Anti-Martyrdom
I think I'm starting to understand the logic of this lawsuit. Check it out.
Here's The Times quoting Ex-Recall's lawyer:
These people want to live in a world where people can be moral jellyfish, where they are able to force other people to listen to junk rather than reveal their own beliefs.
This is a kind of anti-martyrdom: rather than suffering for their devotion to their God, they argue that they would suffer from trying to hide their faith.
And they're going into court with this? The hearing is today. Let's see how far this thing gets.
Here's The Times quoting Ex-Recall's lawyer:
The lawsuit says the curriculum violates students' free speech rights and the First Amendment protection against the establishment of religion.Getting up and leaving health class when they teach about sex is a violation of your freedom of speech, because it's really forcing you to say "I used to be gay." Well, it could force you to say, "I'm Catholic." What I meant was, it forces you to say, "I'm a fundamentalist Christian." Or, maybe, it forces you to say, "I'm a Muslim or a Jew." [Note to those who don't see the obvious: it doesn't force anyone to make any concrete statement at all.]
"Part of free speech is the right to remain silent," Mr. Garza said, adding that students who opt out of the course will be assumed to have religious objections or be "ex-gay" by their peers.
"It's unconstitutional to force people to declare their religious beliefs or their sexual orientation," he said. "If you're a Catholic, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, if you're a Muslim or a Jew, you gotta go down the hall." Parents file suit to stop sex-ed
These people want to live in a world where people can be moral jellyfish, where they are able to force other people to listen to junk rather than reveal their own beliefs.
This is a kind of anti-martyrdom: rather than suffering for their devotion to their God, they argue that they would suffer from trying to hide their faith.
And they're going into court with this? The hearing is today. Let's see how far this thing gets.
posted by JimK at 8:02 AM
2 Comments:
That's an interesting tack they have, arguing that it's religious discrimination.
Of course, that's not the only grounds for the lawsuit, so I wonder why the Times (and you) are pretending it is.
The other day, I was talking with a reporter who was waving around a packet of what appeared to be a couple hundred pages of documents that had been submitted to the court. Too much to read, standing on the steps preparing for an interview -- so what else is in it, we don't know. Only what's been said in statements to the press.
Post a Comment
<< Home