Student's 'Jesus' shirt sparks feud with school

reply to post by Stormdancer777


And you really think it was better when there was? I don't. After all, religion was often used to support things like segregation. Sam Bowers, Imperial Wizard of the KKK, used Ephesians 6:10-17.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Garfee

 

I'm getting the distinct impression that you aren't even trying to remain unbiased in your review of this discussion.

Someone's rights were violated, but you use their beliefs to make an exception, or to say "oh well". That is the definition of discrimination.

I'm amazed it took you this long to come to that conclusion.

I'm actually all for equal rights but if I see the group that's usually doing the the discriminating being discriminated against I think it's important to point out to them that it's how they make people feel. Perhaps then, after a taste of their own medicine they could come to a more empathetic veiw?

And how hard is it to realise that school is not the place for added controversy?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

And you really think it was better when there was? I don't. After all, religion was often used to support things like segregation. Sam Bowers, Imperial Wizard of the KKK, used Ephesians 6:10-17.

OOps got to go, missing survivor, I enjoy your post, most the time, but yes, I see where you are coming from,

PLus Christians were also instrumental in abolishing slavery, I was raised Free Methodist, check it out,

peace

reply to post by peck420

Than you might want to brush up on Canada a bit.

TODAY, Canada has many Catholic School Boards that are considered the Public System.

The decision is left to the local community as to which school system is the 'public' system and which is the 'separate' system.

You could not be more wrong. Public education in Canada is not, "who get s to be public and who gets to be separate"

Under the law, in certain provinces and territories, Seperate Schools (protestant or Roman Catholic only) have to be funded using the same formula, for every student that attends. What this means is, if I decide to send my son to a Catholic Separate School, or a Protestant separate School, and they are accepted into that school, the education taxes I pay, would go to that school board rather than the public school board. There is a historical aspect to this. The separate school boards , as in Catholic, or Protestant, are NOT public in some places. Sometimes odd situations do occur, such as in the city I live in, where there are separate Primary and middle schools, and public primary and middle schools, but the two boards share the cost and administration of the only high school, as the cost would be prohibitive for either board to have high schools in separate buildings.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Funny, I am a Christian, and openly a Christian, and she actually asked me if I would mind if she called me a friend, so I would say her issue is not with Christians, just those that PRETEND to be Christians, you know, the hypocritical ones.

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Garfee

 

I'm from a backcountry oil town in Alberta. Chev vs. Ford vs. Dodge spent alot of time being talked about.

Needless to say it got vicious.

But back to the topic at hand.

Of topic for a moment, you don't have to be from back country oil town Alberta for rig-pigs to get violent even about the simplest things, never mind the time honored great debate of Ford VS Chev VS Dodge.

I live in oil Country myself, with a lot of big ego's and even bigger tires on pick-ups.......that will never see the mud. Rig-pics really are a shallow bunch, rather sad actually.

reply to post by RyanFromCan

Funny, I am a Christian, and openly a Christian, and she actually asked me if I would mind if she called me a friend, so I would say her issue is not with Christians, just those that PRETEND to be Christians, you know, the hypocritical ones.

Oh boy! Goody, goody, gumdrops! I'm so happy for you and "Annee" that I could just take a crap!

Furthermore, part of that statement appears to be a jab at those you and "Annee" might not agree with. With comments like that, you appear to also be one of those hypocritical Christians. I reckon that makes you an exception to "Annee's" rule.

Another indication of your hypocrisy is your obvious refusal to answer the questions I asked you in this post. At least they are valid questions, and are much more "on topic" the your last few posts have been. Why do you not want to answer them?

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

Funny, I am a Christian, and openly a Christian, and she actually asked me if I would mind if she called me a friend, so I would say her issue is not with Christians, just those that PRETEND to be Christians, you know, the hypocritical ones.

Good call Ryan

I always say: "There are truly those who walk in His footsteps" - - unfortunately the ones I've met I could count on one hand.

I remember this one elderly lady. You could just FEEL it in her. In her presence. I remember she'd squeeze my arm - - look into my eyes - - had a smile on her face and simply say: "He knows". That was it. No preaching - no judgement. She was truly special.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

I seriously doubt that it would have been okay with others if it had been worded differently.

I prefer facts over opinions (the latter of which seems to be all the "christian persecution" crowd has to offer).

It was just a pro-Jesus message, and not really meant to be proselytizing. Some people are just being arses and taking offense at it.

The message being if you're not with jesus, you're wasting your life. Also, this kid was wearing this shirt for weeks, so I really wouldn't say people are arses for being offended over it. The people who are making this issue out as something it isn't (Christian Persecution) however, are arses.

Let me ask you this, what are the exact words that would be okay that would not be taken in any offensive way?
I'd like to see at least three examples.

Well we could just refer to what the prinicpal said (which the "christian persecution" crowd would know had they actually read the story), that being "my life is wasted without jesus". There's also "the lord is my shepard", or the T-Shirt could just say Jesus on it.

reply to post by BenReclused


Well, considering my reply was not to you, it is no surprise that I did not talk about your points.

My rights end at the point your rights start, if I am expressing my opinion in your face, I am violating your rights, and my right then end. If this young man had worn the shirt now and again, then no, he would not be violating anyone's rights, to a degree.

If I walk by someone, and off the cuff express my opinion that he is a loser, and worthless, that just means I am an ignorant jerk.

If ever time I walk past that same person, and tell him he is a worthless loser ever time I see him, for days, weeks and possibly months, that no longer means I am just a jerk, it now means I am harassing him. That IS violating his rights.

The harassment becomes criminal harassment if the harassment leads to a real fear of emotional or physical harm.

William Swinimer's actions went beyond expressions, and crossed over into harassment, that is when his right to harass others ended, his rights were not violated.

Now to your attempt to take something I said out of context.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From My post you are referring to:

I am a Christian, that being said, I know what I would have done in this situation, I would have found, and worn a "Allah Akbar!" T-shirt, and made sure he saw it constantly, no doubt he would have a problem with it, as most fauxians (just made up a new word for yall', faux+xians(Christians) ) would have.

I would stop wearing my equally offensive shirt when he did, and no doubt this young man probably was encouraged by his shepherd parents and pastor to pull this stunt, to try and get away with rubbing other peoples noses in what he considers "Christianity".

The young man was a pious, "holier than thou" religious snob for what he did, and that is NOT how you witness or evangelize, it IS however a great way to turn people off Christianity, something many who profess to be Christian manage to do with great efficiency and success.

I was clearly saying that he would find my "Allah Akbar!"shirt as equally offensive, as other people found his shirt. It should be clear that any fauxians would find it offensive and why, it goes along with their lack of ability to think for themselves, I should not have to explain it to you like a child, but I will if you still can't figure it out.

_____________________

There would be no controversy if the opinion was of the 1rst person,
eg. "I love Jesus", " Jesus saved me " that in it self would not be debatable; however,
when the shirt says " life is wasted without Jesus" challenging that
statement is a right in it self.
I would be the 1rst to challenge that, and for him to whine is just
hypocritical. Living in a glass house he should've known better not
to throw stones then call everyone who doesn't agree with him a 'waste'.
The real waste is trying to discuss anything with people as that.

________________________

reply to post by BenReclused


Excuse me, but this happened, in Canada, in a Canadian high school, under Canadian Law, to a Canadian Person, who the radical right wing "christians" feel was violated under Canadian Law (well, some seem to think it is American law, the fools), so up yours hunny, it is very much about CANADA!

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Exactly which "Christian Rights" are slowly being lost? If you are referring to the ability to shove your faith system (as corrupted as most are now from their true roots) down other peoples throats and violate their rights, that was never a right to begin with, only a sense of entitlement that many pseudo "christians" have.

reply to post by Starchild23

Someone's rights were violated, but you use their beliefs to make an exception, or to say "oh well". That is the definition of discrimination.

Nobody's rights were violated, however his ability to violate other peoples rights were limited. The ability to violate other people's rights with your "rights", is not a right, it is limited by the same laws that gave you those "rights".

reply to post by Starchild23

Proselytizing? That's going a little far.

Proselytizing is solicitation and badgering. He was wearing a piece of cloth with an opinion stated on it...

Proselytizing would be the right word.

On Friday, the school board decided to allow Swinimer to wear the shirt.

As the debate raged over the interpretation of the religious slogan, some Forest Heights students have spoken out about Swinimer’s history of preaching and sharing his religion, in some cases telling others their faith, if not Christian, is wrong.

Student council vice-president Katelyn Hiltz told the Chronicle Herald that kids need to feel safe, welcome and comfortable at school, and many didn’t feel that way because of Swinimer’s preaching.

She says her peers are tired of the controversy and the needless distraction from their advanced placement exams taking place Monday.

He is protesting two years of discrimination against his expression of his religious beliefs, said Pastor Varrick Day.

The “bullying” got so bad that Swinimer’s younger sister was pulled out of the same school last year and is being homeschooled, he said.

Swinimer doesn’t want to have fingers pointed at him in the Monday afternoon forum on freedom of expression.

“He doesn’t want to be in the spotlight, to be the troublemaker,” said Day.

Source

WHAAaaaaaa, I keep beating these people about the head with my bible, and tell them that they are nothing if they are not Christian, and they bully me by telling me to bugger off and leave them alone. I then raise a big stink about being kicked out of school over a "last straw", then when they say ok, you can come back and wear your shirt, but we are holding student forum on tolerance, and you have to attend, he raises stink about that, and does not want to come ........sorry, his daddy won't let him come back.

Like I suspected, the young man is just a sheep for his father and pastor, and had been running around violation the rights of other students, and not "just wearing a t-shirt"

As I said in a previous comment,

The young man was a pious, "holier than thou" religious snob for what he did, and that is NOT how you witness or evangelize, it IS however a great way to turn people off Christianity, something many who profess to be Christian manage to do with great efficiency and success.

I hate it when I am right about sad little affairs like this

ETA: A cute little video of Billy's Daddy, I think this has been about Billy's daddy pulling the chains, not Billy, clearly from this video, it is nothing more than a way for Billy's Daddy to have his moment of fame on his public soapbox.

Video: Born-again Christian boy and his holier-than-thou t-shirt

empty post accident

reply to post by Garfee


Garfee, have you ever checked out the history if White slavery in America?
IN the seventeen hundreds the Quakers founded an anti slavery movement.
www.therightscoop.com...

The Ku Klux Klan was established after Southern Democrats lost the Civil War to the Republican Party. They were thought of as the "militant arm" of the Democrat Party and sought to kill former Black slaves, Irish slaves, Oriental Slaves & the Republicans who freed them all. The late Senator Robert Byrd recruited for the KKK and was a Senator from West Virginia.

wiki.answers.com...

Those on both sides called themselves Christians,

MLK was a Christian, and a Republican.

In the seventeen hundreds the Quakers founded an anti slavery movement

Whites in America have consistently fought against racism and slavery from the beginning of this country, all the way up to the 1960s and ’70s. They were the ones that were championing the rights of the African Americans.

The NAACP was founded by Whites.

Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.

History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.

History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.
hnn.us...
Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States, but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the Democrats and the Republicans over slavery.

And I dare say most of these people were Christians, Christians trying to keep other Christians in line.

I could give hundreds of examples, but I imagine you already know most of it.

reply to post by RyanFromCan


What do you mean by "my rights end where your rights start"?

I don't think that's correct.

If you mean to say that some rights end on private property, then I'd agree with you.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


There's some very generalized statements in those quotes there. For example, Whites have fought against slavery is a very general statement. Slavery was one of the issues that the Southern Whites wanted to secede over.

And besides, some people may have been Abolitionists, but the person who ended Slavery was President Lincoln, and he didn't end it because it was the right thing to do, he did it as a strategic move to break the economy of the south. Lincoln was also a racist and didn't really like blacks.