Maybe it just wasn't a very good cross.

Could just be two lines on a piece of paper, you know.

~Zoo

We're looking at the beginning of a nasty movement against Christians.  We've had it too easy for too long.  Have you checked out "Speechless: Silencing Christians?"  (afa.net) Our challenge is going to be how to show love while digging knives out of our backs.

The Bible is full of all those things! Yay, Bible!

Regardless, you do lose some rights when walking onto a school campus. Absolutely. There's no helping that, because order has to be preserved. Safety of the children comes before the freedoms of those children. However, the limiting of those freedoms should be restricted to only taking away those freedoms necessary for the safety of the children.

ha!  Yes Zoo....it's all in how you look at it.....

Yes, it is coming....and not that I'm looking forward to this but  trials and tribulations in the church separate the possessors from the professors and refines the church. 

The trouble with Christians today is no one is trying to kill us.  If they were, there would be a lot less "Christians" out there, but the ones still around would be strong in the faith. 

I've heard about "Speechless" but not real familiar with it.  I'll have to check it out. 

 

 

And thats exactly why I think that the school has overstepped its bounds here. Its not like the kid was saying become Christian or die! in his artwork it was merely an expression of his idea and its not like he was threatening anyone with it. Art is all about presenting an idea or emotion through images and if kids in the classroom where bigoted enough to be offended by a cross or a star of david or any other religous symbol banned under this rule then I don't know why they are even in art class.

On a completely practical level how can they just totally ignore religous art? A good portion of the Rennassaunce art has religous basis and was funded by the Catholic Church and religon in art has played an important role even after the secularization of art. Maybe they just ignore this whole section of art because they dont want to offend anyone. This is kinda like in Farienheight 451 where they dont want anyone to be offended by any ideas so they just ban all the books.

You had some really great points. Thanks for sharing.



Well maybe they thought someone might be "beat over the head with the cross?"   

That's... basically... Jesus' ministry in a nutshell, there.

You cannot waive rights (and the school district is going to get burned on this). The only argument is a restriction based upon a situational need. But as the founders state, rights are inalienable - i.e., not given or taken by man.



And that is closer to the issue. Limiting, but not waiving. As the student was not prostelizing, I dont think the school has an issue. Indeed, they violate their own policies by not applying their arbitrary and capricious rules unilaterally.



And that is a great summation.

I was wondering when you would get to this, KFC. I read it, and was going to file it under the "Zero Tolerance = Zero intelligence", but did not have time to get to it. It is actually worse than zero intelligence as, since the school is an extension of the government, the activity was in compliance with instructions, and not disrupting the leson activities, and preventing the exercise of the students first amendment rights, it is clearly an attack on some religions. And that is against not only the letter, but the intent of the constitution.

I hope they make an example of the teacher and administration.

Might have a case that a cross is a violent torture device...

While I agree this was stupid, I think some of you are exaggerating the reasons such as this picture being dangerous in some way. I think they were simply enforcing a rule they created, which according to DrGuy is wrong.

My comments are not about the reason the kid was given a zero but because you people are complaining about the possible reasons it was done. Talk about double standards, it's OK to enforce a rule so long as it's not against some kind of religious situation? Fine, the rule is wrong, but they did what was suppose to be done, enforce the rule. Now enforcing existing rules is a bad thing? Why are none of you complaining about the rule itself as oppose to complaining about the possible reasons it was enforced? I don't understand why people complain not because the rule is incorrect but because it offended them?

 Like minds?  I've been getting into the current events thing lately...dunno why.  I like your title. 

It's basically the same principal at play here.  The authorities (Rome/Government School) decided they don't like Christians or who they represent.  One burned the Christians at the stake to shut them up, the other makes rules to shut them up.  No difference other than method of punishment. 

No, no double standards.  I'm ok with enforcing rules.  In fact, I don't think we enforce rules made enough nowadays.  So that's not it. 

We are discussing that the rule is stupid.  Idiotic.  Subjective.  Did you notice where I wrote it was ok to draw demons and evil looking creatures but not a cross? 

A demon is representative of the "evil side" of religion.  Demons are mentioned in scripture along with the cross and John 3:16.  But yet, they did not break the rule drawing a demon? 

 

Exactly, excellant point.

A demon is a mythological creature, and ironically, I believe the idea actually came from the Hebrew bible unless I'm mistaken. Not just that, but if demons are sometimes representations of a fallen angel, and therein can represent christianity, then the demon drawings are......get my meaning?

However, The school did kinda go nuts on this one, I'll wait and see how it goes. Maybe research a bit more.

 

Yes, agree here in the US....but this is how it starts and we are being told to shut up.....regardless. Right now...here ..we are allowed to freely worship in our churches...but that is not world wide freedom nor will it be here soon enough.

Recently the IRS has come up with a new tax law. It used to be they left non-profits alone if they made under a certain amount. That would include churches, food pantries etc. Now...they want every non-profit to file a return regardless of amount they brought in. Why do you suppose they want to all of a sudden keep track of these non-profits? I'm sure we'll find out in the not so distant future. This outlawing homeschool....was just the beginning. I think it may have been an "oops" moment. The timing wasn't quite right. But it's coming.

I'm sorry KFC but not every "demon" represents a religious creature. But unless you can prove to me that a cross with John 3:16 next to it was not motivated by religion, you are losing this argument. Here, I'll give you an idea of what my son could consider drawing if he chose to draw a demonic type of creature:



These characters are from Yu-gi-oh.



Jackie Chan Adventures

These cartoons have nothing to do with the Christian religion. Would you consider these wrong like you do the ones you are complaining about in this article?

You know, I had a really big guy (looked like a wrestler) threaten to beat me up because he claimed that during one of my jobs as a valet attendant, I almost ran over his daughter. I never saw the girl he spoke of and if she was in the area he claimed she was, shame on him. The girl would have been on the street. None the less this to me was an opportunity to make quick money by suing his behind big time had he laid a single finger on me. Now here we have a kid who's parents are suing the school and will make a nice bit of change in the process and you see this as the beginning of the end of Christianity? I'm sure those people that burned on the stakes had lawyers just like today and opportunities to make money out of the persecutions they endured.