Unbelievable! Check this article out ...

[ekarl2]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344350,00.html

[beansprouts]

I think it's funny that the "offensive" drawing is now in the newspaper ;)

[LizzyBee]

I read that earlier today and it made me so mad that I almost posted about it. I think these kinds of incidents show a very poor understanding of the first amendment among the teachers and administrators involved. There is lots of precedent that says students do have the right of free expression on school grounds.

[Cadam]

They seem so worried that his drawing may impact the rights of other students but pay no mind to his rights. Incidentally it is beautiful.

[nestof3]

I am so sick of people crying out for tolerance from Christians yet never being tolerant of them.

[pixelroper]

I erased a long ramble about a lack of logic. I will only say:

He shouldn't have signed the policy. Either he signed it and didn't read it, or he signed it and now he is trying to make a point. I guess it could have slipped his mind. If he is minor how can he sign it & legally be bound by it?

[pixelroper]

I'm wondering if they are allowed to study art history in this school. Do they just not mention the vast quantity of Christian art through the ages?

[Colleen]

There seem to be an array of inconsistencies going on here, but aside from that, two things in particular struck me about the article:

1) Did the student read the policy prior to signing it? If not, why not? And does the school board (or principal, or teacher, or whomever drew up said policy) actually think it carries any weight in a court of law?

2) There's a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance? Cool!

[Sue G in PA]

TYPICAL! It's one of the reasons we pulled our dc OUT of ps. The tolerance being taught is ONLY toward non-Christians. I won't even get started b/c it makes my blood boil. Grrrr.....

[Soph the vet]

I think it's funny that the "offensive" drawing is now in the newspaper ;)
I agree. His artwork is now gaining a much wider audience than it would have otherwise. Divine intervention?

[Karen sn]

I erased a long ramble about a lack of logic. I will only say:

He shouldn't have signed the policy. Either he signed it and didn't read it, or he signed it and now he is trying to make a point. I guess it could have slipped his mind. If he is minor how can he sign it & legally be bound by it?

Sooooo, is it even actually possible to sign away your consitutional rights? I guess I would be FUMING as a parent if they asked my kid to do that! Figures that a government funded institution takes the constitution so lightly!!!!

"Hey, art class is fun. And all you have to do to take it is sign away your constitutional rights!"....is that what they're teaching our children?

HYPOCRITES TOO if they can't take his cross but can take "Creation" by Michaelangelo. And Budda? And "satan."
It's getting ridiculous.
No one's religion offends me because it does not affect MY OWN RELIGION.
Even swastikas don't piss me off because I know they came from India and Hitler stole them. Not to mention, if you hate Jews, I'd rather know up front and watch your face when I mention the Rabbi who taught me and my daughter so much.

I have been friends with 2 ex-nazi wannabes. Their tatoos did not offend me.

I'm a pagan, jewish, Jesus lover who doesn't pray anymore to the blood sacrifice god. My best friend is a devout Christian. We love discussing religion (and politics for that matter). People need to grow up and truly open their minds to tolerance.

And I would sue the entire school district who came up with the policy of "signing away constitutional rights" and demand in my suit a stronger policy of respect for those rights and our founders who valued them enough to die for them.

[pixelroper]

Sooooo, is it even actually possible to sign away your consitutional rights? I guess I would be FUMING as a parent if they asked my kid to do that! Figures that a government funded institution takes the constitution so lightly!!!!

"Hey, art class is fun. And all you have to do to take it is sign away your constitutional rights!"....is that what they're teaching our children?


It is bizarre... I would be interested to know what prompted the introduction of this policy to begin with. They might as well discourage any notion of individual imagery. If they have to do this kind of thing, why even let the students stray from a still life? Why ask them to come up with anything? Take this art class where we will learn to draw and use that skill to express ourselves/communicate but here is a list of things you can't express/comunicate. Soon students will have to shield their drawings from any eyes possibly offended in study hall. Is doodling monitored?? I'm trying to think of a clever sentence with rend & rendering pertaining to this but alas it is late and I'm more cheesy than clever....*sigh*:D

[Cindyg]

I was not shocked by the story -- the boy in trouble for putting John 3:16 on an assignment until I read this:

"A Buddha and Hindu figurines are on display in a social studies classroom, the lawsuit claims, adding the teacher passionately teaches Hindu principles to students. In addition, a replica of Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Man" is displayed at the school's entrance, a picture of a six-limbed Hindu deity is in the school's hallway and a drawing of a robed sorcerer hangs on a hallway bulletin board. Drawings of Medusa, the Grim Reaper with a scythe and a being with a horned head and protruding tongue hang in the art room and demonic masks are displayed in the metals room, the lawsuit alleges."

Clearly there's no separation of "church and state" in this school; only a separation of "Christianity and state."

And since when are children responsible to not "offend" anyone? It's not like he punched somebody in the nose and stole their lunch money! Or sold them drugs!

[LizzyBee]

Sooooo, is it even actually possible to sign away your consitutional rights?

Years ago, there was a labor rights case that went to the Supreme Court and the ruling stated that the workers could not sign their constitutional rights away. It would seem logical to me that the ruling can be applied broadly to imply that any citizen in any walk of life cannot sign away his constitutional rights.