It's not just inarticulate teens who are being denied their right to free speech, it's Christians too.
I stand foursquare with Voltaire (or whoever it was who first said it): I may not (and in this case most assuredly do not) agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Or at least blog about it.
Out of interest, why do you characterise it as being about Christians?
ReplyDeleteAs Dave says, not all Christians are hung up on sex before marriage.
ReplyDeleteNext: does the right to free speech stop at one girl making dubious claims about the government, or does it include her father using the case to try and gain credence for the SRT organization in the UK, or does it include the school having some right to say "not allowed in our uniform"?
Dave asked: "why do you characterise it as being about Christians"
ReplyDeleteWell...
"Court challenge over a ban preventing her from wearing a Christian "purity ring"."
...
""unlawful interference" with her right to express her Christian faith. "
...
"expression of my Christian faith"
...
"stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith".
as a start.
[I tried commenting once but it didn't seem to appear -- apologies if two similar comments end up appearing]
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of the claims that have been made in the case, but why does that mean that it has to be characterised as being about being a Christian?
Put it this way: if a pupil turned up to school in a uniform of their own design, that was very different from the school's uniform, and claimed that it was about an expression of their Christian faith, would that make it so? Would that then become an issue about being a Christian? Especially to the point of it being about Christians (plural, look at Ron's post)?
why does that mean that it has to be characterised as being about being a Christian?
ReplyDeleteBecause that's what the people who created the symbol say that it's about. Because that's what the girl who wore the symbol says that it's about. Really, people, this is a no-brainer. When people put an emblem on their car that looks like a fish they aren't advocating sushi.
Do you consider their opinion to be more authoritative than any other obvious sources (say, a local christian bookshop or church committee or the bible), and if so, why?
ReplyDeleteSo anyone should be allowed to take anything, call it a symbol of some religion (even though it isn't generally recognised as such), deploy it in apparent defiance of some rules of the environment in which they operate and hope that people think that religion has a privileged position so they can get away with it?
ReplyDeleteIt's all very well using the quote you did above, but it doesn't follow that you're allowed to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Free speech is great, but it doesn't entitle you to a free audience.