Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 26, 2012
Religion / LGBTQITSLFA High School Paper Publishes Editorial by a Christian Student Who Believes that Gays and Lesbians Should Be Put to Death Because THE BIBLE!
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 7:56 AM
The relevant question isn't whether, under the 1st Amendment, the student paper had a right to publish the editorial and the kid had a right to think those thoughts. It did, he did. The relevant question is whether the same student paper would publish an editorial arguing that high school girls who aren't virgins should be put to death because THE BIBLE! Or if the same student paper would publish an editorial arguing that infidels should be put to death because THE KORAN! I'm guessing the answer to both those questions is "no."
Why is there an exception for homicidal, sacred-text-justified hatred when gays and lesbians are the target?
1
Because people can get away with it. People used the Bible to defend slavery back when they could still get away with it. There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible, but people need to read the Book of Numbers more often to remind themselves of how much better and kinder--dare I say more Christian--the world has become since then.
2
Great story - thanks for linking to it. I went to a fancy high school, so reading about podunk schools' student newspapers is always a treat. "Bloodguiltness" indeed.
(Google Ads is really selling you guys well - on the mobile verison of this post the top ad is for Christian web television promising "traditional family values" a la Bible dramas, and the lower ad urges me to "Date Sexy Chinese Women". Ad tailoring at its finest. It's fun make you guys a few pennies by clicking to see these sites we never would otherwise.)
(Google Ads is really selling you guys well - on the mobile verison of this post the top ad is for Christian web television promising "traditional family values" a la Bible dramas, and the lower ad urges me to "Date Sexy Chinese Women". Ad tailoring at its finest. It's fun make you guys a few pennies by clicking to see these sites we never would otherwise.)
4
Could they find a gay student to write an article describing the Inquisition? I would love to read that one.
5
The student quoted Leviticus; he didn't extend that quote to suggest that today's gays should actually be put to death -- he was making a (very badly written & argued) argument about not letting gays adopt.
6
Two passages for Bible Study:
Matthew 5.32:
"But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Leviticus 20.10:
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."
As Goldy would say, discus.
Matthew 5.32:
"But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Leviticus 20.10:
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."
As Goldy would say, discus.
8
The article was trash, and that's just from reading the opening paragraph. He barely identifies his subject, makes a series of claims with no factual support for them, and then says some incredibly offensive shit.
The kid shouldn't be in too much trouble. The editor who approved it and the teacher who signed off on it being published should be though. That article doesn't meet any standards of journalism... well, I suppose he didn't misspell too many words, but it isn't quality journalism. If it was an assignment (like the crazy conservative lawyer says it was) then it should have received a very poor grade, for being extremely poor writing.
Should the kid be in trouble for bullying? I don't think so. Should his article ever have been published? Lord no, and someone in authority should be getting re-trained on how to decide what can go to print and what needs to be edited out.
Edited, not censored. You can make a well-reasoned argument against gay adoption using logic and "facts" from "studies." Your argument will be flawed because those facts and studies are flawed, but it could be well reasoned and well written, and could be published. It would still be offensive, and would deserve a harsh rebuttal using real facts and science, but it would be no different than any of the major news publications that have printed similar articles.
The kid shouldn't be in too much trouble. The editor who approved it and the teacher who signed off on it being published should be though. That article doesn't meet any standards of journalism... well, I suppose he didn't misspell too many words, but it isn't quality journalism. If it was an assignment (like the crazy conservative lawyer says it was) then it should have received a very poor grade, for being extremely poor writing.
Should the kid be in trouble for bullying? I don't think so. Should his article ever have been published? Lord no, and someone in authority should be getting re-trained on how to decide what can go to print and what needs to be edited out.
Edited, not censored. You can make a well-reasoned argument against gay adoption using logic and "facts" from "studies." Your argument will be flawed because those facts and studies are flawed, but it could be well reasoned and well written, and could be published. It would still be offensive, and would deserve a harsh rebuttal using real facts and science, but it would be no different than any of the major news publications that have printed similar articles.
9
Let's not forget that a substantial portion of the American public still favors criminalizing homosexual conduct. A 2003 poll slowed that 35% favor putting putting people in jail for having gay sex in private. The student paper was willing to run the piece, because the editorial represents the view of a significant number of people.
10
As I learned when we tried to publish a pro-condom article in my Catholic high school's newspaper, student newspapers are subject to school censorship.
Better luck next time, bigots.
Better luck next time, bigots.
11
Actually, no. The Supreme Court (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in 1988) has limited first ammendment rights when it comes to official public school newspapers. Go check out the wikipedia page on it if you want details.
The decision does not apply to public colleges, nor to private schools. But in this case, the school could have censored the paper if they decided the editorial was against their pedogical interests..... though I'm not sure if that argument would work.
The decision does not apply to public colleges, nor to private schools. But in this case, the school could have censored the paper if they decided the editorial was against their pedogical interests..... though I'm not sure if that argument would work.
12
The article should have been edited to comply with the school's bullying policy before it was published, to include a disclaimer that the author was not advocating for violence against gay people. If he was in fact so advocating, a different student should have been chosen. That would have been a proper balancing of the student's free speech rights with the school's need to maintain a safe and appropriate learning atmosphere while discussing a controversial topic in an age appropriate manner.
13
If you actually read the article, it said the kid was asked to write a counter-point to the positive editorial on gay adoption, then he got punished for it.
Don't get your panties in a knot over it
Don't get your panties in a knot over it
14
If government wants to use its budget to run a newspaper, its editorial decisions must conform to the law, including First Amendment law. Wouldn't it be nice if we could pull our kids--and our dollars--out of schools that are either unable or unwilling to prohibit this kind of garbage?
15
I don't think the kid is at fault here. Sure, he's dumb, and instead of thinking for himself he regurgitates stale bigotry. It's not his fault that he has borderline functional illiteracy, and the critical thinking skills of a grasshopper. That's the school's fault.
I think he unintentionally implied that homosexuals be ought to be put to death. He's an idiot. That's why newspapers have editors. And that is where the responsibility lies. Someone smarter than him surely saw the implications and let his letter go to press anyway.
I think he unintentionally implied that homosexuals be ought to be put to death. He's an idiot. That's why newspapers have editors. And that is where the responsibility lies. Someone smarter than him surely saw the implications and let his letter go to press anyway.
16
"Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is a detestable act... Leviticus 20:13 states etc. etc.
If one wants to engage in the futile task of locating where Jesus condemns homosexuality in the Bible, shouldn't they look somewhere other than the book of Leviticus? That book couldn't have been written less than 1200 years before Jesus even showed up.
If one wants to engage in the futile task of locating where Jesus condemns homosexuality in the Bible, shouldn't they look somewhere other than the book of Leviticus? That book couldn't have been written less than 1200 years before Jesus even showed up.
17
That kid is going to be a very popular knob-gobbler when he finally comes out (or when he's a married toilet-cruiser with gray skin and a paunch).
18
@9
the evidence for your statement is a close to ten year old poll that was conducted right around the Lawrence V Texas decision?? jeez man, how do we know the numbers haven't gone UP since then?
the evidence for your statement is a close to ten year old poll that was conducted right around the Lawrence V Texas decision?? jeez man, how do we know the numbers haven't gone UP since then?
19
@9, if you asked the American public if interracial marriage should be allowed, or if Judaism should be tolerated... they'd probably say no. But the school wouldn't have allowed editorials to be published making those arguments.
I'm with @8, 12, & 15 - the editors were at fault here.
I'm with @8, 12, & 15 - the editors were at fault here.
21
Those are provocative questions Danny.
Do you suppose someone could get away with wishing all Republicans were Dead, on national TV?
Do you suppose someone could get away with wishing all Republicans were Dead, on national TV?
22
Seattle Alt Weekly Publishes Editorial by a Humanist Editorial Director Who Believes that Republicans and Conservatives Should Be Put to Death Because He's an ASSHOLE!!!
23
it is so wrong for that kid to express his interpretation of the Bible.
In The Qunited States of Gommorica only Faggots get to opine on what the Bible says.....
In The Qunited States of Gommorica only Faggots get to opine on what the Bible says.....
24
So nice of the educators to support this nonsense. I'm sure they feel so important and legal in doing so.
25
@11 Has it correct. This has been established for some time now, and got a recent renewal with the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Fr…
(Now that's the kind of precendent you cite on SLOG!)
(Now that's the kind of precendent you cite on SLOG!)
27
Oh, c'mon Dan! Your feigned ignorance fools no one. God has communicated directly with the grand poobah those rules of THE BIBLE which have been overturned and those which are still in effect.
28
let's forget the idiot that wrote this for a second--but what about the editor and the teacher who thought this was fit to print? Why do student editors keep letting this shit happen? Earlier this year at my grad school, the undergrad newspaper got heat because of an editoral calling rape survivors "emotional cripples", and later the editor "apologized" and was like "IDK, free speech?"
Jaysus! I was a high school paper editor, if this crap came across my desk ( even at the composition level) I would have been like "HA! good one! Now go do some actual research and write a real article."
Jaysus! I was a high school paper editor, if this crap came across my desk ( even at the composition level) I would have been like "HA! good one! Now go do some actual research and write a real article."
29
So who's willing to bet that if the article had been in support of gay adoption then the very folks defending it would be calling for it to be censored and ignored?
30
People turning this into a big "bullying" issue are missing the point.
The real problem here is what's in the Bible/Koran/etc., more than one particular dumb kid quoting it.
This is all part of what I call the "Myth of Moderation;" the idea that people who invoke religious justification for bashing gay folks are either lying or unhinged, Phelps-style bozos.
That's precisely wrong. They're NOT lying, heretics or extremist freakazoids.
The brute, cold fact is that the so-called Great Religions of the Western World, the Abrahamic monotheisms, have openly and unambiguously demonized and authorized violence against gay people for centuries, going right back to the formalization of their respective dogmas.
If you're a Christian, Muslim or Jew and you're fine with people being gay... terrific! Good to know. But let's get one thing clear: YOU are the deviant, the 'extremist', the apostate in terms of what your religion has clearly, explicitly taught its faithful throughout the centuries.
But don't look for too many people to confront that. Let's all just furrow our brows about "bullying" instead.
The real problem here is what's in the Bible/Koran/etc., more than one particular dumb kid quoting it.
This is all part of what I call the "Myth of Moderation;" the idea that people who invoke religious justification for bashing gay folks are either lying or unhinged, Phelps-style bozos.
That's precisely wrong. They're NOT lying, heretics or extremist freakazoids.
The brute, cold fact is that the so-called Great Religions of the Western World, the Abrahamic monotheisms, have openly and unambiguously demonized and authorized violence against gay people for centuries, going right back to the formalization of their respective dogmas.
If you're a Christian, Muslim or Jew and you're fine with people being gay... terrific! Good to know. But let's get one thing clear: YOU are the deviant, the 'extremist', the apostate in terms of what your religion has clearly, explicitly taught its faithful throughout the centuries.
But don't look for too many people to confront that. Let's all just furrow our brows about "bullying" instead.
31
@19 Nowadays a school newspaper wouldn't run an editorial opposing interracial marriage. 50 years ago when legally mandated racial segregation was a hotly debated issue it might have.
@11 I think the school paper was wrong to publish the editorial. That 1988 ruling sounds like a sensible piece of case law.
@11 I think the school paper was wrong to publish the editorial. That 1988 ruling sounds like a sensible piece of case law.
32
@ 30 the religious thing ought to be irrelvant in the case of articles--its poor form for these teachers to let students beleive a religious text is ever an appropriate source to cite in an argument. I 've seen kids like that come into university writing centers who have no idea how to write real thesis statements because of that, they think they can just say 'the BIBLE!' and they don't learn real argument writing. It's a disservice to their students.
34
"Religious people tend to feel better about themselves and their lives, but a new study finds that this benefit may only hold in places where everyone else is religious, too." http://news.yahoo.com/why-religion-makes…
Could this have something to do with the discrimination that some--not all, but some--religious groups direct against everyone else?
Could this have something to do with the discrimination that some--not all, but some--religious groups direct against everyone else?
35
Wait, I though the reason was because JESUS. You're confusing me...
Also, to be fair to Judaism and Christianity, THE BIBLE (Old Testament/Torah) also calls for murdering all infidels; it's not just the Koran.
Also, to be fair to Judaism and Christianity, THE BIBLE (Old Testament/Torah) also calls for murdering all infidels; it's not just the Koran.
36
I actually read the kid's article. My guess is that he quoted the verse from Leviticus in its entirety twice not because he was trying to say gay men should be put to death, but rather because he needed to pad it out a bit.
It's perfectly legit to point out that lots of people arrive at political positions based on religious views and that in a democracy, that point of view should be heard. His inadequate grasp of civics (bear in mind, he's just starting high school and he's probably had "America is a Christian nation" drilled into his head for years) notwithstanding, there is a valid point that's just not being expressed very well.
It's perfectly legit to point out that lots of people arrive at political positions based on religious views and that in a democracy, that point of view should be heard. His inadequate grasp of civics (bear in mind, he's just starting high school and he's probably had "America is a Christian nation" drilled into his head for years) notwithstanding, there is a valid point that's just not being expressed very well.
37
Would a student be allowed to write an article calling for non-virgins, or infidels to be put to death? That's an interesting question, and I dearly hope it's one that crosses the mind of some student at that school. I want one of them to write just such an article, and try to get it published, then report back. If citing the death penalty towards non-virgins or infidels suddenly gets a no-no, that will be very illuminating.
38
Let's not forget that we already put lots of people to death in spite of "THE BIBLE!" that the majority of Americans supposedly believe in. Also note that this is specifically ruled out in the ten commandments as opposed to some obscure passage in Leviticus that no one has heard of.
39
One really needs to read the whole thing. It's one half of a point-counter point section, not an editorial in the classical sense. In any event, it is poorly written and even worse reasoned, making the counter point (for making homosexuals' adopting legal) all the more persuasive. The whole idea behind free expression is that ideas live and die on their merits, which also means that bad (and even vile) ideas can be freely expressed so that they can be rejected for the right reasons. For Dan to present this in a biased, "they are out to get us" way is neither right nor good policy.
40
So let's tally the wrongs here:
1. The school's journalism teacher, newspaper's editor-in-chief, or whoever else assigned this topic for a"duke-it-out' editorials feature. This is where the bigotry and bullying takes place, and these are the people responsible for it, by requiring an assignment virtually guaranteed to result in bullying or at the least deeply offending some of the school's population.
2. The editor who allowed such a poorly-written piece to go to press.
3. The writer, who relied on the bible as valid source in an argument. When I teach argument, I emphasize the need to choose authorities that your opposition recognizes and respects. If you rest your whole argument's weight on the authority of the Bible and your opponent doesn't recognize that authority, your whole argument, unsupported, crumbles and falls apart. There are other arguments to be made against gay people adopting, which can actually be argued, and not only should the writer have used them, the editor should have refused this editorial on those grounds alone, even if he or she personally agrees with the Bible as a source for constructing a valid argument.
As a side note, I don't know that the writer's heart was really in it. It has such an unconvincing tone, and is padded as if to make up for in length what it lacks in sense. This was an assignment, so it's hard to know how heartfelt this student's beliefs expressed here really are.
1. The school's journalism teacher, newspaper's editor-in-chief, or whoever else assigned this topic for a"duke-it-out' editorials feature. This is where the bigotry and bullying takes place, and these are the people responsible for it, by requiring an assignment virtually guaranteed to result in bullying or at the least deeply offending some of the school's population.
2. The editor who allowed such a poorly-written piece to go to press.
3. The writer, who relied on the bible as valid source in an argument. When I teach argument, I emphasize the need to choose authorities that your opposition recognizes and respects. If you rest your whole argument's weight on the authority of the Bible and your opponent doesn't recognize that authority, your whole argument, unsupported, crumbles and falls apart. There are other arguments to be made against gay people adopting, which can actually be argued, and not only should the writer have used them, the editor should have refused this editorial on those grounds alone, even if he or she personally agrees with the Bible as a source for constructing a valid argument.
As a side note, I don't know that the writer's heart was really in it. It has such an unconvincing tone, and is padded as if to make up for in length what it lacks in sense. This was an assignment, so it's hard to know how heartfelt this student's beliefs expressed here really are.
41
@30 You make the false assumption (granted, based on a lot of evidence that some denominations use them that way) that these religious tomes are meant to be taken literally. Fundamentalism is a fairly recent aberration. The Abrahamic religions have a long history (especially Judaism) of looking for deeper meaning from the parables in their scriptures, and of reinterpreting them in the search for relevant wisdom and spirituality. Some of these exercises are truly elegant yet torturous in their logic, wordplay in the extreme. Fundamentalism was probably, to some extent, a reaction to these excesses by people who felt left behind by it all.
But, fundies are still a minority, just as the folks who gleefully dissect and reinterpret Talmud for days on end are. The various holy books make more sense as raw material for wonderfully intellectual and argumentative discussions of spiritual matters, not as fucking recipes for life. There are denominations that recognize this and there are denominations that don't.
To put it in modern IT terms, the real problem is not the data store (Bible, Koran, etc.), it's in either the back end (Church hierarchies) or the user interface (idiots).
But, fundies are still a minority, just as the folks who gleefully dissect and reinterpret Talmud for days on end are. The various holy books make more sense as raw material for wonderfully intellectual and argumentative discussions of spiritual matters, not as fucking recipes for life. There are denominations that recognize this and there are denominations that don't.
To put it in modern IT terms, the real problem is not the data store (Bible, Koran, etc.), it's in either the back end (Church hierarchies) or the user interface (idiots).
43
"Why is there an exception for homicidal, sacred-text-justified hatred when gays and lesbians are the target?"
Because, eww, BUTTSECKS. Or something.
Because, eww, BUTTSECKS. Or something.
44
(And when I was an editor on my high-school paper, our faculty advisor pretty much never even read what we published, let alone censored or edited it in any way. We got away with what was, at that time, a pretty hard-core paper, advocating for abortion rights, marijuana legalization, all kinds of stuff that was pretty controversial in the 1970s.)
46
@ 30,
The fundamentalist's literalistic interpretation of scripture in Christianity is a recent phenomena. Check out the famous Scopes trial in 1925. It isn't even 100 years old.
And for your consideration. A little selection from Mark Driscoll's new book on marriage.
"Some couples use [anal sex] to prevent pregnancy. In conjunction with the rhythm method of birth control in which normal penis-vagina intercourse is suspended on a woman’s days of fertility, it is possible to use anal sex as an option. (186)"
So much for anal sex taboo amongst the literalist Christians. Driscoll might have gotten his divine direction from the Song of Songs, there is lots of erotic imagery to find there.
The fundamentalist's literalistic interpretation of scripture in Christianity is a recent phenomena. Check out the famous Scopes trial in 1925. It isn't even 100 years old.
And for your consideration. A little selection from Mark Driscoll's new book on marriage.
"Some couples use [anal sex] to prevent pregnancy. In conjunction with the rhythm method of birth control in which normal penis-vagina intercourse is suspended on a woman’s days of fertility, it is possible to use anal sex as an option. (186)"
So much for anal sex taboo amongst the literalist Christians. Driscoll might have gotten his divine direction from the Song of Songs, there is lots of erotic imagery to find there.
47
@9: "Let's not forget that a substantial portion of the American public still favors criminalizing homosexual conduct."
That's only because a substantial portion of the American public wants to see hot, sweaty man on man action in a jail setting.
That's only because a substantial portion of the American public wants to see hot, sweaty man on man action in a jail setting.
50
This same argument started the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at http://www.venganza.org/
Now the same paper owes its community a counterpoint article on how that author is a dumb ass.
Now the same paper owes its community a counterpoint article on how that author is a dumb ass.
51
Oh good, more idiots quoting one verse of Leviticus and then ignoring all the rest of the rules in that book, like how to cut your hair/beard, how debt works, selling women into slavery, etc, etc.
I love all these Christians who don't even know most of the book they follow with such devotion. Goddammit people, read it before you quote it.
I love all these Christians who don't even know most of the book they follow with such devotion. Goddammit people, read it before you quote it.
52
Has anyone see this: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservativ…
Not a shock but the timing is interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservativ…
Not a shock but the timing is interesting.
53
Well, the reason why the article was allowed to be published (while presumably a similar article about virgins or infidels might not) is that gay rights are a hotly debated issue now (as Mr Mehlmann pointed out upstream).
Now, the jist of the paper doesn't seem to be about killing gays as much as preventing adoption, marriage and similar rights (plus keeping homosexuality as a sin). I imagine a paper saying that not keeping your virginity till marriage is wrong, bad, and is the source of all social problems could still be published in many a school paper. As could a paper about how the Christian faith is under attack by believers of other faiths, and that we should do something against the infidels who are harming us.
If the climate were favorable, fundies might even go as far as actually openly defending the killing of their enemies. But it's not what this article does yet, as far as I can tell.
It's still a hotly debated issue. Articles similar to this one againt interratial marriage probably could get published 50 years ago. As Dan once pointed out, we haven't reached the stage at which disagreeing with gay rights becomes creepy, as it is with disagreeing with equal rights for ethnic minorities. If the current trend continues this will eventually happen; we're just not there yet.
Now, the jist of the paper doesn't seem to be about killing gays as much as preventing adoption, marriage and similar rights (plus keeping homosexuality as a sin). I imagine a paper saying that not keeping your virginity till marriage is wrong, bad, and is the source of all social problems could still be published in many a school paper. As could a paper about how the Christian faith is under attack by believers of other faiths, and that we should do something against the infidels who are harming us.
If the climate were favorable, fundies might even go as far as actually openly defending the killing of their enemies. But it's not what this article does yet, as far as I can tell.
It's still a hotly debated issue. Articles similar to this one againt interratial marriage probably could get published 50 years ago. As Dan once pointed out, we haven't reached the stage at which disagreeing with gay rights becomes creepy, as it is with disagreeing with equal rights for ethnic minorities. If the current trend continues this will eventually happen; we're just not there yet.
55
This is probably a bit off track from the rest of the discussion but it really reminded me of when Yusf Islam (akaCat Stevens) said that Salman Rushdie should be put to death. He has since done everything he could to destroy the evidence and make up for it. He describes himself as basically enthusiastic about Islam but also ignorant of it. I think it is like when people do crazy things at the beginning of a relationship. And he has done so many good things as a result of his conversion.
I am not really sure what the point is except that even people like this kid can turn around. Just like the parents of gay kids do. They just need the right influence. Maybe we should focus on being that influence instead of being adversarial and "fanning the flames".
I am not really sure what the point is except that even people like this kid can turn around. Just like the parents of gay kids do. They just need the right influence. Maybe we should focus on being that influence instead of being adversarial and "fanning the flames".
56
The paper would have been in much better shape if they'd cut the Leviticus quote after the phrase "is a detestable act", and cut the part about putting 'em to death. This is what editors are for.
Here's a followup, from the same website, from this afternoon. Deals with the kid & dads who first brought it to the district's attention. Shocking quote in a message purported to be from a teacher:
http://tinyurl.com/7tobmv8
Here's a followup, from the same website, from this afternoon. Deals with the kid & dads who first brought it to the district's attention. Shocking quote in a message purported to be from a teacher:
http://tinyurl.com/7tobmv8
57
Because they're fighting for their freedom to live in a world where everyone acts exactly the way they wanted. They aren't saying Hitler didn't have some bad ideas, but his military rule over the personal lives of people is an idea we should all consider. After all, THE BIBLE. *rolls eyes*
58
The teacher in charge of the paper should have known better, so I blame them far more than the kid. The teacher certainly should have said, "Hmmm, maybe we don't need three instances of the homosexuality = punishable by death quotations..."
The kid also cites Jesus' (non-existent) opinion on homosexuality as a reason to stop gay adoption. Maybe he thinks that the whole Bible, including the parts that happened before Jesus was even born, is being narrated by Jesus?
The kid also cites Jesus' (non-existent) opinion on homosexuality as a reason to stop gay adoption. Maybe he thinks that the whole Bible, including the parts that happened before Jesus was even born, is being narrated by Jesus?
59
I love how one of the conservatives coming to the kid's rescue also takes the time to assert that he thinks the article is "lame." I was pretty conservative in high school, but I got over it. I also had gay friends, my best friend was trans, and my next door neighbor was a cross dresser.
60
Seriously, though, a similarly bloodthirsty verse from the Quran would have gotten the school raided by DHS, and the kid would have been black-bagged and not seen again until his show trial, and even that would entirely miss the point that it does not matter what book it comes from - publishing incitement to violence is not okay.
61
Man I don't know if the school has a right to publish that. I hope that's open to debate. What if my brand of atheism requires putting to death zealots who demand putting others to death? Anyway it seems like a clear government endorsement of an establishment of religion.
62
Public schools can censor school newspapers if they are the school's official paper, but they can't censor unofficial student-run papers. Private schools can censor either, though.
Anyway, I really think where the blame should be placed on the teacher who approved this. Teens, especially brainwashed right-wing religious ones, will say and do stupid things. Frankly, the fact that this issue is something on which a teacher thinks there could be a good "point" and "counterpoint" is sad enough. There is no argument or justification for homophobia. But that's how it is in this country.
I'm surprised the post at Towleroad didn't call the stupid kid on saying "Jesus says" for a quote from Leviticus. He doesn't even know his own religion! Or they didn't point out the ridiculousness of letting the Liberty Counsel label itself as "specializing in first amendment rights" when it's usually the opposite - they defend Christofascists whenever they want to infringe on others' First Amendment rights.
Anyway, I really think where the blame should be placed on the teacher who approved this. Teens, especially brainwashed right-wing religious ones, will say and do stupid things. Frankly, the fact that this issue is something on which a teacher thinks there could be a good "point" and "counterpoint" is sad enough. There is no argument or justification for homophobia. But that's how it is in this country.
I'm surprised the post at Towleroad didn't call the stupid kid on saying "Jesus says" for a quote from Leviticus. He doesn't even know his own religion! Or they didn't point out the ridiculousness of letting the Liberty Counsel label itself as "specializing in first amendment rights" when it's usually the opposite - they defend Christofascists whenever they want to infringe on others' First Amendment rights.
63
@44: You didn't have any teachers or administrators raise a fuss after the paper came out? We never had much in the way of oversight over what went into the paper, but the administration would often raise a huge fuss after the fact. I got called into the principal's office my freshman year for writing an editorial critical of the SCHOOL LUNCHES. And speaking of drugs, the year after that another girl got yelled at by the health teacher for writing a features article on hookahs which included the pluses and minuses of them; apparently, he thought it was only appropriate for the paper if it was wholly negative. And hookahs are legal, so I can't imagine what she would have dealt with if she argued for marijuana legalization.
64
@44 continued - Granted, I only graduated from high school a few years ago so maybe the '70s was just that much more permissive of a time.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Outside the Gay Bar by Dan Savage
-
Lunchtime Quickie: Cyclist vs Car by Kelly O
-
SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Lying Liars by Dan Savage
-
What Did an ESPN Blogger call the Asian American Baller Lin? by Charles Mudede
-
Walmart Tries to Pay Workers in Walmart Vouchers by Paul Constant
-
Why I'm Suing Attorney James Egan by Pete Holmes
-
Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules by Cienna Madrid
-
What Do You Think of Microsoft Office for the iPad? by Paul Constant
-
Have You Gayed Your Dead Mormon Today? by Anthony Hecht
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (64) RSS