National Day of Silence
Today is the National Day of Silence, which calls to attention the bullying and harassment in schools directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders by encouraging students to remain silent all day (unless called upon to speak in class). The event, with over 6,000 middle and high school students planning to participate, is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and is dedicated to Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed in class last February by a classmate due to his sexual orientation.
On Monday, the Alliance Defense Fund will be holding its opposing Day of Truth to “counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.” Students are encouraged to wear t-shirts or hand out cards with the group’s message.
Both events come at the heels of a recent court ruling that allows an Illinois high school student to wear a t-shirt that reads, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The Alliance Defense Fund represented the student and stated:
“Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Public school officials cannot censor a message expressing one viewpoint on homosexual behavior and then at the same time allow messages that express another viewpoint. The court’s ruling is a victory for all students seeking to protect their First Amendment rights on a school campus.”
The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, recognizing the student’s fundamental First Amendment right to free speech, but emphasized that other students have the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
While I staunchly believe that students have every right to express their beliefs, I’m saddened that such negative speech takes place in schools. When will students learn to be tolerant of differences among us?
Subscribe to Feed
With all due respect to the ACLU, I disagree on two fronts:
1. Freedom from discrimination is not a right for anyone. The freedom of association that we all enjoy allows us all to discriminate.
2. A student wearing a t-shirt that expresses an anti-homosexual sentiment is not an example of discrimination-it is an example of free speech.
This means that:
1. A gay, lesbian, transgender organization can discriminate against heterosexuals by prefering that only gay, lesbian, transgender individuals serve as CEO.
2. The Ladies Professional Golfers Association (LPGA) can discriminate on the basis of race and exclude men from its tournaments.
3. The United Negro College Fund can discriminate on the basis of race and give scholarship money primarily to blacks and other minorities.
I could go on but I think my point is made. Qualified individuals that are not of a particular sexual orientation, gender or race can be denied an opportunity and it is OK. The moment we start denying others this opportunity we will lose it ourselves.
Another way to look at it: If we deny a conservative Chritian the opportunity to wear a t-shirt criticizing homosexualing how can we support the student from Wisconsin who last year criticized Christianity by tearing out pages in the Bible? This is a double standard.
We should counter the anti-gay sentiment by expressing our point of view that they are wrong. We should quote the anti-gay passages in the bible as ask if that is what Jesus would do? We should ask why Christianity teaches hate based on sexual orientation? If they claim it doesn’t we should ask them to explain the God Hates Fags movement. I mean the conservatives have their own “Reverand Wright” and his name is Fred Phelps.
I agree this is a difficult issue. On a personal level I used to wear my convention and “Atheist in the Foxhole” shirts to work because no one objected but then I relized that no one was allowed to wear religious t-shirts and that I was getting special treatment. I decided not to wear those shirts to work because I felt my freedom of speech was being given more priority than others. Other people may disagree, but that’s how I experienced it so I made a choice. The rules had to apply to everyone equally or to none.
Personally, I don’t want a bunch of messages flashing about at work, as I would find it distracting at some point and I relized I probably was distracting some of my co-workers from their work. In some other situation I might say we should talk about it, but we’re there to get are job done, so…
I agree, I wish there wasn’t such negativity in the world, but in some ways encouraging all of us to think about how others perceive our words and actions would do more to address that issue. That will mean more conversation as William encourages as well. It’s a very complex issue. We can’t have it both ways and yet an all or nothing solution isn’t won’t be satisfying either.