988).
Lack of religious tolerance. Sounds like your kind of man Jr. Tap away and watch me combust. That is unless you are Catholic. BOOM!
posted by Guest at 03:24 A.M. EST on Sun Jan 02, 2005 #
Sorry, Guest. It's not the end of story. And to the other Guest, I am on topic with the discussion veering toward art. You need to pay more attention. This whole issue with Rossford school and Pawn is over art. The freedom of artistic expression.
If you are a fan of the arts, as I am, then you must support Pawn. If you like the arts but agree with the school's decision of censorship, then you are a hypocrite like the ACLU.
As mentioned above, the ACLU is selective in what offensive art it defends and what offensive art it wants censored. That's intellectual dishonesty. Maybe the safest and most consistent decision is to ban all art from the public schools. But there is still the problem of banning and censoring other public works with Christian themes, while other "art" remains.
There is religious and anti-religious art. The definition of "offensive" is subjective. There's art out there deemed offensive by some but it survives because it's art. Just because a work has a Christian theme doesn't mean it's no longer art and it must be censored. It's amazing how some of you change the rules as you go.
It appears that idea proposed by the Rossford school about an after-school Pawn event was a sham.
A letter on behalf of Pawn was sent to the Rossford school system: to Superintendent Gernot, Board President Spahr, and School Board Members.
The letter is about three pages long. Here are some excerpts:
"We respectfully ask Superintendent Gernot to change her ruling, and re-schedule the event as it was originally arranged. Should she fail to do so, we ask the School Board members to exercise their authority to over-rule her decision."
"We love our school system. We are proud of it. We expect to see courage and strength displayed. Re-scheduling would put to rest some very troubling public perceptions."
"Why did Superintendent Gernot make a decision to cancel?"
"In her own words, she said it was made after talking to lawyers who reviewed the band's website. They are a Christian band. Of this there is no doubt. The website reflects this truth. However, they had agreed to restrict their talk to the theme provided. They were willing to subordinate the verbal expression of their faith to the needs of the school and its students."
"To cancel their performance, based on privately held beliefs that would not be expressed during the assembly, is called "viewpoint discrimination." I am told it is illegal."
"Their music is their art form. And censorship of art is ground we really don't want to tresspass upon."
"For many of us, the issue of discrimination against Christians, due soley to their privately held beliefs, is far too grave a matter to let drop easily, or worse, to simply ignore. Secondly, there is a cultural misunderstanding about the "establishment clause" of the Constitution creeping across our national mentality, and we think this issue needs to be further clarified."
"We have spoken to many lawyers over the last two weeks. Clearly there is a division of opinion about the separation of church and state as it applies to the public forum generally and to public schools in particular. It may be true this issue can only be resolved in the arena designed to handle such differences of legal opinion ... Court."
"Please be aware that we have no desire to be in conflict with the RHS school administration, School Board members or any individual. But we feel this decision must either be reversed or challenged. To that end we have asked the Rutherford Institute to represent our legal concerns, and they have agreed. We have further asked them to take no action until after the School Board either votes to reverse the Superintendent's decision or supports it. A "non-vote" will be viewed as support."
posted by jr at 09:09 A.M. EST on Tue Jan 04, 2005 #
jr has completely lost his/her mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with art. It's about the constitutional separation of church & state. No public school may support the presentation of religions expression of any kind during school hours. IT'S THE LAW! How art came into this is a mystery. And it's not about being anti-Christian or atheist. And it has nothing at all to do with the teaching of religion in courses such as history, political science, ethics or philosophy.
Any presentation that is a form of religious expression - plain and simple - is not allowed. Why can't some people understand this very simple and precious law?
Why can't some people be tolerant and understand that many parents don't want their children to hear a religious message that is not of their own family's persuasion? This is NOT a Christian country! We are a nation of many religions. Therefore, it is improper for any public school to do anything that would support the beliefs of one religion.
posted by Chaz at 06:52 P.M. EST on Tue Jan 04, 2005 #
Jr. - When is the last time you went to High School? Do you realize schools ban the "freedom of artistic expression" EVERY DAY? If a student were to draw, in art class, a picture of naked homeless man passed out with a bottle of Crown Royal what do you think will happen? Will it be hung in the main entrance or merely get tucked away? Should the student be able to sue the school system over this? Should Crown Royal? These children, and they are still children, are to be protected from unwanted, unsolicited, outside influences. Art & censorship are touchy subjects and now you are trying to throw religion in the mix? In this case, you are wrong.
First of all, you said "It's amazing how some of you change the rules as you go." I'm sorry but no one is changing any rules. Rules are here for a purpose - TO PROTECT (AND CENSOR) hence, a 31 page Rossford Student Handbook with tons of guidelines. For example:
Gender/Ethnic/Religious/Disability Harassment
Verbal: Written or oral innuendoes, comments, jokes, insults, threats, or disparaging remarks concerning a person’s gender, national origin, religious beliefs, etc. toward a fellow student, staff member, or other person associated with the District.
And as for art:
STUDENTS’ RIGHT OF EXPRESSION
Any material cannot be displayed if it:
• Is obscene to minors, libelous, indecent or vulgar
• Advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law
• Intends to be insulting or harassing
• Intends to incite fighting or presents a likelihood of disrupting school or a school event.
Materials may not be displayed or distributed during class periods, or during passing times between classes. Permission may be granted for display or distribution during lunch periods and after school in designated locations, as long as exits are not blocked and there is proper access and egress to the building. Students who are unsure whether materials they wish to display meet school guidelines may present them to the principal 24 hours prior to display.
Note how anything is subject to approval. Pawn was also subject to approval and denied as the rules state. No one changed any rules. Not only is it written in the Rossford Student Handbook but it is also the law. But in your warped philosophy, students, under the guise of artistic expression, should be able to DO WHATEVER THEY WANT and then sue the school when they cannot get their way?
I cannot believe Rossford School Board Member Dave Kleeberger is seriously thinking of taking the Rossford School System to court. Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest? Wouldn't he be, in a sense, suing himself? And for further information, The Rutherford Institute is, according to a New York Times reporter, "a kind of evangelical Christian civil liberties union." Source - Neil A. Lewis, New York Times, 1/18/98, p. 18. Do you think the Rutherford Institute will be protecting the rights the Jewish students as well? Do you think any other credible legal firm would take up this case?
Ultimately though, it seems you, Pawn and the Rutherford Institute want to take expression of religion and hide it behind expression of art. So who is the real hypocrite? Chaz is correct. In this case, art and religion are not the same. I'll explain again:
The reason art & religion are not the same and Pawn was censored is because at this PUBLIC SCHOOL students WERE REQUIRED to attend a known RELIGIOUS band's concert DURING SCHOOL HOURS and were not offered an EQUAL OPTION (not study hall) if they did not want to attend. The concert was not part of the curriculum as choir, art or history would be and therefore fell under legal interpretation (separation of church and state) by which the ACLU and Rossford Lawyers concurred and advised the for the cancellation of the concert.
You don't like End of Story? You've mentioned it twice now. Seems my arrogance, inflated self-importance, and pseudo intellectual superiority is getting to you.
posted by Guest at 03:42 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
Chaz: "It's about the constitutional separation of church & state."
Yeah, according to your bastardized definition of the separation of church and state. The school wasn't forcing a religion on anyone.
And to the "Guest" immediately above, a good, well-written post, but why was it okay for the ACLU or whatever group of lawyers to be standing by ready to sue the Rossford school if the concert was permitted, but it's not okay for Rossford to be sued because the school cancelled the concert?
You see, I think your're upset that Christians have legal representation and could take the school to court. Normally, it's the other way around. The Christians lower their heads and walk away. But now there's a fight, and you don't like it. Even though the fight is based upon our Constitution.
How come, Guest, you mention nothing about the ACLU example above about how the ACLU defended the art in a yearbook that was censored by the school board?
How come, Guest, you say nothing about "viewpoint discrimination?"
Your question: "Art & censorship are touchy subjects and now you are trying to throw religion in the mix?" is assinine.
See, you have already separated religion from art. You are implying that something religious can never be art. Why can't art include religion? Are you claiming there's no art in the history of the world that contains religion?
"Any material cannot be displayed if it:
• Is obscene to minors, libelous, indecent or vulgar
• Advertises any product or service not permitted to minors by law
• Intends to be insulting or harassing
• Intends to incite fighting or presents a likelihood of disrupting school or a school event."
Which one of those does the Pawn concert violate?
"But in your warped philosophy, students, under the guise of artistic expression, should be able to DO WHATEVER THEY WANT and then sue the school when they cannot get their way?"
Not my warped philosophy, champ. That's the ACLU's thinking. I'm looking for consistency. That's all. Again, why is the ACLU selective in what it defends and what it wants censored? You mentioned a lot rules about expression, so, as I've said before, the safest thing to do is to ban ALL art from the public school.
"I cannot believe Rossford School Board Member Dave Kleeberger is seriously thinking of taking the Rossford School System to court."
What? Where do you get the idea that it's only Dave Kleeberger behind the potential lawsuit? Deal with reality, Guest. Wake up. There are a lot more people behind it than just Dave.
From that three-page letter sent to the school earlier this week:
"A considerable number of the members of this community, parents, students and concerned leaders, as well as the members of the band themselves, have joined together to express their disapproval over the recent cancellation of Pawn's scheduled performance at Rossford High School."
Now, I'm a just a lowly graduate of a public high school so I could be wrong, but the above paragraph seems to imply that more than one person is involved. This is not just about Dave Kleeberger. You need to move beyond that and realize it involves a lot of people.
And I'll ask again, why isn't it okay for Rossford to be sued in support of Pawn? You damn well know that Rossford would have been sued by the ACLU or some group if the school allowed the concert. So there you go. Let it be decided in court.
What's wrong? Don't you like a little competition? A little fight? Seems healthy to me. Might be a good learning experience for the students, to see how the court system works.
"The Rutherford Institute is, according to a New York Times reporter, "a kind of evangelical Christian civil liberties union." "
Well instead of reading the New York Times, Guest, why don't you check the Rutherford Institute's own website?
"The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides legal services at no charge to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated ... This is due in large part to The Rutherford Institute's reputation as a fierce defender of religious freedom and civil liberties."
Guest added: "Do you think the Rutherford Institute will be protecting the rights the Jewish students as well?"
How about Muslim students? A recent Rutherford Institute victory:
"Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have successfully settled a lawsuit against the Muskogee Public School District, after school officials twice suspended an 11-year-old Muslim girl for wearing a religious head covering. Under terms of the agreement, the Muskogee Public School District has agreed to change its dress code to allow exceptions for religious reasons."
Guest, are you going to claim the ACLU has the best interests of every group of people? Of course they don't.
"Ultimately though, it seems you, Pawn and the Rutherford Institute want to take expression of religion and hide it behind expression of art."
Your're not very observant, Guest. People produce anti-religious works and hide them behind "expression of art," and the ACLU defends them. And I'm fine with that. But the opposite must be allowed too.
I support art, both the vile and the decent. But once you start censoring one form, then you run the risk of having every form censored. What you deem obscene may be something I like or produce and vice versa.
"The reason art & religion are not the same and Pawn was censored is because at this PUBLIC SCHOOL students WERE REQUIRED to attend a known RELIGIOUS band's concert DURING SCHOOL HOURS and were not offered an EQUAL OPTION (not study hall) if they did not want to attend."
That's where the courts come in, Guest, because what you're saying doesn't jive with what was said weeks ago. The students were attending an anti-drug assembly. The Pawn band members were not going to talk about religion. They were only going to talk about not using drugs. So Pawn is being censored because of their lyrics, right? And what's wrong with study hall? How can it be a required concert if the students were allowed the option to not attend?
That statement:
"The reason art & religion are not the same ..."
is a stumbling block here. Again, it sounds as if you are implying that art can never contain religion, which is wrong thinking.
"Seems my arrogance, inflated self-importance, and pseudo intellectual superiority is getting to you."
Easy. Don't flatter yourself. What gets to me is this prediction of freezing rain, not you.
But seriously, I do enjoy reading your posts, and I enjoy the debate. This website will be two-years-old in a week or so, and I don't think any topic has generated as much discussion as this one.
Can Chaz's modern defintion of the separation of church and state be applied to the Toledo Museum of Art? The museum is a privately endowed, nonprofit organization. But it receives funding from the Ohio Arts Council, which is a government agency that gets its money from taxpayers.
Does the Toledo Museum of Art display works that contain a hint of religion in them? I'm pretty sure I've seen such works. If that's true, isn't that a violation of the modern definition of separation of church and state?
Government dollars supporting works of art containing religion would mean the government is forcing a religion on its citizens, right? Remove the government funding from the art museum, then the museum can display whatever it wants.
A description of a current exhibit at the musuem:
"Passion for Drawing includes landscapes, portraits, mythological, literary, and biblical subjects rendered in a variety of media, such as red and black chalk, lead pencil, and pen and ink."
Another Rutherford Institute victory:
"Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have succeeded in persuading officials at Meriden Public Library in Meriden, Conn., to allow local artist Mary Morley to include paintings on Christian subject matter in her art exhibit, “Visions, Hopes and Dreams.” "
Religious artwork in a library that probably receives government funding? See the confusion?
"The bigger cultural issue here, however, is how art—especially religious art—should be treated by public officials and public institutions such as libraries. The history of art is permeated with religious themes."
"The greatest painters that history has known such as Rembrandt have painted religious themes such as the Crucifixion of Christ. Does this mean that Rembrandt would not be able to display his paintings at the Meriden Public Library? The library’s rationale would have excluded many of the great artists of history."
“The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that you cannot discriminate against a religious viewpoint,” stated Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “We are pleased that library officials have agreed to respect Ms. Morley’s right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as well as her right to equal protection under the law as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
posted by jr at 01:20 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
Guest,
The school principal scheduled the concert. Then, the school superintendant cancelled the concert because of Pawn's religious views. I can't say whether or not Pawn should have originally been scheduled to play; I'm not a lawyer and my opinion would be irrelevant in court. However, once it was scheduled, cancelling it based on their religious viewpoints(even though the band agreed their talk would only be an anti-drug message and not about religion) seems to be religious discrimination. I would see that logic regardless of their religious affiliation.
According to their website(rutherford.org), "The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms."
(doesn't really define itself as a defender only of Christian rights)
In fact, within 30 seconds of looking furhter on their website, I found this news release, "Rutherford Institute Attorneys File Suit in District Court in Defense of Muslim Girl’s Right to Wear Religious Head Covering to School". I know finding one case doesn't tell the whole story, and I didn't look into all their case history, but I suspect they protect non-Christians' rights as well. In fact, they are doing so by representing Pawn. I would feel the same way if it were Muslim, Jewish, Quaker, Hindi, etc. It is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religious affiliation and beliefs. Taking it to the way extreme, I may detest the beliefs of a Satanist, but I would like to think I wouldn't discriminate against him or her.
You are speculating on a couple other things that do not seem accurate.
"Do you think any other credible...take up this case" yes, I heard there was more than one group interested in pro bono representation
"I cannot believe Dave Kleeberger is seriously thinking about...to court" I have never heard Dave indicate any interest in doing so.
Your whole student handbook babble didn't clear anything up for me. There was nothing in what you typed that suggests the concert shouldn't have occurred. The principal wouldn't schedule a concert that was against the handbook policy. However, it was scheduled. The problem I have is the reason the superintendant cancelled the show, the band's religious viewpoint. I think that is consistent with the band's stance, so I support them.
I appreciate your contrary viewpoint and passion on the topic. I don't agree with it, but such is debate. I hope the school board re-schedules the show to avoid litigation. It would be interesting to see if a lawsuit on the other side of the table would be brought forward. Seems to me, then, that the Rutherford Institute should offer to defend the school system. The irony...
I have to admit, I don't understand why study hall would be such a punishment for those not interested in attending. Maybe you have a suggestion for an alternate activity that wouldn't be so punishing? I think it would be great if other organizations were given an equal opportunity for an anti-drug talk or concert at the same time. Then the kids could choose between anti-drug talks. Just a thought. I'd love to hear if you had other ideas.
Did anyone hear if the "back up" band's anti-drug message was any good?
Guest18
posted by Guest at 01:28 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
jr
haha, we must've both pushed our lunch hours a little
Guest18
posted by Guest at 02:20 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
Okay, you don't like the New York Times, lets try this again for those of you who do not do your research - "John W. Whitehead, 52, is founder and president of the Rutherford Institute, an organization based in Charlottesville, Va., known primarily as a legal aid society for conservative religious causes such as school prayer." Source - Washington Post October 2, 1998.
Or feel free to read 'Contending for Truth: A Call to Christian Thought and Action in All of Life' by John W. Whitehead. Here is the book description.
"Has America succeeded in eliminating God from modern culture? Has the Christian influence in society been erased? In many ways, its seems the answer is yes. America has ventured so far from its Christian roots that in key areas such as the arts and sciences, our schools and courts, it is as if the biblical worldview never existed. And where Judeo-Christian values are still tolerated, society largely views them with contempt, or keeps them so narrowly confined that they have little impact. But the shift away from the Christian influence in our culture can still be reversed--if God's people are willing to integrate the lessons of the past and grasp the opportunity at hand."
"We often forget that one reason Christianity became so dominant early on was because of its effect on real people in dealing with real problems in a real world. Historic Christianity saw life in its totality, not in fragments. Nothing about faith was compartmentalized. It was a complete and dogmatic worldview. That's what we must return to, affirms John Whitehead. A fragmented, accommodating faith will not do. Only a comprehensive Christianity--with its truth lived out distinctively across the whole spectrum of life--will influence culture and declare Christ authentically to a postmodern world."
"Here is motivation for Christians and the church itself to reclaim their influence once again as the 21st century dawns."
To me, that doesn't sound like a group that has the best interests of all races & religions in mind. "Contending for Truth - Christian Thought and Action in All of Life" What more needs to be said? In fact, it sounds like the messages on Pawn's website.
Overall, I am not saying Pawn's message is wrong (it is their opinion), nor am I saying they don't have the right to say it. But my point is clear since, in this case, it is regarding a PUBLIC SCHOOL not the Toledo Museum of Art in which you have a CHOICE to see the art on display. If they want to sue, that is their right too. In fact, if they win, perhaps the Supreme Court will allow prayer in school. Then, and only then, will I agree with you - when it is the law.
Once that happens, maybe Satan himself can be the guest graduation speaker. Marilyn Manson can play at prom...all in the name of good art. Hare Krishnas can walk student halls handing out flowers. The KKK can conduct history lessons in the name of good Christianity. Let's not discriminate now. Don't want to censor anyone.
posted by Guest at 04:02 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
By the way, the point in showing you the Rossford Student Handbook is to show you how school systems have different guidelines as they apply to minors versus the rest of society (i.e. the Toledo Museum of Art or Ohio Arts Council). These guidelines (which allow for censorship per the principle, superintendent, or School Board) include, but are not limited to: violence, drugs, alcohol, sex, discrimination, insulting material, and so on. ANYTHING, including Pawn, is subject to approval.
posted by Guest at 04:45 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
Children must attend school every day. They are NEVER forced to attend the Art Museum. jr's argument is non-sequiter.
The Rutherford Institute might have defended a Muslim girl, but their goal is to bring Christianity into public schools (and more). It would be naive to argue otherwise.
While those who first came here to steal the land from native Americans were largely Chriatian, our Constitution clearly separates religion from public enterprises (schools). It's the law.
As for "opting out" of such a concert... I have personally been the victim of such an arrangement. Yes, I was publicly ostracized by Christian students as the "bad Jew," who did not want to sing songs about Jesus. Want to know how that felt at age 12? You don't?
More than twelve million people were killed by Christians because they were not Christian. How tolerant is that? We're doing it again in Iraq now. Can you be surprised when Muslims call us "Crusaders?"
Why can't you understand that a Christian message (even in terms of anti-drug lyrics) is not allowed in a public school during school hours? It's a great law. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's still the law.
How many people would rise up in rage if a band played anti-drug music and at the same time urged all children to adopt Muhammad as our savior? And to jr... your "I would leave them alone" attitude is an example of terrible parenting. An appropriate response would have been "I would have discussed it with them immediately."
posted by Chaz at 07:59 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 05, 2005 #
An excerpt from an article on the University of Pittsburg website by Maureen W. McClure, Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, US
"Reading, Writing & Reconstructionism, The Christian Right and the Politics of Public Education."
"Attacks on public education generally fall into two categories. The first category can be viewed as attempts to "re-Christianize" the schools, be it through state-sponsored religious practices, the inclusion of "Creationism" into the science curriculum, the posting of the ten commandments in every classroom, the deletion or watering down of sex education, and removing any mention of multiculturalism (Gaddy et al 1996 Diamond 1996 1998 Edwards 1998). The goal is to remake the public school into "a subcultural ally" for fundamentalists (Oldfield, 1996). There are numerous institutions (Heritage Foundation, American Center for Law and Justice, The Rutherford Institute, Christian Coalition, Citizens for Excellence in Education, etc.) and individuals who routinely challenge school districts, states and the federal government over all manner of educational materials, practices and policies (Gaddy et al 1996 Edwards 1998 Diamond 1998)."
"The second category is "de-institutionalization," or attempts that are calculated to eventually disestablished public education. School choice, particularly in the form of unrestricted vouchers, as well as charter schools, and the homeschooling movement all fall into this category. While there are others who also favor school choice (libertarians in particular), Christian Right activists view vouchers, charter schools and homeschooling as good and corrosive developments that will eventually wither away support for public schools (Clarkson, 1997, Layton, 1995). A critical portion of the trend towards de-institutionalization is rooted in Reconstructionist theology, although racial politics is also a long-standing issue (Lugg, 1996 Lind, 1996). The public schools are viewed by Reconstructionsts as the major impediment to their theocratic agenda. According to Gary North, "Until the vast majority of Christians pull their children out of the public schools…there will be no possibility of creating a theocratic republic" (Clarkson, 1997, p. 119). Some go writers go further. Robert Thoburn, who heads the Fairfax Christian School in Fairfax, Virginia, has urged "Christians to pull their children out of public schools, run for school board," and then cut off funding (Clarkson, 1997, p. 119). Not surprisingly, Thoburn counsels candidates not to mention their agenda (Clarkson, 1997, p. 120)."
Interesting. Since Kleeberger is on the Rossford School Board now I see why he doesn't mind suing the Rossford School System. He is being encouraged to do so!
posted by Guest at 01:28 A.M. EST on Thu Jan 06, 2005 #
For more info, read the rest of this article by Ms. McClure
It is very interesting.
posted by Guest at 02:14 A.M. EST on Thu Jan 06, 2005 #
Chaz says, "Children must attend school every day. They are NEVER forced to attend the Art Museum. jr's argument is non-sequiter."
And no one is forcing you to read the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings, but why are they constantly being removed? Because some say it's a violation of the separation of church and state. Some claim government is forcing a religion by simply displaying the Commandments.
So why can't someone be upset over their tax dollars being used to support religious-based artwork?
But Chaz continues with:
"... our Constitution clearly separates religion from public enterprises (schools). It's the law."
If that is even remotely a correct interpretation of our Constitution, then a public enterprise like the art museum is in violation of the law. Thanks for backing up my point.
Then Chaz drifts into space with:
"More than twelve million people were killed by Christians because they were not Christian. How tolerant is that? We're doing it again in Iraq now. Can you be surprised when Muslims call us "Crusaders?" "
What the hell is the point of those statements? Are you sure you're in the right topic?
Muslims have been committing genocide against Christians in the Darfur region of the Sudan. That doesn't add anymore to this topic than your statements.
"Why can't you understand that a Christian message (even in terms of anti-drug lyrics) is not allowed in a public school during school hours? It's a great law. It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It's still the law."
The interpretation of the law according to Chaz, that is. But you never address "viewpoint discrimination," which is also against the law.
posted by jr at 04:24 P.M. EST on Thu Jan 06, 2005 #
The law allows art of a Chriatian nature in schools, as long as it is in reference to an Art class. The law allows Chriatianity in public schools, as long as it pertains to a valid social studies, political science or philosophy curriculum. Free expression of art has nothing at all to do with exposing public school children to a message that espouses Christianity.
The law does not allow a public school to sponsor a Christian message during school hours. Why can't jr comprehend this clearly written law? The US Supreme Court has been very clear and open about this. What part do you not understand?
I am not creating an interpretation of the law. The law is clear. No Chriatian message is permitted during school hours - even if it is crouched within an "anti-drug" message.
Mr. Kleeberger, as Pawn's Manager, is forcing his own school district to waste many thousands of dollars defending a lawsuit that he is encouraged to create by a right-wing Christian political action committee. Considering that Kleeberger is also a school board member, how responsible are his actions for the welfare of the District? Or, could it be that he is one of those individuals (above) who was encouraged to run for a school board seat in order to re-Christiaize a public school system?
posted by Chaz at 05:02 P.M. EST on Thu Jan 06, 2005 #
What Jr.? - no response, no love for your favorite Guest?
Anyway, "Ninety-nine people, including Pawn band members, parents, and community members, signed a letter given to the board Monday stating that litigation would be filed Tuesday if Ms. Gernot does not reverse her decision, or if the school board does not overrule the decision. Supporters held off filing the lawsuit because of tonight’s meeting." Toledo Blade, Jan. 6.
And so tonight, with members of the school district's law firm, Whalen & Compton of Akron present, the School Board voted NO TO PAWN!
End of Story......or is it?
posted by Guest at 11:25 P.M. EST on Thu Jan 06, 2005 #
It's sad that another Board member besides Kleeberger sees no fault in having a Christian message delivered in Rossford Public Schools. It could be an example of the blind leading the blind. Or, it could just be another intolerant person on the Board. These people can't be happy with having parochial schools in our community. They need to bring messages from their Christian beliefs into an environment where it is inappropriate and unwanted.
Let's hope that people will become more enlightened in the future and will understand why we must keep religious messages (outside of an approved curriculum) out of public schools. Let's hope that people will learn to respect the fact that many non-Christians attend public schools. The parents of those children no more want a Christian message in school than Christian parents would want a Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or athiest message presented to their children.
A person's religious preference (or non-preference) is their own personal and private belief. It is unethical and immoral to try to change someone's belief
posted by Chaz at 05:01 P.M. EST on Fri Jan 07, 2005 #
"And so tonight, with members of the school district's law firm, Whalen & Compton of Akron present, the School Board voted NO TO PAWN!"
Yes, the board voted no. That was at last Thursday's school board meeting. I didn't attend the meeting, but I "heard" about it.
First of all, it was a private meeting. The officials of a public school can't hold the meeting in public, eh? Interesting.
The meeting started at 5:30, and apparently at 5:35, the school officials scurried away like roaches under a bright light. What, do they have a hidden treehouse out back of the school that they use for super secret meetings?
A few dozen people from the community and several media outlets were present. What happened, did the school officials see all that and poop their pants? I guess the school officials at the Thursday meeting were MIA for at least an hour, probably chewing the fat with their lawyers. They came back to the public room and said get lost.
Sure, the school board can hold executive session or whatever it's called when the public is not allowed to see what's happening. I'd say private meetings make sense for matters like new hires and salaries. But why hide from such an important social issue that is so well-known in the community?
Apparently, the school said earlier in the week that they would not hold a private meeting, but they did anyway. Why the change? Spineless cowards, maybe? The lawyers, right? I heard that the lawyers have told Rossford school officials to not speak to the "other" side.
Last I heard, the Rutherford Institute will proceed with the lawsuit. I'm not sure about that, but it's possible, whichever Guest you are, that it's not over yet.
And what's with the all Guest posting? Why not sign-up and create a real alias? It's simple. I'm not a fan of Guest posting on community sites. Others like it. It's a personal choice. There are pros and cons to allowing anonymous posting. Anonymous posting seems to work fine at Joel on Software.
When this website started two years ago, it didn't allow Guest posting. I reluctantly added it a couple months after the site began to encourage more participation with the idea that a Guest poster would eventually create their own unique alias. Afterall, there are other topics besides this one concerning the area.
I'd like to get rid of the Guest account, but there have been too many good posts by the Guest user for me to disable it. Guest has done well, in my opinion. Better than expected. I thought the Guest account would be abused by drive-by spammers and trolls, but since that hasn't happened to much degree, Guest lives on. Now I've probably jinxed Guest and invited the abusers.
posted by jr at 03:29 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 10, 2005 #
All we ask is that these evangelical Christians leave us alone. Just leave us alone! Keep your messsage (that you just really know is the real truth, because it says so in the bible) in parochial schools. It doesn't belong in a public school. It's against the law. It's against morality and tolerance. Please accept that your claim on God is not the only claim.
The Rossford Board did the right thing - the only morally correct choice. Understanding why a religious message is inappropriate in public school is a start on the road to tolerance. I'm Jewish. My children went to Hebrew School after regular school in public education (Sylvania Public Schools). Now, how should I feel if a public school allows someone to teach my children that Jesus was the savior, during school hours? What type of mixed message would they end up with? How would they deal with the confusion? Evangelical Christians never allow themselves to be in the shoes of those they prosthylize to. They are so stubbornly certain that only they can be right, that they are blind to the truth, which is that all of us have our own claim on truth.
posted by Chaz at 08:06 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 10, 2005 #
Jan 13 Atlanta - (CBS/AP) A federal judge on Thursday ordered the removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying they were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The disclaimers were put in the books by school officials in suburban Cobb County in 2002.
"Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.
"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said attorney Michael Manely, who represented parents who brought the suit. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."
posted by Guest at 09:50 P.M. EST on Thu Jan 13, 2005 #
A sticker saying "a theory, not a fact" is now called religious dogma? The definitions continue to be changed. Well, it just proves what I said in an earlier comment that the public schools need to eliminate science along with history and art from the curriculum so students won't be offended and indoctrinated. I don't like my tax dollars going to history teachers who spew their political dogma.
posted by jr at 03:45 P.M. EST on Sat Jan 15, 2005 #
Article published Thursday, January 13, 2005
Discord absent from Rossford board meeting
Just last week, controversy surrounded the Rossford Exempted Village School District over a Christian rock band that was prevented from playing at an in-school, anti-drug rally. But based on attendance at last night's quarterly superintendent's forum, you would never know it: Three parents showed up for the forum to discuss projected boosts in school enrollment, the failed school levy, and other issues with Superintendent Luci Gernot and three other district officials.
"We usually get between 10 and 60 parents at these things," Ms. Gernot said as she helped set up chairs 15 minutes before the meeting in Bulldog Hall in the Bulldog Center.
"This is very, very unusual" - and "a little surprising," Ms. Gernot said after the meeting. "Maybe people just don't have questions right now."
posted by Guest at 02:03 P.M. EST on Sun Jan 16, 2005 #
It's over for now. The Board did the right thing. I have no idea exactly which public school teachers jr is accusing of "spewing dogma" but perhaps he understands what he means to say.
Science and art are two different fields of study. jr wishes to combine them for rhetorical satisfaction. Certainly no school board would permit a teacher to "spew" the "dogma" of one religion without providing equal "dogma time" for other major religions. So, I can't imagine any teacher getting away with that sort of public... dogma preference.
posted by Chaz at 12:46 P.M. EST on Tue Jan 18, 2005 #
"It's over for now."
Where are you getting your information? The Rossford school board has repeatedly ignored the "other side's" request for rational discussion. The Rossford school officials have not responded to phone calls or mail. I guess the Rossford school officials figure that if they ignore the "other side" long enough, then the "other side" will just quietly go away. Wrong. The school will be sued. There's another school board meeting open to the public on Monday.
Do you find it interesting that the Rossford public school gives students the day off to honor Dr. Martin Luther King even though King was a Christian pastor? A day off from a public school to honor a Christian? Why isn't that a violation of the separation of the blah blah blah? It doesn't matter that the holiday is honoring King's civil rights work. King was a Christian. How do the public schools justify giving students the day off for this?
If MLK was alive today and was invited to speak at the Rossford school on the subject of gardening, do you realize that MLK would have later been banned from speaking once the school officials viewed MLK's personal website and discovered that MLK was a Christian?
Even though the school never bothered to check with MLK to find out exactly what he planned to say about gardening, he would still have been banned. Even if MLK responded to the banning by saying he had no intentions to discuss religion during his gardening speech, he would still have been banned.
And you have to admit, non-Christian students would have been offended if MLK showed up at school to talk about gardening. Not because the non-Christian students opposed gardening, but because MLK was a Christian.
The Rossford school board would have banned MLK from speaking to the students not because of the content of what MLK was going to say, but because of who he was. A Christian. This is the crux of the lawsuit.
From an MLK sermon titled Why Jesus Called A Man A Fool.
"You know, actually all that I do in civil rights I do because I consider it a part of my ministry. I have no other ambitions in life but to achieve excellence in the Christian ministry."
Later in the sermon ...
"Finally, this man was a fool because he failed to realize his dependence on God. Do you know that man talked like he regulated the seasons? That man talked like he gave the rain to grapple with the fertility of the soil. That man talked like he provided the dew. He was a fool because he ended up acting like he was the Creator, instead of a creature."
"And this man-centered foolishness is still alive today. In fact, it has gotten to the point today that some are even saying that God is dead. The thing that bothers me about it is that they didn’t give me full information, because at least I would have wanted to attend God’s funeral. And today I want to ask, who was the coroner that pronounced him dead? I want to raise a question, how long had he been sick? I want to know whether he had a heart attack or died of chronic cancer. These questions haven’t been answered for me, and I’m going on believing and knowing that God is alive. You see, as long as love is around, God is alive. As long as justice is around, God is alive. There are certain conceptions of God that needed to die, but not God. You see, God is the supreme noun of life; he’s not an adjective. He is the supreme subject of life; he’s not a verb. He’s the supreme independent clause; he’s not a dependent clause. Everything else is dependent on him, but he is dependent on nothing."
If MLK was alive today, there's no way the Rossford school board would have allowed King to give a non-religious talk at the school's anti-drug assembly even after he was invited to speak. You agree?
Here are some of Pawn's lyrics. I don't know what songs Pawn planned to sing at the Rossford school assembly. The problem is neither did the school officials, because they never bothered to ask.
Here's a Pawn song titled Vital Signs:
"You better check your wrist. Make sure you're still breathin'. The pulse is gettin' faint, but I can feel it beatin'. You better check your brain, make sure you're still thinkin' I've got a lot to say, so make sure it sinks in... and then take a look around, everyone bouncin' to the underground T-town sound, lost and found then come alive inside, all the sistas' and the brotha's, just get your lifestyle out of the gutter.
Now leave the ground! Leave the ground cause nothin's holding you down. I wanna see if your soul's alive tonight. Now leave the ground, leave the ground cause nothin's holding you down. I wanna see your spirit take flight.
And then pop, pop, on in comes the air drop- ha. You better stop cause the time is comin'. Your tepid tendencies can jam with these melodies cause, when your time has come, your time is gone. You better realize the magnitude of the prize, we'll be waitin' for you at the finish line, so check your vital signs and make sure that your strong and not wrong before your time is gone.
Now leave the ground."
No God or Jesus in that song. What's offensive about it? How does this song violate the separation of whatever whatever? Even people who worship tree bark speak about the spirit, the soul, and the big prize at the finish line, which for the tree-barkers would be transforming into a giant acorn.
Are the words "spirit" and "soul" offensive to non-Christians? If so, how do you handle a pep rally when the cheerleaders ask if you got spirit? How do you tolerate restaurants who sell soul food?
As far as I know, the Pawn members would have given a religious-free talk at the anti-drug assembly. And it appears that Pawn has songs that exclude Christian-specific words. So why were they banned? It's not because of the content of what Pawn would have talked and sang about at the assembly. Pawn was banned because the school officials viewed the band's website and saw that Pawn is a Christian band.
The Rossford school officials reacted in a knee-jerk fashion. They got bad advice from their lawyers. The school officials were lazy. They should have investigated it further themselves by asking Pawn what the band planned to say and sing at the assembly.
posted by jr at 11:25 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 19, 2005 #
Oh, jr, jr, jr... you can't see the big picture of anything! MLK would have been speaking because he was a GREAT FIGURE IN AMERICAN HISTORY, not because he could sing and play drums. What a strangely twisted argument!
King's message was FREEDOM, not Christianity. Pawn's message is inspired by its religious persuasion. You can pull lyrics from anywhere you want in an effort to justify your twisted argument. I'm sure that you could find passages from the bible that do not seem to be overtly religious. Pawn is a Christian band. They want to spread the word of Christianity. And that is not legal inside a public school during school hours. If you want to change the law, go right ahead.
If Pawn wants to file a suit, that's Ok by me. They will lose. They might also take a look at the federal judges in this jurisdiction, including Judges Katz and Carr. The 6th District Federal Court will support the law, not the wishes of a Christian-oriented band.
Meanwhile, Pawn would severely damage their own school district by forcing them to pay legal fees defending themselves for making the right decision. In the end, such a suit would damage all of the citizens of Rossford. The board would have to divert much needed instructional funds to pay legal fees. Everyone knows that communities with poor schools have lower bond ratings and property valuation. But, they can damage their community if they want to. However, it might not be the "Christian" thing to do.
From your favorite "Christ-Killer,"
Chaz
posted by Chaz at 04:58 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 19, 2005 #
"... not because he could sing and play drums. What a strangely twisted argument!"
It's not my problem you can't understand logic nor understand the problem with Pawn and the Rossford school board. What does singing and playing the drums have to do with this? Do you have the mental capacity to grasp the concept that ministry comes in many forms? It could be a person speaking or a group singing. It could be through a painting or a sculpture. Just a few examples for you.
"If Pawn wants to file a suit, that's Ok by me. They will lose."
Since Ms. Cleo got sacked, who is the psychic you're getting your info from? Based upon the info available, I "think" the Rossford school board will lose the case.
posted by jr at 05:49 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 19, 2005 #
For more information on this issue, watch the show The Journal, which airs on the Bowling Green PBS station WBGU, Thu Jan 20 at 9:00 p.m.
"Rossford High School was in the national spotlight recently when school officials decided they would not let a Christian Band, “Pawn,” play for students at a school assembly. Now the band members say they plan to take the issue to court. Members of Pawn will tell why they think the school violated their freedom of speech on The Journal."
posted by jr at 02:00 P.M. EST on Thu Jan 20, 2005 #
Martin Luther King Jr.? Come on! Do you mean Muhammad Ali won't be able to speak in gym class because he is Muslim? Perhaps my math teacher shouldn't be able to teach because he is Chinese & a Buddhist. And according to good Christians, our kids shouldn't watch SpongeBob either...but that's a whole 'nother story.
Though we finally agree - "The school officials were lazy (& stupid). They should have investigated [the band] further themselves by asking Pawn what the band planned to say and sing at the assembly." But remember, that was the first part of the story. The second part, "They got bad advice from their lawyers", is incorrect. They got great advice from the lawyers because the damage was already done. School officials did not "approve & assure" it would be an appropriate non-religious message for a drug-free concert. If that would have been done from the start, none of this would have been an issue. Concerned parents could have been given a lyrics sheet of what the band was going to play. The administration is solely to blame, not the concerned parents and not Paw.....But wait, I just remembered for like the billionth time, part of "the administration" was school board member AND BAND MANAGER FOR PAWN David Kleeberger.
AH HA! Jr. you just pointed the blame at "school officials" thus implicating David Kleeberger in the process as well. Congratulations! So Jr., don't you finally see the conflict of interest? Don't you see why this whole thing really, really stinks? And now David Kleeberger wants to sue the Rossford school system? Did you hear that?
I just puked!
posted by Guest at 03:03 A.M. EST on Fri Jan 21, 2005 #
Yo, Guest, come back to reality. Dave Kleeberger is not planning to sue Rossford. Are you paying attention at all? Obviously not. Dave's been staying out of this as much as he can. I heard that he did not participate in the vote the school board conducted earlier this month because of the conflict of interest, you moron.
I realize pukes like you want to continue to wallow in conspiracy theories that somehow Dave masterminded this whole fiasco to give Pawn publicity. And you continue to ignore the real issue which is viewpoint discrimination, which I'm sure you have no idea what that is, because you're too lazy to look it up.
posted by jr at 03:43 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 24, 2005 #
Oh okay, so Dave Kleeberger is "not planning to sue Rossford," the Rutherford Institute is for Pawn. Dave is "staying out of it as much as he can" though his son is in the band, he is the band manager and he is on the school board. How stupid do you think I am? Or, better yet, how stupid are you? Looks like Dave is knee deep in a pile of crap to me. Not to mention all the crap he has been feeding to the public. MORE TO FOLLOW ON THAT!
It was nice to see that on WBGU "The Source" Rossford School FINALLY issued a statement that Anti-Drugs was NEVER a consideration when Pawn was first scheduled. Sources tell me the band was pretty upset before the taping of the show when they found out that the Rossford statement was going to be read on air. So if it was never intended to be an Anti-Drug concert, where did that come from Jr? Where did the Blade pick that up from Jr? Perhaps from Pawn? And speaking of conspiracy theories, I find it interesting what you say (like the MLK thing) seems to come right out the mouths of Pawn members just days later.
And for Rev. Montgomery to call the other band that played a bunch of atheists. Nice. I wonder how a good Catholic like Mr. McAlear, and fellow Rossford Board Member, enjoyed having his kid called an atheist since his son was in the "other" band that played.
Also, pay close attention to the recent Letter to the Editor in the Rossford Record because here comes another DAVE connection. Since it seems most of the letters to the editor published in the Rossford Record have gone against Pawn, FINALLY there is a letter for Pawn. IT WAS WRITTEN BY DAVID KLEEBERGER'S MOTHER IN LAW! However, no one would know that it is his mother-in-law becasue of the different last name. The writer "appears" to be just another "concerned" citizen. HA HA HA! So Jr. - please tell me again how Dave is "staying out of this as much as he can." Or are you going to resort to name calling again, "moron".
Viewpoint discrimination? Lets talk about everything that happened before the concert got cancelled such as: abuse of power, political strong-arming, conflict of interest, corruption, greed, lies & deception to the public. Do I think one person is responsible? YES I DO! And the Rossford community has suffered because of HIM. And if Rossford gets sued by Dave, Pawn, the Rutherford Institute, Jesus or whomever, well, like I said, that just makes me sick.
posted by Guest at 12:18 A.M. EST on Tue Jan 25, 2005 #
Hi.
Travis Montgomery, lead vocalist for Pawn here. Nice to see that "adult" discussions are taking place concerning this issue.
Facts:
We were never asked what we were going to say.
We were never asked what we were going to sing.
We have plent of songs that don't refer to God or Jesus or anything religious at all, either directly or indirectly, which would have aptly filled the assembly's time alotment.
We have documentation from the school that clearly dictates that this was going to be an anti-drug/anti-alcohol assembly. (the stressed "FINALLY" in the previous comment proves a point... had the truth been that the assembly was never anti-drug/anti-alcohol it would have been spoken against long before the threat of litigation. Luci Gernot (Sperintendent), Moe Minarcin (School Board President) and other board members have been interviewed many times previous to the date of "The Journal" debate.)
Because none of the before mentioned had been asked of the band by the school board, and because we had a set-list and a speech that didn't refer to anything religious whatsoever, the only reason we were cancelled was because we were Christians. 2 school board members and 1 administrator have made the claims that (and this is paraphrased) "any of the band members could have, at any moment, started preaching and even could have had an alter call during the assembly." This is despite that fact that we had an agreement with the school to refrain from doing so and it's despite the fact that we played for the city of Rossford that same year, under the same stipulations, and performed flawlessly under those guidelines.
The actions taken against us in light of the previously mentioned points spells out viewpoint discrimination.
As far as Dave is concerned...
He was elected by over 600 more votes than any other candidate for the school board because he cares for the community and the people know it. An anti-drug, anti-alcohol show was set up (religion not included) as a benefit to the community from people who care- the band and Dave Kleeberger. That was why the show was scheduled. If you really believe that Dave orchestrated this thing, this is what you would have to believe- that Dave:
Set up the concert: (False)
According to the bi-laws of the school's constitution, the only person who can do this is the principle and it was he who contacted Dave.
Canceled the concert: (False)
Only the superintendent can get the glory for that decision. The School board decided to do a non-vote on the issue- Dave abstained from the non-vote vote out of his own free will. However, Dave adamantly tried to get the school board to reverse their decision and save them from possible litigation. This can be found in the school board minutes. He went as far as trying to personally contact each school board member with information as to why the concert should continue. This is common knowledge to everyone involved with the process. If it was Dave orchestrating this whole thing, he would have remained silent as the rest of the board took their bus off of the cliff, but he cares for the community too much to be silent on the matter.
Start media exposure: (False)
The Blade article was initiated by a prayer chain the author was somehow involved with. The drudge report picked it up from there. Dave doesn't personally know anyone from either media source, and even if he did, the story would have had to have been newsworthy to have been printed.
After finding a post that disregaurds and doesn't even recognize the system of checks and balances purposefully put into place in our school systems, so that events similar to this one cannot happen based on the actions of a single individual, leads the reader of such posts to one of two possible conclusions: that the one posting is either unable to be honest (due to some bias)in his/her viewpoint, or that he/she is unable to grasp the essence of how the system works / has no understanding of it.
Concerning litigation- The band is not currently incorporated. Basically, "Pawn" as a group cannot be represented, only individuals can be represented. Futhermore, you need to know that Dave Kleeberger and his son are not ivolved in any form of litigation agaist the school. Only some of the members of Pawn are considering it. Those members, whether it "just make me[people] sick" or not believe that they were discriminated against, and like others before us, are willing to take a stand against it. I find it hard to believe that someone such as "Guest", who has been so pro-active in stating their opinion, whould be any different in a similar case of his or her own. Nor, would I expect anything less.
posted by Guest at 03:13 P.M. EST on Tue Jan 25, 2005 #
Travis - thanks for your post. It is nice to hear what you guys have to say. Like I said, it just makes me sick that this whole thing has spun out of control like it has. The controversy has been hurtful for you guys, the Rossford community and the students. Several administrators made some really bad decisions and I feel that they should be held accountable - and I do believe that David Kleeberger is one of those people. However, you have the right to stand up for what you believe in too. It just seems to me some type compromise could have been made (or can still be made) before litigation is necessary.
Do not bring hastily to court,
for what will you do in the end
if your neighbor puts you to shame?
If you argue your case with a neighbor,
do not betray another man's confidence,
or he who hears it may shame you
and you will never lose your bad reputation.
Proverbs 25:8-10 (NIV)
posted by Guest at 04:19 P.M. EST on Tue Jan 25, 2005 #
"However, you have the right to stand up for what you believe in too. It just seems to me some type compromise could have been made (or can still be made) before litigation is necessary."
But that's exactly what Pawn has been doing for at least a month now. If Pawn was really serious about a lawsuit, it would have happened weeks ago. But they have been trying to work something out with the school, but the public school refuses to talk.
Multiple times Pawn has tried to open a discussion with the Rossford school and the Rossford school officials have answered NO with their silence.
The Rossford school officials aren't open to the possibility that they have received bad advice from their lawyers.
This is not about the separation between church and state, and I think that's what the Rossford school officials believe this to be.
I'm amazed how a public school funded by taxpayer dollars and with officials elected by the public can ignore the public and not be open to discussion.
Looks to me like the Rossford school officials are teaching its students to strive for a position of power and then become close-minded.
"Or are you going to resort to name calling again, "moron"."
So, whatever guest you are, if you don't like me calling you "moron" because it fits, what are you going to do, get Superintendent Gernot to try to shutdown this site? Afterall, she has a habit of violating civil liberties.
"Viewpoint discrimination? Lets talk about everything that happened before the concert got cancelled such as: abuse of power, political strong-arming, conflict of interest, corruption, greed, lies & deception to the public."
Dude, I think you're either watching too much primetime drama TV, or you have been reading Bill Clinton's book My Lies or is it My Life? And I noticed in your rant that you still avoided addressing the real issue: viewpoint discrimination. But hey, keep on crapping here. Purge the poison. I don't want you to be sick. I'm truly concerned for your health.
posted by jr at 12:40 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 26, 2005 #
"A "students' rights rally and concert" will be held at the Mill on Jan. 29, including a panel discussion with Dave Zanotti, president of the Ohio chapter of the American Policy Roundtable, and members of Christian rock band Pawn. The discussion will focus on the First Amendment of the Constitution and students' rights in public schools."
posted by jr at 12:46 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 26, 2005 #
Hey, Travis Montgomery here again.
Guest, you are exactly right in saying, "some type compromise could have been made (or can still be made) before litigation is necessary." We believe in that whole heartedly. Here is what we have tried to do based on that prinicple:
We asked to speak directly with the board. Other than the 3 minutes per person alloted at public board meetings, which we tried to use as efficiently as possible, they refused.
We spoke directly to the Superintendent, but she refused to reverse her decision.
We wrote two letters to the board asking them to reconsider their decision and asking them to allow us to speak to them about "vital information" concerning this show. They never even responded.
We called the school board President and told him that we would put off litigation for a week if they would hold a special public school board meeting concerning this case, and would allow us to speak- they agreed. They held the meeting, immediately voted to go into executive session (private meeting for board members and administration only) where the ONLY vote AGAINST going into executive session was Dave Kleeberger's. For two hours they were in executive session as the rest of us waited. (about 100 of us.) They returned, decided not to vote on the issue and then upheld the Superintendent's decision.
We continued to hold off litigation, hoping beyond hope, that they would listen to us at the next school board meeting. The Rev. Montgomery (my dad, and spokesperson for the band) stood up to speak and reiterated that we needed to speak at length with the board about the decision they made. As he was going through his points as to why the decision was wrong, they shut him down saying that his 3 minutes was up. He asked for a little more time (he needed 5 minutes). They refused. I tried to defer my minutes to him. They refused even though it is within their ability to grant him more time. Furthermore, there was 22 minutes left in the 30 minute alloted time for the community to speak and they STILL would not allow him to speak. What really makes this a kick in the pants is that in their own school board policies, a person who wants to speak for more than 3 minutes is granted that right if the time alloted for public input has not been exceeded. This means that either their bias against us is so great that they are purposefully denying us the Right we have to speak, OR the president of the board is incompetent of his own board policies.
Futhermore, just to clarify some things concerning Dave- He has two kids in the Rossford school system right now. One is going to graduate this year, and another has 3 more years of school left. Both are honors students , play football and are great kids. Dave hates the idea of the school getting sued. He hates the idea that his own kids are going to get ridiculed over this issue and over what seems to be eminent litigation. He has tried literally EVERYTHING he can to stop litigation. Here is a list of everything he has done:
Called school board members to try and change the decision.
Given every school board member a packet of information concerning the legality of the concert.
Talked directly with the school's lawyers and tried to get them to give different advice.
Tried to convince the board to even listen to what the band has to say.
Voted against executive session to avoid litigation.
Advised the band to get the Rutherford Institute, the ACLJ and the ADF to just talk to the school's administration (without threat of litigation) about the legality of the concert.
He even told the band that if litigation does take place to PLEASE not sue for any kind of monitary damages. (Something we wouldn't do anyway.)
The only thing that Dave can be blamed for is helping to set up the show, which was perfectly legal, and which would have been extremely beneficial to the community in the area of anti-drugs/anti-alcohol... well maybe not "extremely" but I was going to be the one giving the anti-drug talk, and I really liked my props/speech- just don't burst my bubble! :)
You have to understand that Dave loves this school system and certainly loves his kids, who go to the school system. Even in the light of all that has happened and all that people have blamed him for, he still tells every media outlet that comes his way that the Rossford School System is a great school system.
Please, Guest, if you could point out one specific thing that Dave, himself, has done wrong, in the light of what you know, point it out. (He has no control over what his mother-in-law does... do you? If you do, please write a book on it and send me a copy- I'll pay thousands for it.) I am sure that Dave, would take what you say to heart and if it would benefit the school system in any way, he would either reverse or discontinue it.
... and one last point. I have the faith that if you and I were on a street corner and watched as a black/hispanic/person of faith or anyone else was discriminated against, the both of us would take a stand agaist it together, because despite our differences in opinion (and I'm sure we have some) we are the type of people that would not allow injustice to take place when we have the right to do something about it. Dave too, is one of these people, and as a school board member, he's watched as the rest of the board (by upholding the superintendent's decision) told his kid and his son's band (full of people he loves) that he wasn't allowed to play drums for his classmates because he was a Christian. Dave will do anything he can, but he cannot and will not remain silent about blatant discrimination. I actually pitty Dave, because for him it's a battle of two worlds, in which he cannot take only one side. Thanks for hearing me out.
posted by Guest at 10:12 A.M. EST on Wed Jan 26, 2005 #
Travis:
You have written some excellent postings. I am a different guest that wrote in the very early messages. I think that some of the people who have been posting have taken this to an extreme. Namely Chaz, who was anti-religion until about a month into this and then suddenly he let everyone know he is Jewish. I believe that in a persuasive speech that would be called the pathos: a pathetic attempt to win someone's appeal. However because of his past postings his ethos (another speech term) which is the level of charisma that allows the audience to either take him seriously or not, went down leaving some of us rolling our eyes in disgust at the attempt.
But I digress (to use their favorite phrase)
Regardless, I still maintain that the members of Pawn are strong people, who spoke up for what they believed in, and for the injustice that was being served. I have heard their songs, and are good songs which are art (couldn't that be linked back to another previous posting?)
Travis, let the other band members know that there are supporters. There are people, christian and unaffliated, that embrace difference, embrace religion in its many forms, and embrace beliefs. Don't lose faith...in fact have faith like a child. A child can be very open...not caring about skin color, eye color, defects, or home life. Continue to be open, continue to love, and most of all continue to spread God's word.
a loyal fan
posted by Guest at 03:45 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 26, 2005 #
Thank you! It has always been our philosophy that we never want to put out anyone else's "fire". We just want to build our own as best we can and let it shine . I can't tell you how great it is to get messages like yours. Your kind of support lets us feel the embrace of the community even in the light of so many who would rather shoot arrows. God Bless.
Travis Montgomery
posted by Guest at 05:53 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 26, 2005 #
In answer to Loyal Fan. I don't think you are reading the same posts as the rest of us. Go back and read these posts before you made ridiculous statements. Chaz never said he was anti-religious. Just because someone dosen't think a Christian Band should play in a public school it DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE ANTI-RELIGIOUS. Your post makes it sound like he/she came out of the closet and suddenly decided to be Jewish. His/her first post said that he/she winced when the word Jesus was said--from this you decide he/she is ant-religious? This perfectly illustrates what is wrong with the Christian Right--Many people are very religious but do not believe in Jesus or in Christianity. Christianity is not the only religion out there nor are males the only sex. Open your eyes, your mind and your beliefs--you are a narrow minded bigot who also thinks he is being so smart to use "speech terms". This just serves to illustrate that you--and your Pawn friends--think you are better than anyone else. You can use BIG words and can belittle others who don't think like you do. Isn't that just so grown-up!!
posted by Guest at 09:53 A.M. EST on Fri Jan 28, 2005 #
"Isn't that just so grown-up!!"
Yet, this same Guest user says:
"... you are a narrow minded bigot who also thinks he is being so smart to use "speech terms". This just serves to illustrate that you--and your Pawn friends--think you are better than anyone else."
Okay. So in some kind of perverted defense of whatever, this Guest user resorts to ad hominem commenting. Thanks for the Friday laugh, Guest.
posted by jr at 11:37 A.M. EST on Fri Jan 28, 2005 #
So, becaue I'm Jewish... I'm anti-religious? That's the kind of thinking that created the Holocaust. Thanks a lot, "loyal fan."
Travis, your band has a reputation as being "Christian oriented." So, don't be surprised when groups like the school board harbor suspicion that your music in their public school might include references to "spreading the word of God" which in this case means spreading God as defined by Christians. It now seems impossible to discern Pawn from evangelical Christianity.
My whole point here is a lack of tolerance for non-Christians. Those of us who do not recognize Jesus as our (or anyone's) savior deserve a little respect. Save your spreading of God's word (that is your version of God's word) for Church.
posted by Chaz at 07:03 P.M. EST on Sat Jan 29, 2005 #
Chaz, did you actually read Travis's posts? If you had, you would know that Pawn did not intend to talk or sing about Christianity. And the Rossford school officials never bothered to check into this. The school officials have denied numerous requests from Pawn to discuss what Pawn was going to being singing and talking about.
Why is it automatically assumed that if a person is a Christian, that will be all he or she will speak about? That's the problem here. You, Chaz, like the Rossford school officials are making assumptions without knowing the facts.
"It now seems impossible to discern Pawn from evangelical Christianity."
Well, Chaz, I guess you along with most of the Rossford school board and Super Gernot can be lumped in with that one Guest's narrow-minded group.
"My whole point here is a lack of tolerance for non-Christians. Those of us who do not recognize Jesus as our (or anyone's) savior deserve a little respect."
Oh, please. Spare me. Where are you non-Christians being disrespected? And don't bring up another story from 50 years ago. Try to keep it to something close to present day.
Pawn is being discriminated against because of who they are. They are not being banned because of the content of their songs planned for the assembly. Super Gernot incorrectly assumed Pawn would launch into Jesus-speak. All Super Gernot had to do was look at what Pawn was going to be singing about.
posted by jr at 11:21 P.M. EST on Sat Jan 29, 2005 #
As long as Pawn is interpreted as a Christian band, it will be inappropriate for them to play in a public school during school hours. And that probably means forever, unless Pawn suddenly changes its lyrics and effectively demonstrates over a period of time that they no longer promote Christianity.
If I were superintendant, I would have made the same judgement, based upon the religious bent of your past performances. I would make the same decision if it were the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I would ASSUME that the band would continue to fulfill its mission of promoting Christian messages. In fact, I would not trust them not to deliver such a message.
Religious messages belong out of public schools, unless it is within the context of political science, philosophy, history or social studies courses. The law speaks for all Americans. Christians do not have a monopoly on God. It would be wrong to suggest so without providing equal time for other major religions.
As for your ingenious misuse of the English language, I am "disrespected" by you when my Jewish child in public school must either hear a Christian message, or go to a "study hall" and be "disrespected" by her peers later for being the evil non-Christian amongst the pure Christians. Yes, it happened to me and that's how horrible it felt. My teachers 45 years ago "disrespected" me when I was forced to listen to and sing songs praising Jesus. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
posted by Chaz at 02:05 P.M. EST on Sun Jan 30, 2005 #
Jr - let me ask you a question: Don't you think the person running the web-site (YOU) should serve as a non-biased moderator, not a name-calling, agenda pushing thug responsible for 95% of the posts on the web site. If you want to rename this site the "Jr. Factor" do it or shut up. You stated you set up this website because "media outlets only lecture to us, a one-way communication" and "a community-based website, like ToledoTalk, that is free and open to anyone, allows people to speak their mind anytime he or she wants." Yet you sit there, call your "guests" names like "moron" and take part in adding fuel to the bigotry and hatred that is within you. Travis is expressing his view point and we are expressing ours, but you are making it a personal attack with comments like "Do you have the mental capacity," "pukes like you," and "you moron." YOU should be ashamed of yourself pretending this site is news-worthy. This site doesn't have one ounce of media credibility with you in charge of it. You created this site because of your "disdain for the media's arrogant and irresponsible attitude." Look in the mirror.
posted by Guest at 12:40 A.M. EST on Mon Jan 31, 2005 #
Okay Travis I want to talk a little more about compromise with some of the "facts" according to various media outlets in your own words or the words of your manager or fellow band members.
FACT: Blade article dated December 21st, Lucy Gernot stated, "Even though this band's concert and their message will not be presented during school hours, consideration is being given to offering the opportunity for an after-school concert." Even an article appeared in the Blade called "The Rossford Compromise" on December 22nd stated "ROSSFORD public school officials have come up with what appears to be a reasonable compromise to settle the controversy that erupted when the superintendent canceled a performance by the Christian rock band Pawn during school hours....the band will be allowed to play, but only after school hours and at an event sponsored by the Rossford Business Association." And in a Blade article dated Jan 6. it says, "Ms. Gernot said the band.....may be able to play after school at an event sponsored by local businesses."
But your band refused to play after school and threatened to sue. What happened to working out a compromise? From the day the show was cancelled in mid-December to January 6th the communication lines were open until...
FACT: Luci Gernot did have open communication with your band until your band decided to play the "we will sue" card. After that, she was advised by the school attorneys not to talk to you after you threatened a law suit. I'm pretty sure that is standard procedure. It is not smart to talk to people who are threatening to sue you.
FACT: Jerry Anderson on Dec. 15 News at 5:00 band manager, Dave Kleeberger said that "this (a law suit implied) is a chance to get Christianity back in the schools." That sounds like a religious agenda to me by your band manager and a public school board member.
FACT: The intention of the concert was never meant to be an anti-drug concert. So who came up with that one? The band? Lucy Gernot to cover her ass? When parents started questioning the reason for the concert, no mention was ever made by school officials that this was anti-drug concert. Then it magically appeared in the Blade. Travis even you state, "had the truth been that the assembly was never anti-drug/anti-alcohol it would have been spoken against long before the threat of litigation." So are you admitting your band never should have been allowed to play except under the guise of an anti-drug concert?
FACT: Band members and Rev. Montgomery say that you weren't going to talk about religion or sing songs with religious intent, but in the Bowling Green Sentinel article in Jan by David Dupont, Rob Golden, the band's bass player said, "That the group had spent a lot of time putting together what they would say." The Sentinel goes on to say, "Even before the controversy arose they knew they couldn't make any religious remarks between songs." But, "The lyrics of their songs, all written by band members are religious some directly others by inference. The band had no intention of dropping references to faith or Jesus from the songs they would perform, according to Golden." Now Travis, this is your own band member talking. Ouch. Sounds as if, even under the guise of a anti-drug concert, your band was still planning on spreading religious messages.
FACT: Therefore, the concert was cancelled. No compromise was made. So why the lawsuit?
FACT: Dec. 16 on Toledo Fox News at 10 p.m. Mr. Kleeberger said "they hoped to turn the publicity into a recording contract with a recording company in Nashville." Thus showing that he hoped to gain (if not financially then publicity-wise) from all the controversy. The Toledo Blade Jan. 8 Religion section indicated you were set to record a CD in Nashville, showing that you had contacted or had been contacted by some recording company.
And speaking of the Kleebergers again...
FACT: The current Rossford Record pro-Pawn editorial is written by Kyle Kleebergers girlfriends mother. And last week it was written by Dave Kleebergers mother-in-law. Who will write in next? The ghost of Kleebergers long lost great-grand-pappy? Travis you state, "if you could point out one specific thing that Dave, himself, has done wrong, in the light of what you know, point it out." Have you read any of the earlier posts? Conflict of interest for one. Speaking of which,
I have one final fact I would like to "uncover" but I'll let Travis answer it: was your band to be monetarily compensated to play at Rossford? What did your band manager negotiate since he is in charge of the Rossford School budget and all. What percentage does Dave get paid for being your manager when he books a concert for you? Rossford tax payers would like to know.
posted by Guest at 03:19 A.M. EST on Mon Jan 31, 2005 #
Sounds to me like Pawn and their manager rattled off too much with the press. If they indeed were to use Jesus in song lyrics, as Guest alleges through the BG paper, that in itself would have been inappropriate. Getting paid and using the performance as a kickstart for "a recording contract in Nashville" is also inappropriate, especially when said by a person who is both the band's manager and a public school board member (most interesting conflict of interest this past year). What's next, change science textbooks to say that "God created the earth in seven days?"
If Pawn's intention was not to promote Christianity, why wouldn't they be glad to play AFTER SCHOOL, making it strictly voluntary with no "opting out." Could it be that spreading Christianity everywhere is their guiding mission? If so, that's OK with me, except within the scientific santity and inherent tolerance of a public school.
posted by Chaz at 02:33 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 01, 2005 #
"Jr - let me ask you a question: Don't you think the person running the web-site (YOU) should serve as a non-biased moderator, not a name-calling, agenda pushing thug responsible for 95% of the posts on the web site."
Serve as a non-biased moderator? Hell no. Why should I do that unless you pay me?
I run the site? I pay the bills, deal with system issues, so what? Does that mean I can't have an opinion? What about the editorial board of a newspaper? What's their function? Should they be prevented from giving their opinions on the op-ed pages?
I'm respsonsible for most of the front-page posts, because there's not much traffic here and hardly anyone else posts to the front page. A pretty simple explanation. Anyone can post to the front page. It just happens that most don't.
Congratulations, Guest. You posted a comment here without it going through some kind of approval process first. Could you do that with a newspaper? Does every letter to the editor make it in the newspaper without being edited?
"If you want to rename this site the "Jr. Factor" do it or shut up."
Well there you go. I've received my marching orders. So typical. An opinion that's different than yours should be censored, right Guest? So I take it you're not a fan of free speech. You freely gave your opinion here.
Sorry so say, I'm not changing the name of this website, nor am I going to shut up. But thanks for the suggestion.
The "JR Factor?" I got my degree in mathematics, so I guess I can see the "factor" idea. I don't know. I'm confident, Guest, that you have the creative ability to come up with a better site name.
"... you sit there, call your "guests" names like "moron" and take part in adding fuel to the bigotry and hatred that is within you."
Okay, I apologize for my name-calling. I mean, what would Jesus do? So I'm once again shooting for a kinder and gentler jr in the new year. Thanks, Guest, for reminding me.
But it's funny, Guest. And once again so typical. You point out my name calling by calling me names. I love it. You called me a bigot and a hatemonger.
Since I'm too lazy to go back through all the posts, give me an example of my bigotry and my hatred.
"YOU should be ashamed of yourself pretending this site is news-worthy."
Thanks again for your suggestion, but I'm ashamed of nothing. In fact, I'm quite honored you stopped by and participated. Where have I ever said this site was news-worthy? You lost me on that one. I'm not pretending this site to be anything.
"This site doesn't have one ounce of media credibility with you in charge of it."
This site wouldn't nor should it ever have an ounce of media credibility no matter who was in charge, because if it did then what in the frigging hell would that say about the state of the media?
I don't know what your reading or assuming, Guest, but you may want to backup and start over. This is not a news org. Call it whatever you want, but this site is basically a message board. Topics or threads followed by comments. It's a concept that existed years before the web was invented. The term "community blog" is somehow more fashionable than "message board."
Not everyone gets their letters to the editor published. Not everyone gets to air their comments on a radio program. And it most cases for other media outlets, the stories don't linger long enough to allow people to comment on them weeks later like for this topic.
Guest, thanks for your posting. You validated the reason this site exists.
From the "about" page Guest referenced:
"The traditional, major media outlets, such as print, radio, and television, offer the public little or no means for discussion, to be heard. A community-based website, like ToledoTalk that is free and open to anyone, allows people to speak their mind anytime he or she wants. Message boards, like this, means a person can start a topic at 3:00 A.M., and someone else can respond at 3:00 P.M., and so on. Hopefully, the conversations will be intelligent and civil."
Hah!!! What was I thinking when I wrote that last sentence two years ago? But that's okay. Most of the conversations have been somewhat civil and surprisingly intelligent. I'd say better than some of the crud you read and hear elsewhere.
More from the "about" page:
"Is a site like this a replacement for traditional media? Definitely not. We cannot live without the professional journalists in print, radio, and television. Community web-based discussion sites will augment mainstream media, provide a way for people to discuss what they are reading, seeing, and hearing."
posted by jr at 01:04 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
The band was scheduled to play for no charge.
Dave is not paid to be their manager.
Chaz. If you were a great example of a Leader(business owner or successful family man or something that defined you as a great example of a leader) and scheduled to give a Leadership seminar at a school, but the school later cancelled because they read your posting where you said you Jewish, I suspect you'd point out, "viewpoint discrimination," as fast as Pawn has. That's their point. I don't believe they are pushing any establishment issues, only that they shouldn't have been cancelled because they were Christians.
Another Friend of Pawn
posted by Guest at 01:12 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
Well, "Another Friend of Pawn," I was honored by UT and by the UAW upon my recent retirement. I created and managed a successful division at UT that, for many years helped area businesses. It continues now, after my retirement. There are many people around the community who would probably call me a very good, if not "great leader." That probably includes most of my former employees. I've never (not once single time) mentioned God or Judiasm while working as a leader at UT or with a corporate client in our community. Has Pawn never (not one single time) referred to God or Christianity in a concert? In point of fact, I'll bet that Pawn has mentioned Christ, Christianity, God or religion in almost every concert. So, there is no entity on earth that could possibly cancel my appearance because of something I said in public about religion. Even if they only did it once, it would have been one time more than I did. I never said anything about religion, God or being Jewish. Where on earth did you learn about logic and ethical epistomology? Or, perhaps you did not?
Your miserable attempt at twisted logic amazes me. And "viewpoint discrimination" was someone else's post - not mine.
posted by Chaz at 03:56 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
Jr. you're right. It's your web-site and you can do whatever the hell you want. I'm just warning people that, unlike other professional message boards where the creator begins a thread of conversation then bows out, you will continue to post your views. It is a free country. But to give visitors to your web-site the impression that you are giving them an alternative media outlet that "allows people to speak their mind" is false when you personally attack them. You started the personal attacks and now this thread gone from an intelligent discussion to an arena of hatred with you leading the charge. The best way to get this thread back to "the community" you claim this site was set up for is for you to be quiet. But if you won't, neither will I. By the way, freedom of speech allows for one to speak their mind WITHOUT FEAR OF PERSECUTION. Do you really think your site fosters that Jr.? Ask Chaz.
posted by Guest at 06:19 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
Pawn has played anti-drug shows before, not speaking about religion or Christianity in between songs. One of the ACLU's main arguing points in many of their cases is that censorship of art of any kind of art in any way is unacceptable. Thats how the cross placed in urine was acceptable for display. So how can you discriminate against pawn for their art form and what's involved in it? And as far as the school is concerned, the band could have been playing all cover songs and they wouldn't even know it, because yes...they did refuse to talk to the band. The reason that the offer to play outside of school hours was rejected (I believe) is because that is basically just telling the school, and everyone else that it's ok to discriminate against someone else for what they personally believe. And one more point, the kids could have gone to see a movie as another option as well. Anyway, you probably won't see me on here again but I thought I would share my two cents. Have fun arguing.
posted by Guest at 09:22 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
"... unlike other professional message boards where the creator begins a thread of conversation then bows out ..."
Well, guest, you figured it out. This site is not the Washington Post Forums. I wouldn't want anyone who created a new topic to be banned from commenting on it later. What you're suggesting is absurd.
Other professional message boards? You're saying this site is a professional message board? Mmm, the toledotalk.com crowd thanks you for the compliment, but I think this site is pretty much mired in amateur status, and we like it that way.
"... you will continue to post your views ..."
Yep, sort of like what Matt Haughey does at his site MetaFilter.com or Rusty Foster at his site kuro5hin.org. Both are community sites that have been around for a few years. Rusty has posted over 10,000 comments to his creation and Matt over 3000 comments to MeFi. Are you worming your way through the Internet and trying to silence anyone running a community site?
I can't believe your attitude, guest. You're suggesting that people who create their own community sites shouldn't post to them. If I was a paid programmer consultant that created a community site for someone else, then yeah, your rule of law would apply. Or if I was a paid moderator for a company's community site, your idea would make sense. But a little secret for you, neither of those two conditions apply here.
And you're right, guest, I'm not going to be quiet. Talk about persecution. In the dictionary there is a picture of you beside the word. Listen or read to what you're suggesting?
"The best way to get this thread back to "the community" you claim this site was set up for is for you to be quiet."
Wow. You're trying to silence people. Who is being persecuted on this website? I like that "get this thread back" comment. Sort of Howard Dean-esque.
I respect Chaz and enjoy his company here, but Chaz isn't afraid to come down hard on people. He may use more tact than me in the long run, but he's wiser than I am. I'll partially attribute that to him having a few more years than me on terra firma.
But I don't think I've ordered someone to remain silent, like you have done, guest. If you don't like what I've said, fine, but to demand that I remain silent is a bit of an extremist attitude. I think even Chaz would agree with me on that point.
"You started the personal attacks and now this thread gone from an intelligent discussion to an arena of hatred with you leading the charge."
So you ignored my earlier challenge, guest, to find where I'm spewing hatred. Since you make these libelous claims about me, the least you can do is point out the specific places where I'm a hate-monger.
Maybe, guest, you haven't read all the comments, but this topic hasn't gone completely in the crapper. There have been intelligent posts by Travis and other Guests near the end of this thread. Take it easy on the hyperbole, guest. You may hurt yourself. And I don't want any harm to come to you. We enjoy your participation here.
My comments have been brusque at times. I already apologized for my name-calling and said I would try for a kinder demeanor in '05. But you, guest, have been more vicious with your "hate" and "bigot" descriptions of me. But don't think your remarks bother me, because they're just misguided words.
From the book Design for Community:
"It's incredibly hard sometimes, but community leaders must always be nice. Community leadership can be frustrating. There will always be members who test your patience with inappropriate comments, antisocial behavior, or outright insults. It's imperative that you remember that everything you type serves as an example of what is permissible in the forum. If you lose it and yell at someone, or use inappropriate language, you're inviting everyone to do the same. The high road may be difficult to take sometimes, but your community will thank you for taking it."
The book is "old" but still a good read and filled with good advice for managing a community site. It is incredibly hard sometimes to remain cool, but all I can say is I'll try my best to follow the book's advice.
But remain silent? No way, pal. Not here.
Yours truly,
silenced-by-no-one
posted by jr at 09:47 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
I never called you a hate-monger or a bigot. Those must be your own words about yourself. From your subconscious perhaps? (Some other guest called a loyal pawn fan a bigot but it wasn't me). Which proves my point that YOU STARTED the "inappropriate comments, antisocial behavior, or outright insults" with comments like "Do you have the mental capacity," "pukes like you," and "you moron" which has opened a floodgate of hatred. Congratulations. I like the quote from the Design for Community. That is why I'm asking you to either practice what you preach or stop preaching. "Community leader?" Thanks for the Thursday laugh, Jr.
posted by Guest at 11:42 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 03, 2005 #
guest, you said to me:
"... adding fuel to the bigotry and hatred that is within you."
You said hatred and bigotry is in me. How is your comment not calling me a bigot? The "floodgate of hatred?" There you go with that hyperbole.
"That is why I'm asking you to either practice what you preach or stop preaching."
I've already explained myself, and yet you continue with your order of silence. I've made nearly 1500 posts to this site in two years so there's a good chance for "error" on my part. We can't all be perfect like you, guest.
You've contributed maybe three comments and all have been bitter and harsh. How come you don't engage in "nice" commenting? You'd make your point better. Give us a role model to look up to.
"Those must be your own words about yourself. From your subconscious perhaps?"
See. There you go again with the attacks.
Yo, guest. The topic is Pawn and the Rossford School Board. Do you have anything constructive to say about the topic?
posted by jr at 10:25 A.M. EST on Fri Feb 04, 2005 #
Simply put Jr., I put a post on your web-site that you don't agree with and you call me a "moron" or ask another person who posted a differing opinion than yours "if they have the mental capacity..." You are not following your own guidelines. It was only AFTER I pointed out your hypocrisy that I asked if you think these personal attacks are appropriate or if they somehow make you feel better about yourself. You want people to participate and sign-up on your web-site but then you belittle them. As I said before, you should be ashamed of yourself. YOU made this a personal attack and your feeble attempt at an apology is transparent. I tried to constructively talk about the topic and as the "community leader" you humiliate your "guests." Why should I sign up? Are you really looking for conversations "free and open to anyone?"
posted by Guest at 11:31 A.M. EST on Fri Feb 04, 2005 #
Oh, you're that guest.
You said:
"Perhaps my math teacher shouldn't be able to teach because he is Chinese & a Buddhist."
after I said MLK, if alive, would be banned from speaking at Rossford on the subject of gardening, because MLK is a Christian.
And that's true, according to Chaz's comment:
"As long as Pawn is interpreted as a Christian band, it will be inappropriate for them to play in a public school during school hours. And that probably means forever, unless Pawn suddenly changes its lyrics and effectively demonstrates over a period of time that they no longer promote Christianity."
So Rossford kids could have MLK day off from school, but MLK would be banned from speaking about anything non-Christian at the school because it could be interpreted that MLK is a Christian minister. MLK would have to demonstrate over a period of time that he no longer promotes Christianity and then maybe he would be allowed to speak at Rossford.
WTF, Chaz? I don't know, Chaz. It seems like you have some freedom-of-religion, tolerance, and diversity problems.
guest, I think you're directing your persecution comments to the wrong person. How can either of you rationalize what Chaz said?
And yes, according to Chaz and the Rossford Super, your math teacher, guest, should be banned from teaching since he or she is a Buddhist. Unless over a period of time your math teacher no longer promotes Buddhism during non-school hours.
Well, now that I have a better understanding of what's what and who's who, I take everything back, guest, that I've said in the past couple days. No apology. No Mr. Nice Guy. Nothing. I stand by everything I've said here about you.
Good luck to you.
posted by jr at 02:59 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 04, 2005 #
Huh? I have no idea what Jr's last post even means. It reminds me of someone talking and eating at the same time. I know it's of the English language but it's unlike anything I've ever read before, even with my Master's Degree in English and teaching experience at the college level. Someone please help me decipher what Jr. is speaking about because all I caught was the "No apology. No Mr. Nice Guy. Nothing. I stand by everything I've said here about you" part which repeatedly proves my point:
Ad Hominem.
posted by Guest at 03:15 A.M. EST on Sat Feb 05, 2005 #
Is this thread even about pawn any more? I think there should be a new thread and we should call it "Whoever thinks they can talk out of their butt the best, post here." We have Mr. Master's degree, Mr. Bigot, Mr. Moron, Mr. Hatred...etc. Lets just get back to the topic.
posted by Guest at 07:41 A.M. EST on Sat Feb 05, 2005 #
Unless Travis posts a response to the last "facts" which pretty much blasted the band with their own words, I think this issue (at least for me) is over. The band has not come back to defend themselves and the Rob Golden quote was particularly hurtful to their "discrimination" plea. Besides, I'm having fun reading the war of self-importance and criticism. Think of it as an entertaining intermission until Travis comes back.
posted by Guest at 12:18 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 05, 2005 #
First, I can't tell which "guest" is which which because people aren't registering with a name here. But it's unreasonable to expect jr to start a topic and then remain silent about it. In what code of ethics must jr remain silent? I think Guest made that one up.
Ad Hominum is a natural, but invalid defence in ethical epistomology. For those who have never taken a college philosophy course, it means "I am right because I (or another human, or the writings of another human) said that I'm right. It is perhaps the most frequent defense of argument ever. It is also illogical, since only empirical evidence can make one "right," not saying that someone said so. Do you get it?
Empirical evidence must govern arguments, not references from a bible or a person. The topic is whether a Christian-oriented band should be playing in a public school during school hours. Would doing so constitute establishment of, or support for, a particular religion? That's our topic.
If Pawn included no reference at all to any religion or to their belief in any God, then their playing would be constitutional. But, Pawn has identified themselves in past music and performances as a "Christian-oriented band." So, what's the chance that they will suddenly change their performances and eliminate all references to Christianity? About the same as Santa Clause separating himself from the same?
Since the 2004 election, some right-wing Christian groups seem to consider it open season on changing the Constitution. These very people believe that the US is a "Christian country" and that tennants of Christianity belong in public schools. Some consider it an outrage that God is not the center of the classroom, instead of science.
It's time to understand that those who desire Christianity as the basis of public schooling are wrong. They are intolerant. This misguided grandiosity was responsible for the death of over ten million innocent non-Christians during the Spanish Inquisition and a similar number of non-believers in the Crusades. Yes, more innocent people have been killed in the name of Jesus than in all of the wars of the past two centuries.
So, let's keep a little perspective here. Christianity belongs in parochical schools, not in public schools. What makes Christians believe that their version of reality is true? Do they believe it because it says so in the bible (Ad Hominum)? And exctly WHOSE bible should we use for reference? Why would the Vhristian bible be more truthful or accurate than a Buddhist bible? Or the Koran? Or the Talmud? Who can claim the real truth?
If this thought disturbs some Christians, then I am pleased. Not because I wish discomfort upon anyone. But when it comes to religion, nobody has a real claim upon truth. And therefore, non of it belongs inside a public school during school hours.
And to the person who said that non-believers can "go to a movie," well I know exactly how it feels to "opt out." Yes, I know how it feels to be called the "evil Jew," the "evil non-believer" when it referrs to believing in Christ as a savior. No, opting out doesn;t work. It makes you more easily identified as the evil non-Christian in the group.
posted by Chaz at 07:42 P.M. EST on Sat Feb 05, 2005 #
Ad Hominem is the act of making attacks on the character of the person instead of the argument itself. This can take many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. For example:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.
posted by Guest at 01:38 A.M. EST on Sun Feb 06, 2005 #
Really, are other bands being allowed to express their music? No. The concert also wasn't about art, it was about drugs. They shouldn't have scheduled another band in pawn's place, but they did. In fact, Pawn should been like, "ey, we're not going to sing about god in this concert, cool?" Good ol' Rossford have asked for a copy or two of Pawn's lyrics.
Also, I heard Pawn filed their lawsuit to be allowed to play.
Jr, Rossford doesn't have a school named Glendale. It does have a Glenwood...
posted by Guest at 03:31 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 06, 2005 #
Those who wish to bring Christianity back into public schools might have better luck time traveling, than hoping for success in our court system, where such cases are so well-traveled as to earn frequent flier miles.
As for "Guest's" comment (above), and it's hard to tell one Guest from another, the school board could not have taken the chance that a band so heavily indoctrinated by Christian music, would keep God out of it for a public school concert. It would have been akin to trusting The Mormon Tanbernacle Choir to give a full performance without reference to God or Christianity. Having seen posts on this site, it seems to me that Pawn, its members and its manager are duty-bound to spread Christianity to anyone who will listen. A public school should be free from evangelical acts of any type.
posted by Chaz at 05:28 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 06, 2005 #
To the guest with all the facts, where are the weblinks to the media stories you mentioned? I'm not saying you're lying. It's just that we'd like to view them too.
Toledo Blade stories, Jerry Anderson at 5:00, the Bowling Green Sentinel, Toledo Fox News at 10 p.m., and the Rossford Record. I suppose we could search for these stories ourselves, but why? You made mention of them. It's customary for the poster to provide the links so the rest of us can read them.
Or did you find this information with a LexisNexis search? If you did, that's fine. You should mention that though.
And to the guest who can't read English even though you supposedly have a Masters degree in English, you should demand a refund from the University of Phoenix Online. Maybe your problem is you can't grasp logic.
I would have thought a person with a Masters degree in English would be above the fray, yet Ms. Masters seems to revel in it. Mr. Masters engages in the same activity I'm accused of doing.
Relax, Ms. Masters. You seem overly sensitive and emotional. Go for a walk outside and enjoy the beginnings of spring. Yeah, that's right spring is starting. The male goldfinches have started to change into the summer plumage. The cardinals and titmice are singing every day now. Robins and blackbirds are on the move. It's okay to turn off your computer for a while.
posted by jr at 01:15 A.M. EST on Tue Feb 08, 2005 #
Jr. - here's some of your "logic" since you seem to revel in it, but it bears repeating:
Ad Hominem is the act of making attacks on the character of the person instead of the argument itself. This can take many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. For example:
Person A makes claim X. "MLK would have been speaking [at Rossford] because he was a GREAT FIGURE IN AMERICAN HISTORY, not because he could sing and play drums. King's message was FREEDOM, not Christianity. Pawn's message is inspired by its religious persuasion." (posted by Chaz at 04:58 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 19, 2005)
Person B makes an attack on person A. "Do you have the mental capacity to grasp the concept that ministry comes in many forms?" (posted by jr at 05:49 P.M. EST on Wed Jan 19, 2005)
Therefore A's claim is false.
That was fun. Lets play again.
Person A makes claim X.
"Jr. you just pointed the blame at "school officials" thus implicating David Kleeberger in the process as well. So Jr., don't you finally see the conflict of interest?" (posted by Guest at 03:03 A.M. EST on Fri Jan 21, 2005)
Person B makes an attack on person A. "Dave's been staying out of this as much as he can...because of the conflict of interest, you moron." (posted by jr at 03:43 P.M. EST on Mon Jan 24, 2005)
Therefore A's claim is false.
Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.
And now Jr. writes I'm "overly sensitive and emotional". It seems Jr. can't make a valid argument for Pawn without attacking the personal character of those who argue against Pawn. What is next? "Your mother is soooo ugly...."
I'm sorry I thought this site provided a forum where a diverse group can discuss current events in an atmosphere of mutual respect. That is what I inferred from Jr's detailed reasons for this site: "A community-based website, like ToledoTalk (also called T2), that is free and open to anyone, allows people to speak their mind anytime he or she wants." Perhaps there should be an additional disclaimer that states personal attacks are welcomed and encouraged.
posted by Guest at 01:50 P.M. EST on Tue Feb 08, 2005 #
Guest's attempt to twist logic to meet his own argument's capacity is undecipherable. It's virtually impossible to comprehend, even when sober. How, exactly did you equate "Person A" and "Claim X" with "Person B" and "attack on person A." Wow. I took almost 50 credit hours of philosophy in college, but this attempt at a logical position meets no known strategems.
As for Guest's tirade against jr, I again fail to see Guest's proof. Despite Guest's allegation to the contrary, this site is "free and open to anyone." People here are allowed "to speak their mind anytime he or she wants," as far as I can tell. Guest's allegations fail miserably here.
What's most often missing here by posters is proof. If you state a proposition, you must be able to prove it to be true. It's not enough to say someting without being able to prove it, cite references where it has been proven, or at least provide a reasonable logical proposition.
What we need here is references or citations to back up allegations. Failing that, please express your logic in ways that bear the fruit of truth. Ad hominum is only one form of failed logic. Others exist here as well. Let's please consider backing up our allegations with true and uniform logic, as well as directly accessible references & citations.
posted by Chaz at 05:27 P.M. EST on Wed Feb 09, 2005 #
Persecution comes in many forms. It is easy to point at past history like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and Holocaust and say "that was bad" but it is often hard to recognize when persecution is happening right in front of you, or to you. Sometimes intolerance and hatred is subtle and other times it is so grandiose we cannot fathom what is happening or even begin to try to stop it. Because of pluralistic ignorance, history has a way of repeating itself. The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and Holocaust happened. So what did we learn? It will happen again as long as hatred and bigotry is accepted.
If you allow Christians ask if you have the mental capacity to understand their irrational views or question your "ethos" and "pathos" in "a pathetic attempt to win someone's appeal" (notice how jr. ridiculed the guest who defended you) or question your religious motives/"anti-religion" or make other stereotypical assumptions about you...that is your prerogative. But is this not a personal attack? Is this not a form of anti-Semitism? Or is it just a good, clean discussion full of mutual respect? Chaz you have taken the moral higher ground whereas others have not. That is my point as I have supported you. Sure you've been able to speak freely but the responses have attacked not your argument, but you. Why do you think this is? If you do not agree, that is fine too. Your lone voice can carry on...alone. Quite frankly, one "moron" here is enough.
"He who puts up with insult invites injury."
Jewish Proverb
posted by Guest at 03:06 A.M. EST on Thu Feb 10, 2005 #
Chaz - I think you are confused. Guest is not saying your argument is weak, he/she is saying that Jr. is using a common technique (questioning your character) to make it appear as if your argument is weak when, in actuality, it his argument that is weak. Politicians use this technique quite successfully with an ignorant public.
posted by Guest at 12:24 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 10, 2005 #
My question is--Has Pawn filed a lawsuit or not? They have been threatening the Rossford School Board with a law suit for months now, with supposed final threat on Feb. 4. Come on Pawn what is the answer? And why haven't you answered Guests questions on January 31? Or can't you answer them?
posted by Guest at 12:54 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 10, 2005 #
Unless Pawn has a flotilla of lawyers anxious to work thousands of hours for free, I doubt they will be filing a lawsuit aginst the school board. Of course, when those new cd's make Pawn multimillionaires, I'm sure they will hire as many lawyers they like.
Meanwhile, it also does not appear that the Rutheford Institute is in any hurry to institute litigation on behalf of Pawn. Could it be that they already know that the court system will find against them?
The Constitution and recent court verdicts make it clear that no public school may in any way support any religion. Yet, the religious right seems unwilling to stop whining about it. Hopefully, these people will soon stop their unwanted preaching. I guess that some people have a hard time accepting the fact that this is not a Christian country.
posted by Chaz at 03:53 P.M. EST on Thu Feb 10, 2005 #
Chaz, The Rutherford Institute is representing Pawn for free. I don't know if they constitute a flotilla of lawyers(is that more that than a plethora), nor do I know whether there are constraints on their pro bono offer. I've heard they would go to the Supreme Court, if needed, but that's really just hearsay.
Your sarcasm about new CD's and multimillionaires was warranted. Not many bands ever reach that level of success. This issue really has nothing to do with the music industry, though, or how Pawn would spend their money if they make it big. They have convictions, and are willing to take the berating of people who don't believe similarly for those convictions. L.Gernot believes it's okay to cancel a previously scheduled speaker from speaking on a needed topic(anti-drugs) just because the speaker has a viewpoint about another topic(religion in this case); despite the fact that a contingency of scheduling the show was for Pawn NOT to talk about that other topic. The band does not believe that's okay, Constitutional, etc. Apparently, The Rutherford Institute is convinced as well.
The Constitution is clear about a lot of things; freedom of speech being one of them. The band is free to speak about anti-drugs. I understand the other side's position about whether having the band at the school violated the establishment clause. I don't think it did, given their agreement to stick to anti-drugs. I know others don't agree. I am not aware of case study like this that would clarify which Constitutional concept has precedence or whether there is one ruling that would prevent either right from being violated.
It is my understanding that Pawn and the Rossford School Board are in communication. Original deadline for something(not certain exactly what, so I won't speculate) was 4-Feb, and it was extended because L.Gernot reported that the school board members weren't given all the information yet(or something like that). I don't know what the new deadline was nor what was asked for nor what would be the consequence of not meeting the deadline. I could speculate, but I won't to prevent possible untruths from being posted. Since the disagreement between the two parties has lawyers involved, it is common for neither side to say anything since an amicable resolution would still be best for everyone involved.
You are right that noone is in a hurry to litigate; Pawn is going well out of their way to try and resolve this outside of the court system. I don't believe they will sit idle while their rights are trampled over, either.
IMHO, your argument on 3Feb was weak. I proposed scenario A was valid; that viewpoint discrimation existed and wasn't Constitutional. You proposed scenario B where viewpoint discrimination could not occur within the context of the scenario. You made no point on whether you thought scenario A was viewpoint discrimination, nor whether you consider viewpoint discrimination acceptable. You made it sound good, though. The scenario I proposed wasn't intended to be a personal attack, at all. From your posts, I can tell you are intelligent and your passion suggested a high liklihood that you would be a good leader. I was trying to put you in their shoes. Maybe it was a bad example, but I'd like to know your thoughts on viewpoint discrimination. Maybe you've had some experience with it?
Sorry for the response delay. I'm not as active on this page as others.
Steve - aka Another Friend of Pawn
posted by Guest at 01:27 P.M. EST on Fri Feb 11, 2005 #
EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET, Pawn was never originally scheduled to talk about drugs. They were scheduled just before CHRISTmas break to play their music....Christian music. The anti-drug idea somehow "appeared" in the Toledo Blade. Even Travis admits the show, AT FIRST, was never intended to be anti-drug and "had the truth been that the assembly was never anti-drug/anti-alcohol it would have been spoken against long before the threat of litigation." (Toledo Talk, Tue Jan 25, 2005). It wasn't until later, when parents began to question the motives of the concert, that this anti-drug plan was devised. But by whom? No one has admitted to it yet that I know of. Which brings up another good point. Who made Pawn "experts" in anti-drug campaigns anyway? Perhaps Rossford should invite Louis Farrakahn to talk about abstinence. From what I hear, he is a pretty good musician also.
In Pawn's case, there simply is no viewpoint discrimination. There were bad decisions, cover-ups, and outright lies by both the band/band management and by the Rossford administration (and Dave Kleeberger pulls the strings on both sides) but in a PUBLIC SCHOOL the goal is to maintain a "viewpoint neutral" environment. Pawn does not meet this criteria nor would a Louis Farrakahn. The show, properly, was cancelled.
posted by Guest at 12:24 A.M. EST on Sun Feb 13, 2005 #
Many of the students at Rossford High School personally know 1/most/all of the band. The students know them to be of high character, as guys that don't do drugs or alcohol, and as guys that have happy and successful lives. That makes it more likely the students would hear the anti-drug/anti-alcohol message.
I would be surprised in any of the students at RHS know L.Farrakahn personally. Your point doesn't jive.
Would finding an anti-drug expert to speak have been a good idea? Maybe it would have been a good alternative. Maybe the principal should have considered that as the other option. I am tired of hearing everyone say how insulting it would have been to go to study hall instead of the concert. I don't understand their point, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt since it seems they've lived through some challenging situations. Instead of complaining that Pawn shouldn't be allowed to play(despite their Constitutional right to do so), why hasn't anyone suggested what an acceptable alternative would be? Whining is easy to do; find a solution for a change. Provide some contacts to a speaker with a different anti-drug/anti-alcohol delivery method. Provide a 2nd band who would mix in their music and produce an effective talk. Provide some brochures or video suggestions. Offer to take kids to a rehab center and show them the people there that have allowed alcohol or drugs to ruin their life. Show them how it's easier to just abstain from that road instead of battling it. For many kids, Pawn's presentation/talk/music would have had a positive anti-drug, anti-alcohol impact. It's a shame the show was illegally cancelled. If a legitimate solution is available, I've got the think the school would still like to help the students stay away from drugs and alcohol. Instead the principal scheduled a different band and absolutely nothing was said about anti-drugs/anti-alcohol. What a wasted opportunity...
The fact that Pawn was cancelled because of their religious beliefs(which AGAIN they had already agreed to not share) is clearly viewpoint discrimination. Guest's argument above(Feb 13) doesn't make sense. Re-read Travis comments(03:13 P.M. EST on Tue Jan 25, 2005). As I see it, the comment used by Guest above to prove something actually directly discredited the same argument.
For anyone who thinks that the situation must be over because there is no new info, be patient. I read an article in the Blade yesterday where a woman was discriminated against in July 2003, and the lawsuit only started this last week because they spent so much time trying to reach an amicable agreement first. The fact that you are not hearing anything new does not indicate nothing is happening or that the issue is closed.
AFOP
posted by Guest at 02:35 P.M. EST on Sun Feb 13, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
