When I was in high school, I would often wear Christian t-shirts. Some were what I would now consider offensive — I remember one said “no Jesus no peace” which is a ridiculous assertion, and another one where people were roasting over a grill with some kind of warning about hell.
Hmm, I wonder why I didn’t make many friends?
Thankfully I didn’t attend a church quite as bad as the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainsville, FL which has been sending their students to school with t-shirts that read “ISLAM IS OF THE DEVIL” in large print on back:
More children from the Dove World Outreach Center arrived Tuesday at area public schools with shirts bearing the message “Islam is of the Devil” and were sent home for violation of the school district’s dress code when they declined to change clothes or cover the anti-Muslim statement on their clothing.
What if a Muslim students started wearing shirts that said “Christianity is of the Devil”? Christians would be having conniptions about how they are being persecuted and how they would fear for their poor little fundie kid’s lives. I see now that the school district staff attorney had the same exact thought, which makes me like him already.
On Monday, a 10-year-old fifth-grader at Talbot Elementary was sent home because of the shirt. On Tuesday, two Eastside High students and one Gainesville High student were sent home and a student at Westwood Middle had to change clothes because of the shirt, according to members of the Dove congregation.
Dove Senior Pastor Terry Jones said no local company “had the guts” to print the shirts. Dove member Wayne Sapp said he then ordered the shirts over the Internet from a company that allows individuals to design their own shirts. His daughter, Faith Sapp, 10, was the Talbot Elementary student sent home Monday. She said she was allowed to wear the shirt to school on Tuesday – with the Gospel message on the front visible but the anti-Islam message on the back covered.
Wayne Sapp’s daughter, Emily Sapp, 15, was the student sent home from Gainesville High on Tuesday. Both Faith and Emily Sapp said it was their decision, not that of their parents, to wear the shirts to school in order to promote their Christian beliefs. Emily Sapp said the “Islam is of the Devil” statement was aimed at the religion’s beliefs, not its members….
Jones said that, to him, spreading the church’s message was “even more important than education itself.”
This pastor sent his 10 year old daughter with this shirt on. I think that says all I want to know about him.
Do you think these types of t-shirts should be allowed in public schools?
I don’t.
Heidi: And before that we had rocks! And we were damned glad to get them! My dad went to school in a... 
1minion: That was going to be my question, Jerdog. Do some good with all that “evil” stuff for a... 
Phil E. Drifter: Schools teach conformity. They teach you to sit down and shut up and be quiet and be... 
Nelly: ditto 
Anthony D Jacques: I love how God saying “Thou Shalt Not Kill” comes off so Do as I say, not as I do. Christians are... 
Leah: These people came to my school and protested…. I can’t help wondering if maybe they are just a... 
gmcfly: Someone needs to read Romans 13. 
90 Comments
And they are sent home? No school? I can’t imagine a reason for a teen wanting to wear that shirt… oh, wait…
I don’t agree with this on freedom of speech terms, but I do agree with it on school grounds. Their school, their dress code.
As long as I can wear a shirt saying “God is Impotent” as well, I’m OK.
What? I can’t? Really? Oh well then, no fun for anyone!
especially not God or his partner, apparently.
This says it all.
LOL!
If it is a public school, it definitely should not be allowed. If a teacher or other faculty member wore such a shirt, it would not be considered harmless freedom of expression, it would be seen as public promotion of a specific religion. There are those who would defend it anyway, of course, but there can be no question that it would be wrong. So what is the difference if it is a student wearing the message? The message will be seen by the same people, and by allowing the student to wear it, the school is giving their tacit approval.
It’s sad that these parents are using their kids as pawns in their little game of “I’m better than you.” Those kids “made” that choice because it was their only option, not because it was the best option.
I live in the neighborhood where this church is located. It has big white and red signs along the road stating “Islam. Is of The. Devil” and I have to pass it multiple times a day. It makes me angry. Then to send these children to school with this message plastered on their backs is sickening. My daughter has been friends with the little girl since they were 4. The poor child says she “wants to” wear the shirt. Of course she says that! What’s she going to do at 10? Go against her parents’ wishes? She’s brainwashed. Other than school and church, the little girl has no exposure to the real world. And it’s sad that Jones feels he has the right to dictate in the way he does.
Personally, I think it’s deplorable on so many levels.
Legally, is this covered under free speech? I think it is, but I don’t know for sure.
I doubt it. Public schools are allow to say what kids can and can’t wear. They can also say what they can and can’t say — you say the wrong thing to your teacher, and you get in trouble. There isn’t free speech in school.
It’s not legal trouble — they won’t go to jail. But they will get suspended or eventually expelled.
Allot of Public Schools are now running with a “Standardized Dress Code” (School uniforms).
My Son’s School District started this year all Grades K thru 12. My Wife and I didn’t like the idea of shopping for uniforms for a 6yr old, he grows so fast, but we do like the idea of not having to fight the Fashion bug that hits kids these days.
hahaha, “these days”
“Free speech” in the public schools is a complicated issue that has shifted back and forth in the courts for years. The high water mark for students’ rights was probably the Tinker case from the 1960’s (possibly early 1970’s?) that held that the school could not prohibit high school students from wearing black armbands to school to protest the Viet Nam war. However, I would think that the schools here would clearly be able to ban these particular shirts, even if only on ‘public order’ grounds, as being likely to cause fights or other distrubances.
It’s a toss-up between people not being overly-sensitive whiners and people not being insensitive a$$holes.
Word.
Do you think these types of t-shirts should be allowed in public schools?
Do they allow anti-Christian T-shirts in their church?
To me, this type of speech seems related to shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater – its only purpose is to stir shit up and cause trouble. The girls and their parents might say they were wearing the shirt to promote their Christian beliefs, but the message on the back has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. The intent is to make people mad and cause a disturbance, plain and simple.
If I were a principal I would ban these shirts in a hot minute.
Hell, no. You wanna be a buttholish provocateur? Do it on your own time, your own dime, and in your own space. And the wackadoodle nutbars who are behind this foolishness should be horsewhipped for trying to claim “religious expression.” It isn’t–they’re not wearing a cross or a shirt that says “He Died For You” or “Lord’s Gym”; they’re wearing stuff that is expressly antagonizing those who practice another religion. And if Islam is of the Devil,then what the hell can be said of a religion which, as their major tenet, say that the deity incarnated itself into the form of a human so the human could be horribly tortured and then killed…just to appease itself?
Hate speech is acceptable in America, as long as it’s christians who are doing it. (Don’t ask me for examples; they’re everyfuckingwhere. Read the events in this blog, or any atheist blog, or the news….)
This is the first instance I’ve seen of christian hate speech actually being officially unacceptable.
Jones said that, to him, spreading the church’s message was “even more important than education itself.”
Since this guy probably believe that the public education system is part of a huge conspiracy to hide the flaws in evolution and suppress the evidence supporting creationism then by kicking his kids out the school was helping to save their poo innocent xtian souls.
While in general I think that the least amount of restriction on free speech is always the better option a school is a special case and was well within its rights to send them home to prevent them from interfering with the ability of other students to study. If I was a teacher in that high school I would however use it as a way to initiate a discussion on free speech so maybe something useful would have come out of this dumbass stunt. The most deplorable aspect of the story is the use of children while you can maybe make a case that the 15 year old made her own decision the only decision a 10 year old can make is wear whatever shirt mom and dad told her to.
I think the man should be investigated for child abuse. Making a ten year old wear that shirt is evil.
This is exactly what I told my daughter when she came home from school Monday and told me the little girl had the shirt on. It’s diplorable to use your children as billboards to promote your opinions.
If I asked my daughter to wear a shirt that said “I like beer.” she’d wear it. She wouldn’t like it, but she’d wear it and defend me to the death if someone claimed she didn’t “want” to wear it. 10 year olds are like that. Loyal.
And the political and religious lessons this community can teach our children through this are endless… tolerance, respect, and not to be mean to or hate those who spread hate messages. We pity them. We learn from them. We learn about ourselves in the process.
External t-shirts, jewelry, symbols, etc are mostly unfruitful as is everything “external”. What should we (believers) “wear” if anything? Only an inward cross hung on our hearts/spirits by which the world is crucified unto us and us unto the world.
Is that from one of the Saw movies?
No, one of the Sword (of the spirit) MOVES (not movies) that “cuts” to the innermost, even to the dividing of the soul & spirit.
Isn’t it too bad that reason SHIELDS us from your idiocy?
Yes, the Light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend it.
Maybe you could use that light to find your medication.
The Light (Himself) IS the medication, the Cure.
Then why do you sound so crazy? Why do you pretend you aren’t here to proselytize? Is it shame? You are a mad streetcorner preacher, and you found your soapbox here. Isn’t it sad that if you are not honest enough to admit you are here to witness and proselytize? You aren’t convincing anyone, you aren’t making a good case for your nutjob god, and your aren’t fooling anyone.. you are just babbling on your soapbox.
If you feel compelled to do that, why pretend you aren’t proselytizing unless you feel some sense of shame for your actions?
What should we (believers) “wear” if anything?
Nudity FTW!
I’d rather go naked than disseminate hate speech? I could go for that.
JC – you betray your own preachings…if what you say is true, surely commenting on a blog would not hold any meaning whatsoever to you. As a matter of fact, commenting on a blog would be one of the most pointless things you could do! You’ve found the way, enjoy it. What “others” do should be of no consequence to you. “Others” should be meaningless to you.
Loving God and loving people go hand in hand, you can’t separate one from the other.
so you comment on this particular blog because you love us?
I do love you guys and I also enjoy stimulating dialogue, friendly or not.
cool – we need you around to challenge us. No fun to preach to the choir :)
Nonsensical baloney is a challenge?
So, when *you* comment on religion, it’s because you love us. When *other people* comment on religion, it’s “external” and therefore “unfruitful”.
Is that about right?
One of the children is named Faith Sapp? How wonderfully Ironic.
Public schools shouldn’t be forums for political or religious expression. Thus, free speech doesn’t necessarily apply there.
I don’t disagree with the message though (apart from the crap about the devil). Islam is a destructive ideology that the world would be better off without.
religion is a destructive ideology that the world would be better off without.
There, fixed that for you.
“Hate speech” is specifically exempted from “free speech”.
Yes yes, all superstition is dangerous, but OneSTDV has a valid point: Islam is the worst. It is a religion of war. The doctrine of martyrdom is particularly dangerous, and central to that faith. No tenet of, say, Jainism is likely to lead a follower to blow up a bus full of schoolchildren. Their holy book says to convert, subjugate, or kill infidels, and their stated goal is world domination. Islam is an imminent threat to the physical safety of everyone else on the planet, in a way that other religions are not.
IMO, Wright blew up that characterization (and, FWIW, the contrary characterization of the other monotheistic religions) pretty soundly in The Evolution of God.
Have you read The End of Faith?
Also, disregarding white apologists for a moment, books by Muslim apostates support that characterization.
Islam is by far the world’s most intolerant and violent religion.
Islam is by far the world’s most intolerant and violent religion.
Right now. Our view is always skewed by current conditions. Not so long ago, Islam was the tolerant, basically peaceful religion and Christians were the intolerant jerks. With the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has been going steadily backwards from their original position. Wright persuasively argued that pretensions towards empire building invariably soften religious extremism as the economic and political necessity of tolerance becomes paramount for the stability of the empire.
Exactly. Right now, and for the foreseeable future. I dunno about you, but I live right now. There haven’t been any Catholic pogroms for a few hundred years.
Well, OK. yes, I agree that what a religion is right now has the most practical consequences for people living right now. But I tend to think that all the different forms and manifestations that a religion has ever produced indicate collectively the character of that religion *as a religion*. No religion can come close to claiming a peaceful existence (even Buddhists!) throughout their history, but *all* major religions have produced sustained periods of tolerance and peace throughout their history as well. We have a sort of temporal location bias when we speak of things as though they are are whatever they’ve always been and then assume that’s all they ever can be.
There haven’t been any Catholic pogroms for a few hundred years.
If Wright is right, if you live to see the fall of Western Civilization, you will undoubtedly see Catholics burning witches once again and Islam become an actual religion of peace.
Perhaps! However, I fear that there may not be any Catholics or witches or Muslims left. Torquemada didn’t have hydrogen cyanide, and no atomic bombs were used in the Crusades. Since the advent of chemical and nuclear weaponry, the stakes have been raised. Fourteenth-century morality and twenty-first-century technology are a dangerous — at best — combination.
The Arab world has done magnificent things for humanity, but the current state of Islam is an oppressive, totalitarian, intolerant cult of death.
I will read Evolution of God if you will read The End of Faith :)
I will read Evolution of God if you will read The End of Faith :)
Fair enough!
Public schools shouldn’t be forums for political or religious expression.
Why not?
Exactly; if not there, then where?
Exactly; if not there, then where?
We have this thing now, we call it the “internet”.
It’s a poor substitute. In meatspace, expressing ideas has unavoidable consequences, both positive and negative. On teh Internetz, nearly all those consequences can be avoided. Thus, online one cannot really replicate the intricate social experience of having and expressing an opinion, and so cannot teach how to deal with the undertaking very well.
My mother is a teacher, and she got caught in the middle of some of those ‘consequences’ a time or two. I’m all for learning from experience, but when a fight breaks it usually means that other people get sucked in. Not to mention what this does to the learning environment.
Further, the people who could really stand to learn a lesson – the parents – are not going to anywhere near the school when the confrontation starts.
My mother is a teacher…
Mine too! :)
…and she got caught in the middle of some of those ‘consequences’ a time or two. I’m all for learning from experience, but when a fight breaks it usually means that other people get sucked in. Not to mention what this does to the learning environment.
It’s already present in the learning environment; surely you don’t think that people aren’t holding opinions about Islam simply because there’s no t-shirt to start the conversation, right? Bigotry, especially because of the history and development of society, is covert, which on balance is better than overt actions but the downside is that it more often goes completely unaddressed. Against the passive-aggressive sort of lashing out that follows, no laws can prevail. The only moment where there is a decent probability of addressing and changing malignant ideas is in youth.
Further, the people who could really stand to learn a lesson – the parents – are not going to anywhere near the school when the confrontation starts.
I doubt any methodology would consistently reach parents. But then again, reaching the parents is a far inferior goal to reaching the kids.
“Public schools shouldn’t be forums for political or religious expression.”
I have to disagree. If public schools aren’t making kids define and defend their positions on such fundamental things, they are doing a piss poor job.
Is it the public school’s job to make “kids define and defend their positions on such fundamental things”? I think not! As a parent of two young ladies, I certainly want them to respect and be open-minded to the people they are around at school, however, it is MY JOB to teach them to define and defend their positions on the fundamental things in life…NOT the random collection of differing opinions the staff at the school may hold!
Not saying the school should impose views on the kids, but creating an environment where a child explores positions, debates and the defends them is part of what a school should be doing.
I would wear a shirt in protest of that shirt. I hate people like this. They are just hateful ignorant fools.
Islam, like all other religions, is of an opportunistic con man that wanted the three “Ps” most men desire; power, profit and pussy.
The shirts are offensive to Muslims, but I wouldn’t ban them if it were up to me. Better to use them as a spring baord for discussion rather than a purpose for censorship. Plus I kind of like the idea of offending the religious, even if it’s with a faulty argument.
Generally more speech is a better response to offensive speech than censorship, so I might encourage counterveiling T-shirt messages from other students.
Personally I’d go with something like: “Choosing between Yahwe and Allah is like choosing between Leprechauns and Unicorns.”
I strongly disagree with calling such a ban “censorship”. It is not as if it’s an innocent perspective that happens to offend the oversensitive. The purpose of the message is to be offensive. Should a shirt that says “homosexuals will burn in hell” be okay? “Black people suck”? “Women are inferior to men”?
There are plenty of ways to “offend the religious” without resorting to faulty arguments.
“Should a shirt that says “homosexuals will burn in hell” be okay? “Black people suck”? “Women are inferior to men”?”
If by “ok” you mean personally acceptable to me on any level – then no they are very very far from “ok.”
If by “ok” you mean the sort of ignorant, backward ass speech that should be protected eventhough it is offensive as hell – then yes it “ok.”
By “ok”, I mean “allowed at a public school”.
I hate with the fiery passion of a thousand suns the in loco parentis school doctrine and the concomitant weakening of the notion that students are citizens with at least a semblance of rights. Including the ability to express ideas, even abhorrent ones.
But more to the point, people are supposed to be going to school not just to learn subjects, but also to learn how to be citizens. Come a time they leave school (and probably before) they are going to have to learn how to deal with the jerk with the offensive tee-shirt; there are plenty more out there where he came from. Where we get off infantilizing people until they’re seventeen I have no idea.
My feelings are mixed. I understand wanting all speech to be protected, no matter what. On the other hand, speech that is designed or likely to incite hostility and violence might understandably be suppressed. I am obviously not free to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. How much like that is wearing a shirt that says “Islam is of the Devil”?
Honestly, I’d say it doesn’t even come close to crying “fire” falsely, which is an act of fraud that can cause a deadly panic. People have no right not to be offended, and self-control in the face of bigotry is supposed to be part and parcel of living in a civilized society.
But when it comes to it, I think it generally better that the kid who wears the t-shirt get roughed up in school by those he/she offends (where it rarely goes beyond a few bruises) so that he or she learns that all expression has consequences. It is certainly better than making the mistake in the adult world and risking getting dead.
Man, I couldn’t agree more.
I think our modern ‘zero tolerance’ policy on fighting among kids is very very counterproductive. Some of the most important lessons I learned as a kid came at the hands of an ass kicking.
My feelings have softened from “strong” to “mixed” and then softened again. My mind is changed. Public suppression of any message (even, say, racist) is censorship.
I think I am disproportionately swayed by an anecdote in The God Delusion: a student wore a shirt to school reading “Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder — some things are just black and white”. Had the parents sued the school on grounds of freedom of speech, they would have lost, because hate speech is specifically exempted. They sued on grounds of freedom of religion and won.
…but this illustrates a regrettable double-standard; in a Perfect World, there would be no such exemption.
” hate with the fiery passion of a thousand suns the in loco parentis school doctrine and the concomitant weakening of the notion that students are citizens with at least a semblance of rights. Including the ability to express ideas, even abhorrent ones.
But more to the point, people are supposed to be going to school not just to learn subjects, but also to learn how to be citizens. Come a time they leave school (and probably before) they are going to have to learn how to deal with the jerk with the offensive tee-shirt; there are plenty more out there where he came from. Where we get off infantilizing people until they’re seventeen I have no idea.”
This is very well put.
I agree.
The discussion is a relevant idea in the high school case but the elementry school kids are a bit young for that. anyway if those A-holes want to spread their massage of hate why don’t they put their own ass where their mouth is and instead of sending a 10 year old to school wearing that shirt put it on themselves and wait outside the local mosque for Friday service to end so they can save all those misguided souls.
F***ing cowards.
“By “ok”, I mean “allowed at a public school”.”
By this standard I think it is “ok.”
Well, I agree with the supremacy of speech freedom in this issue and clearly agree at the high school level that these types of speech should be allowed. I believe even more strongly in a system that allows discussion of such things in the classroom (and where the teacher is not going to be fired for sharing a personal opinion). But one of the kids was 10. I’m not so sure, just for the safety and sanity of that child, that it should be allowed in grade school.
That is certainly where it gets tricky. There are certainly some ten-year-olds precocious enough to have a solid and independent opinion about religion, politics and society, but clearly also many who are not. On one hand, no child should have to suffer through being their parents’ walking billboard, but on the other, nobody should have to be quizzed on comprehension before they be allowed to offer an opinion.
No easy solution. Like many things, probably an arbitrary cut-off is in order. Where would you draw the line?
I’m thinking I would allow it in Jr. High and up but not grade school.
Hell no.
ahhh high school…you wore your t-shirts and I rebuffed dozens of beautiful, perfect, lovely girls because of my religion (I used to be very good looking). They were damn aggressive too but of course it was just Satan tempting me with their lovely, innocent beauty. God please forgive me if I wish I could go back in time……
Some are calling this a “message of hate”. It’s a message of truth. Islam sucks. Christianity sucks, but far less. All religions suck, but in the current world, the one I’m living in, Islam is by far the most pernicious.
Bull.
“Christianity sucks, but far less”–why? Because there haven’t been any witch trials, crusades, or killing of abortion doctors this week?
Islam is a barbaric, oppressive, totalitarian, intolerant cult of death that is bent on world domination. Their holy books (the Koran and the Hadith) repeatedly and unambiguously encourage followers to stop at nothing until all infidels (we are all infidels) are converted, subjugated, or murdered. “The gates of Paradise are under the shadow of swords.”
The Crusades aren’t happening right now. There are gradations of the danger of doctrine; Buddhism is less dangerous than, say, Catholicism. There is such a thing as the worst of the bad.
Islam is a barbaric, oppressive, totalitarian, intolerant cult of death that is bent on world domination. Their holy books (the Koran and the Hadith) repeatedly and unambiguously encourage followers to stop at nothing until all infidels (we are all infidels) are converted, subjugated, or murdered. “The gates of Paradise are under the shadow of swords.”</cite
As does the Wholly Babble. Of course, this all depends on interpretation, or are you all willing to completely discard the majority of Muslims who live peaceably with others according to their interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith? It’s ridiculously disingenuous and smacks of neo-colonialism to paint Islam with a broader brush than Christianity. And yeah, there are people who’ve killed in the name of Buddhism. For example: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194765
All religions have the potential to become evil or benign. Right now, it’s the flavor of the month to spout a bunch of ignorant, knee-jerk nonsense about Islam as though Christianity hasn’t had a history of bloody-mindedness (hello, IRA/Protestant clashes!).
No, no interpretation necessary. Islamic “extremists” are the ones adhering to the religion most closely. They tend to be well-educated and affluent. Yes, yes, potential and all, but I’m not talking about what might be or what was, I’m talking about what is.
Laying aside the heinous oppression of women: if you don’t think Islam is more violent and dangerous than any other religion, you don’t know much about Islam. It is not a peaceful center with a violent fringe. It is a violent center. Islam has bloody borders.
Here is some vilification of unbelievers (everyone who is not Muslim) in the Koran; this is a random fraction, there is much more:
Islam exalts martyrs. “Outer jihad” — war against infidels and apostates — is a central tenet. The hadith says “He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief.” The average American Protestant does not believe anything that would make them remotely likely to blow themselves up aboard a bus full of schoolchildren, and their parents don’t believe anything that would make them likely to throw a party because their child’s martyrdom has paved the family’s way to Paradise.
“If you believe anything like what the Koran says you must believe in order to escape the fires of hell, you will, at the very least, be sympathetic with the actions of Osama bin Laden.”
Christianity exalts martyrs–or are you forgetting the impetus behind the frakkin’ Crusades? And don’t you think the morons who wore those shirts and were sent home *aren’t* thinking of themselves as “martyrs” (albeit in a different sense) And you’re conveniently forgetting–or outright ignoring–that Islam considers the “inner jihad” to be the greater struggle–in other words, the struggle to overcome one’s own temptations/sin is the greater struggle and that the outer jihad is secondary. And to say that the “average” American Protestant doesn’t believe in blowing themselves up is to imply that the “average” Muslim does. I should think Muslims in Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or China or here in the United States would likely disagree with your grand assertions.
LEST WE FORGET…
Next week is the fifth anniversary of the almost forgotten Beslan atrocity. The full story was never published at the time.
In particular, the Islamic involvement was censored. The MSM never reported the child-rapes or other typically Islamic aspects, even though the children were being knifed to shouts of ‘Allah Akhbar’.
The full uncensored story can be found in the links under ‘BESLAN – Child rape, torture and ritual murder’ at The Religion of Peace™ Subject Index
Could all bloggers please help to spread the truth about this massacre to warn the public of the truly Satanic vileness of this predatory murder-cult.
And I suppose these same people have an issue with atheist bus and billboard ads.
I don’t. Sounds like using kids to me. I doubt the kids or the parents know what the Islam faith is all about.
Fortunately for Christians, they can make the claim that the Bible has never condoned any atrocities of any kind, ever. Thank goodness it doesn’t, because that would certainly make these people look like hypocritical hate-mongers.