FIRE AND DIMSTONE
How do you lock stupidity out.... When you've already invited it in?
Huffingtonpost.com:
The next challenge Harry Potter will face has nothing to do with horcruxes, Hogwart's or the half-blood prince.
Instead, it will be a group of concerned parents looking to take the series off the shelves of all Gwinnett County Public Schools.
Laura Mallory of Loganville filed an appeal last week to get the best-selling book series out of the schools' media centers. She is an evangelical Christian who has three children at J.C. Magill Elementary School.
"I think the anti-Christian bias -- it's just got to stop," Mallory said. "And if we don't say something, we'll just keep getting pushed out of the schools. And I pay taxes, too, and I think that gives me a voice to speak out about this." (In each HP book, by the way, the kids celebrate Christmas. At least a chapter in each book is devoted to this celebration. To date, we have yet to meet a character whose religion is not Christianity. This is not a criticism, of Mallory, or Rowling - just an observation).
Instead, in their place, she's itching to stack those quaint Left Behind books, with their bloody apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist revenge fantasies, on the public school shelves. And the best part of all, you ask? Well, it doesn't seem she reads much of anything at all!
Mallory said she has been contacted by other Christian parents who were concerned about the content of the books. On her complaint form, she suggested they be replaced by C.S. Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia" series or Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind: the Kids" series.
She admitted that she has not read the book series partially because "they're really very long and I have four kids." (which series hasn't she read? She probably hasn't read any of them)
"I've put a lot of work into what I've studied and read. I think it would be hypocritical for me to read all the books, honestly. I don't agree with what's in them. I don't have to read an entire pornographic magazine to know it's obscene," Mallory said. (How would you know if it was pornographic unless you read at least part of it? And in the case of Harry Potter, where large swatches of material cannot possibly deemed to be anti-Christian, page-for-page, even by Jerry Fatwell or Pat Slobertson, how would you know the books were offensive without reading enough so as to get to at least the first offense? Poor woman. Given that this woman has likely been at the Evangelical bit for a while, if she read the books, she would indeed be doing something hypocritical - thinking!)
Is this woman off her rocker? Narnia? Doesn't that have magic and socery in it as well? And how come Tolkien gets off so easy? Hmm. Seems she has a bit of support from a few other slack jawed yokels parents. The best course of action, if you're a member of the Gwinnett County Public Schools system is to ask: Why not just get rid of ALL the books in the library and turn it into a chapel? Or maybe just get rid of the school system all together and send all the kids to Mallory's house where they can sit around not reading anything much at all. Ah, isn't ignorance bliss when the rapture is near? (That way, when Jesus comes, you can have nothing to talk about to him!)
And now where would someone who doesn't in fact read the Harry Potter books get her opinions about the Harry Potter books? Why from Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America, of course. Wife of best selling apocalyptic Christian author, Tim LaHaye.
**********************************************************************************
Ignorant yokels and suicide bombers - they blow up so fast. Freedom of religion does not include the right to stifle others' freedom of speech. The 1982 Supreme Court Pico case essentially held as much.
Indeed, freedom of speech is under siege from all institutions in America - from religious bigots, from the executive, and, most recently, from the judiciary. Even religious bigots themselves have had their freedom of speech stifled. As much as I find such bigoted speech offensive, to paraphrase Alan Dershowitz, "You may be a bigot, but the Constitution gives you the right to express bigoted views."
Two days ago, the 9th Circuit decided the case of Harper v. Poway. An evangelical Christian student named Harper, two years ago, wore a T-shirt with following phrases: "Our school has let in what God has forbidden," "homosexuality is a sin," and a quotation from Romans 1:27 (the quotation states homosexuality is an abomination). The phrases were either these words, or words close to them. The student wore the shirt in response to an event that LGBT students had held the day before (and that the public high school had seemed to tacitly approve) - a so-called "Day of Silence." On that day, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered students would be silent - would refrain from speaking to each other - for the whole day - so as to call attention to the discriminatory treatment that they have suffered and are still suffering.
On the day when Harper wore the T-shirt, he "exchanged words" with a few students, but there were no physical altercations, nor, apparently, were any classroom studies disrupted. Once the school administrators discovered that Harper was wearing the T-shirt, though, they insisted that he go home, change his clothes, and come back (they didn't really want to suspend him). He refused. Although threats of discipline were made, he was, without ever having to chnage the shirt, not disciplined, and given full attendance credit for the day.
However, apparently (the opinion does not make this clear, but this must have been what happened), Harper stated his intention to wear the T-shirt or an article of clothing with a similar message again. He was then told that he could not do so. He then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Southern Distrct of California seeking to enjoin the school's order. He lost, because the court found that he did not have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits (i.e. his First Amendment claims were not likely to prevail).
In a truly idiotic decision, the 9th Circuit affirmed. This is just the kind of case that the fundies and wingies seize upon to fearmonger the country, and I hate when a decision like this gets delivered. The 9th Circuit held that the T-shirt interfered with the "rights of others," as that phrase was used in Tinker v. Des Moines - namely, the rights of homosexual students to learn in a productive environment free of discriminatory insult and harassment. It brushed aside Harper's freedom of speech claim, saying that the "interference with the rights of others" exception in Tinker had foreclosed it (that case involved a high school student wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War; the Court ruled that the 1st Amendment prohibited a school from banning this form of expression, but also ruled that student freedom of expression is not absolute; a school can "tinker," so to speak, with students' freedom of speech, when, among other things, it interferes with the rights of others).
The Court essentially treated the right to be free of "harassment" (a level of harassment nowhere near the actionable level - i.e. the Ellerth/Faragher level) as a fundamental right - it interpreted this "right" as the "rights of others" Tinker right. However, there is no such right. The only case that could possibly stand for that proposition is Hill v. Colorado, in which the Court upheld a state ordinance prohibiting abortion protestors from coming within less than 8 feet of people entering an abortion clinic without the enterers' consent. That case, however, is more properly viewed as a time, place and manner restriction of speech case (and it was wrongly decided as well). There is also no fundamental right to be free of getting insulted in school.
Given that the Court misconstrued Tinker, it does not matter that it ruled correctly on the freedom of religion claim brought by the student (it ruled that freedom of religion does not include the license to insult others on the basis of religious grounds in a public high school, where alternative fora for such insults are available).
In short, this was a bad decision. It is well nigh beside the point that any number of students' feelings were hurt by the message on the T-shirt, and that the student, however "sincere" his bigotry was, intended to hurt other students' feelings, even though they hadn't LITERALLY done anything to him. In a pluralistic society, if one point of view that is part of our political discourse is allowed to be expressed, the other, generally speaking, must be too - either both should be or neither should be. Viewpoint-based speech discrimination is repellant to the constitution - yes, even more repellant than intolerant bigots.
Print Post
Read all posts by Michael Standaert
Huffingtonpost.com:
The next challenge Harry Potter will face has nothing to do with horcruxes, Hogwart's or the half-blood prince.
Instead, it will be a group of concerned parents looking to take the series off the shelves of all Gwinnett County Public Schools.
Laura Mallory of Loganville filed an appeal last week to get the best-selling book series out of the schools' media centers. She is an evangelical Christian who has three children at J.C. Magill Elementary School.
"I think the anti-Christian bias -- it's just got to stop," Mallory said. "And if we don't say something, we'll just keep getting pushed out of the schools. And I pay taxes, too, and I think that gives me a voice to speak out about this." (In each HP book, by the way, the kids celebrate Christmas. At least a chapter in each book is devoted to this celebration. To date, we have yet to meet a character whose religion is not Christianity. This is not a criticism, of Mallory, or Rowling - just an observation).
Instead, in their place, she's itching to stack those quaint Left Behind books, with their bloody apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist revenge fantasies, on the public school shelves. And the best part of all, you ask? Well, it doesn't seem she reads much of anything at all!
Mallory said she has been contacted by other Christian parents who were concerned about the content of the books. On her complaint form, she suggested they be replaced by C.S. Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia" series or Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind: the Kids" series.
She admitted that she has not read the book series partially because "they're really very long and I have four kids." (which series hasn't she read? She probably hasn't read any of them)
"I've put a lot of work into what I've studied and read. I think it would be hypocritical for me to read all the books, honestly. I don't agree with what's in them. I don't have to read an entire pornographic magazine to know it's obscene," Mallory said. (How would you know if it was pornographic unless you read at least part of it? And in the case of Harry Potter, where large swatches of material cannot possibly deemed to be anti-Christian, page-for-page, even by Jerry Fatwell or Pat Slobertson, how would you know the books were offensive without reading enough so as to get to at least the first offense? Poor woman. Given that this woman has likely been at the Evangelical bit for a while, if she read the books, she would indeed be doing something hypocritical - thinking!)
Is this woman off her rocker? Narnia? Doesn't that have magic and socery in it as well? And how come Tolkien gets off so easy? Hmm. Seems she has a bit of support from a few other slack jawed yokels parents. The best course of action, if you're a member of the Gwinnett County Public Schools system is to ask: Why not just get rid of ALL the books in the library and turn it into a chapel? Or maybe just get rid of the school system all together and send all the kids to Mallory's house where they can sit around not reading anything much at all. Ah, isn't ignorance bliss when the rapture is near? (That way, when Jesus comes, you can have nothing to talk about to him!)
And now where would someone who doesn't in fact read the Harry Potter books get her opinions about the Harry Potter books? Why from Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America, of course. Wife of best selling apocalyptic Christian author, Tim LaHaye.
**********************************************************************************
Ignorant yokels and suicide bombers - they blow up so fast. Freedom of religion does not include the right to stifle others' freedom of speech. The 1982 Supreme Court Pico case essentially held as much.
Indeed, freedom of speech is under siege from all institutions in America - from religious bigots, from the executive, and, most recently, from the judiciary. Even religious bigots themselves have had their freedom of speech stifled. As much as I find such bigoted speech offensive, to paraphrase Alan Dershowitz, "You may be a bigot, but the Constitution gives you the right to express bigoted views."
Two days ago, the 9th Circuit decided the case of Harper v. Poway. An evangelical Christian student named Harper, two years ago, wore a T-shirt with following phrases: "Our school has let in what God has forbidden," "homosexuality is a sin," and a quotation from Romans 1:27 (the quotation states homosexuality is an abomination). The phrases were either these words, or words close to them. The student wore the shirt in response to an event that LGBT students had held the day before (and that the public high school had seemed to tacitly approve) - a so-called "Day of Silence." On that day, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered students would be silent - would refrain from speaking to each other - for the whole day - so as to call attention to the discriminatory treatment that they have suffered and are still suffering.
On the day when Harper wore the T-shirt, he "exchanged words" with a few students, but there were no physical altercations, nor, apparently, were any classroom studies disrupted. Once the school administrators discovered that Harper was wearing the T-shirt, though, they insisted that he go home, change his clothes, and come back (they didn't really want to suspend him). He refused. Although threats of discipline were made, he was, without ever having to chnage the shirt, not disciplined, and given full attendance credit for the day.
However, apparently (the opinion does not make this clear, but this must have been what happened), Harper stated his intention to wear the T-shirt or an article of clothing with a similar message again. He was then told that he could not do so. He then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Southern Distrct of California seeking to enjoin the school's order. He lost, because the court found that he did not have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits (i.e. his First Amendment claims were not likely to prevail).
In a truly idiotic decision, the 9th Circuit affirmed. This is just the kind of case that the fundies and wingies seize upon to fearmonger the country, and I hate when a decision like this gets delivered. The 9th Circuit held that the T-shirt interfered with the "rights of others," as that phrase was used in Tinker v. Des Moines - namely, the rights of homosexual students to learn in a productive environment free of discriminatory insult and harassment. It brushed aside Harper's freedom of speech claim, saying that the "interference with the rights of others" exception in Tinker had foreclosed it (that case involved a high school student wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War; the Court ruled that the 1st Amendment prohibited a school from banning this form of expression, but also ruled that student freedom of expression is not absolute; a school can "tinker," so to speak, with students' freedom of speech, when, among other things, it interferes with the rights of others).
The Court essentially treated the right to be free of "harassment" (a level of harassment nowhere near the actionable level - i.e. the Ellerth/Faragher level) as a fundamental right - it interpreted this "right" as the "rights of others" Tinker right. However, there is no such right. The only case that could possibly stand for that proposition is Hill v. Colorado, in which the Court upheld a state ordinance prohibiting abortion protestors from coming within less than 8 feet of people entering an abortion clinic without the enterers' consent. That case, however, is more properly viewed as a time, place and manner restriction of speech case (and it was wrongly decided as well). There is also no fundamental right to be free of getting insulted in school.
Given that the Court misconstrued Tinker, it does not matter that it ruled correctly on the freedom of religion claim brought by the student (it ruled that freedom of religion does not include the license to insult others on the basis of religious grounds in a public high school, where alternative fora for such insults are available).
In short, this was a bad decision. It is well nigh beside the point that any number of students' feelings were hurt by the message on the T-shirt, and that the student, however "sincere" his bigotry was, intended to hurt other students' feelings, even though they hadn't LITERALLY done anything to him. In a pluralistic society, if one point of view that is part of our political discourse is allowed to be expressed, the other, generally speaking, must be too - either both should be or neither should be. Viewpoint-based speech discrimination is repellant to the constitution - yes, even more repellant than intolerant bigots.
Print Post
Read all posts by Michael Standaert
posted by EnterCenter at 8:10 AM
2 Comments:
The funny thing about the fear of Harry Potter (because it "encourages witchcraft") is that the Christians have a religion which is pretty much glorified witchcraft. I believe the reason they are afraid of Harry Potter because it will expose them for what they are!
Let's examine the Christians have a witchcraft-like religion...
1. They do things like touch the heads of people, murmer things, and then say "YOU ARE SAVED!" (Can't you imagine Harry Potter doing as much?)
2. They believe that prayers will actually save people. (How is that different from a spell?)
3. They believe in superstitious crap like snakes, etc. (Similar to Potter)
4. They have Jesus statues everywhere, and pretty much engage in idolotry. (similar to voodoo dolls of Potter)
I could go on and on. The bottom line is that many of the roots of Christianity are found in witchcraft, and I believe the hate mongering bigots, when they wax bigetic, do so worrying that people will discover the truth.
yes, it is sad that they want the monopoly on bigotry. And what's sad is that the witchcraft practiced in the Harry Potter books is not, I think, inherently bigoted, so it's like they want to claim something for themselves that's not even bigoted and turn it into something bigoted.
The difference between the witchcraft and Christianity is that the witchcraft in the books actually works. (And even though we may not believe it doesn't, the students at Hogwarts, by and large, are presented as studious, non-zombotic - the nice ones when they're not under a spell, anyway -and capable of thought. I think this is the real reason why Christians hate the books. The books, to some degree, make thinking, reading, and learning seem attractive!)
Post a Comment
<< Home