High School senior Sabrina Steffans is taking on Grand Island High School in New York for her parking space. The school said that graduating students could do their own designs for their parking spaces for a $50 fee so Steffans did a religious theme. However, Assistant Principals Adam Hernandez and Jaime Peld hit the brakes on the effort as unacceptable religious imagery in a public school.
They reportedly told Steffens, “if we had to approve your cross, we’d have to approve a satanic symbol and [we] wouldn’t want to attend a school like that.” They allegedly told her that she might get away with it if she “disguised” the cross as the letter “T.” So Steffans did that and resubmitted a design with “let your light shine” with a cross for the letter “T” in “light.” However, it still included a reference to the Bible’s Jeremiah 29:11.
That was also rejected. So Steffans resubmitted a new design without the Jeremiah reference, but included the phrase “He is King,” which eventually was approved by Principal Kretz-Harvey, who reportedly said that he made the decision after consulting with lawyers.
I do not believe that the earlier designs would violate the First Amendment under current Supreme Court precedent.
Steffans is now pushing back on the earlier denials. She is now represented by one of the nation’s leading religious rights groups, First Liberty. It has sent a notice letter to the school of a possible lawsuit.The letter warns:
“Any restrictions on expression for the parking space design activity must not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. But here, the school’s denial of Ms. Steffans’ designs containing references to Scripture constitutes viewpoint discrimination because it prohibits specific religious messages while permitting a wide variety of secular speech.”
It notes that the guidelines “prohibit only ‘offensive language, pictures or symbols,’ ‘negative or rude language, and ‘gang-style tagging.’”
First Liberty is citing violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and demanding a reversal of the original decision. I wonder what the school lawyers would rule if Stephanie painted the space with lyrics from Carrie Underwood’s song and the declaration “Jesus Take the [Space].”
We have previously discussed such decisions by schools, including banning vehicles with political statements.
First Liberty has a long history of prevailing in such fights and this could make for an interesting challenge.
In the end, Stephanie may have been better off choosing Jeremiah 6:16 rather than Jeremiah 29:11: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.”
Oh and on the song front, I much prefer Joni Mitchell and her salient observation that parking lots don’t get to reimagine as Paradise regardless of the religiosity of the parker turned artist:
“High School senior Sabrina Steffans is taking on Grand Island High School in New York for her parking space. The school said that graduating students could do their own designs for their parking spaces for a $50 fee so Steffans did a religious theme. However, Assistant Principals Adam Hernandez and Jaime Peld hit the brakes on the effort as unacceptable religious imagery in a public school.
They reportedly told Steffens, “if we had to approve your cross, we’d have to approve a satanic symbol and [we] wouldn’t want to attend a school like that.” They allegedly told her that she might get away with it if she “disguised” the cross as the letter “T.” So Steffans did that and resubmitted a design with “let your light shine” with a cross for the letter “T” in “light.” However, it still included a reference to the Bible’s Jeremiah 29:11.”
****************************************
Look, this isn’t a First Amendment case; however it is the case of the dumb school fundraising scheme. Who in their right mind would think it’s a good idea to let kids put their own designs on public property? Knuckle draggers? The potential problems are legion and the benefit small. Our cited educators, ex post facto, identified the problem but a tad late. Surely they are smarter than this … but … maybe not.
Fundraising. It was. Now the question, why doesn’t the school have the budget it needs to run the school? If that’s the case, maybe it went into DEI. Welcome to 2025.
400 years ago people risked their lives in wooden ships for their right of conscience. 250 years ago they ended up going to war with their own country for that unalienable right and the security of all others. Jefferson wrote “whenever,” not “if ever.” We’re fresh out of “light or transient” causes and there’s no place left to go. And since we cannot be one thing and also another, I guess we’ll just have to do this the hard way.
What the f?
“What the f?”
Over your head again, huh, Gigi? Doesn’t take much now does it.
One of the biggest problems in this country is there are too many people with thin skin. They bruise too easy. Just get over it.
Or just a bunch of citizens thinking they’re rights supersede everyone elses’. Look at what the alphabet are doing.
First — although I am a Christian, I do not believe this student should use this space for her religious views — and the same for all students. The school is at fault for even getting into this. Let the girl put her views on her year book page but not a public parking spot where a name and graduation date enough! If we want our schools to teach students to be productive members of society, let them learn the skills that will get them ready for their futures and not waste time on pushing personal opinions on public spaces.
Good one!
If you ever become a school principal, you can implement that. But not all of society is as speech-phobic as you. For example, I prefer more freedom of expression, and the main beef I have with the assistant principals is their statement that they would object to allowing a pentagram. Let each student express their own views and then people can see them and discuss them freely.
It makes it seem like the assistant principals are Christians. I would make sense because they mentioned a pentagram and Satan.
I think YOU are over reacting
*. She wanted to park her car over the religious picture, symbols and speech? 🤔 sharp. Hope there isn’t an oil leak.
“*. She wanted to park her car over the religious picture, symbols and speech? 🤔 sharp. Hope there isn’t an oil leak.”
That would apply to any student’s design, would it not? So, which is the stupider: the student furnishing a design; or the school officials who came up with the concept?
“I do not believe this student should use this space for her religious views — and the same for all students. The school is at fault for even getting into this. Let the girl put her views on her year book page but not a public parking spot ”
What are your legal and moral principles that make you differentiate her parking space from the yearbook page?
Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. have been directed not to pursue felony charges against people caught carrying rifles or shotguns in the city, a dramatic departure from long-standing practice. The instruction, confirmed by US Attorney Jeanine Pirro in an email obtained by The Washington Post, follows guidance from the Justice Department and its solicitor general.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/washington-dc-ends-felony-charges-for-carrying-rifles-shotguns-under-new-trump-era-policy-ws-e-13926456.html
But if you are caught with a Subway sandwich, that is still a felony.
So they are simply inviting the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers to start “patrolling” and shooting people.
This will change very fast when black and brown people start marching in the streets carrying guns
Actually, they have made it clear that this only applies to white christo-fascists.
Ano
Antifa or BLM to start “patrolling” and shooting people.
Fixed it for ya. Odd that your memory is so darn short
It depends. If it’s a six inch then it’s allowed but the foot long is a high capacity assault sandwich.
“If it’s a six inch then it’s allowed but the foot long is a high capacity assault sandwich.”
Any sandwich bread with the capacity to contain more than 10 slices of lunch meat or cheese is an assault sandwich. How can you not know that?
“But if you are caught with a Subway sandwich, that is still a felony.”
Not if it is sans (a)salt.
Gigi, nobody cares. Get better material.
So that means protesters can open carry rifles or shotguns around ICE raids or roving groups of law enforcement. I can see that will be a big problem.
“So that means protesters can open carry rifles or shotguns around ICE raids or roving groups of law enforcement. I can see that will be a big problem.”
Not really. It will just give the police justification to remove some oxygen thieves from society.
Just another religious zealot pushing the 1st ‘ boundaries, all for piece of a parking lot.
“Just another religious zealot pushing the 1st ‘ boundaries, all for piece of a parking lot.”
Bake the cake, buddy.
Pushing boundaries is done by all stripes of people, and it is how we are forced to clarify where the boundaries are, so the government is on notice as to what it is allowed to prohibit, and what it must permit. It is also how we got to have a First Amendment interpreted to allow a wide range of free expression. To me, that’s a good thing.
Honestly, were I a student, I wouldn’t care about the pentagram either, fail to see how it’s any different from a kid walking around wearing a Slayer or Venom t-shirt back in the day, it isn’t as though these kids are erecting shrines or statues. It’s actually amusing that admin is more frightened of a crucifix. I’m not a Christian myself, but this is just silly. We really need to get over ourselves in 2025.
James,
Well said and I agree.
I am not religious but while I may not agree with everything in the Ten Commandments, more than a few fall into “common sense” territory.
I am not going to lose it if I were to see an Israeli flag or a Palestine flag or a MAGA hat or a parking lot space with some religious reference. Meh. Move along.
Upstate.
With many dem/libs. They have to be upset about something, no matter how little it is.
“With many dem/libs. They have to be upset about something, no matter how little it is.”
Adrenaline junkies. However, that is not exactly unknown on the opposite side of the politcial fence…
@Upstate
Definitely of one mind on this one. 👍🏼
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Schools and other institutions often forget that 2nd part.
The student was invited to decorate their parking space that was assigned by the school. I see no problem. The student is freely exercising her religion in her assigned space. Students do not abdicate their bill of rights when they attend a public school.
My hope is First Liberty prevails.
A little more thought in putting out their rules for the student’s spaces could have saved everyone time, trouble and money. Students tend to be surprising in the things they do and you would have expected the school administration to be aware of that. Especially when you tell them to express themselves. Administration should have known this would happen.
I guess my wallpaper with Black Sabbath or KISS would not conform. A pity.
Maybe a painting of a Confederate Battle Flag waving over the NY State Capitol. That might cause a near extinction level event.
The Student was not “invited” to decorate her parking space. The abiitity to decorate the space is a privilage, not a right. That’s why the school charges a fee to do so.
The school is allowing students to decorate their parking spots. They do not have a constitutional right to a parking spot and that will likely be point brought up if this goes to court. Students pay a fee to reserve a particular spot and are allowed to decorate it. I’m sure there are rules on what can be put on the parking spots like no profanity or obscene images. Would the school be required to allow a student to put a swastika on his parking spot?
The best solution to this problem would be for the school to end the practice of allowing students to decorate parking spots. That’s a legal course of action that is constitutional.
“The best solution to this problem would be for the school to end the practice of allowing students to decorate parking spots. That’s a legal course of action that is constitutional.”
So because you don’t like her particular display of faith, let’s punish every student of any faith in response. How very un-American of you, but expected.
It’s a perfectly legal way to end the controversy. Christians do this when they put up ten commandment monuments on public property and groups like the satanic temple rightfully point out that if christians are allowed to put up a monument so is the satanic temple. The way to stop the satanic temple from erecting their own monument is to not allow any monuments at all.
“It’s a perfectly legal way to end the controversy. Christians do this when they put up ten commandment monuments on public property and groups like the satanic temple rightfully point out that if christians are allowed to put up a monument so is the satanic temple. The way to stop the satanic temple from erecting their own monument is to not allow any monuments at all.”
Barring all religious expression is probably the dumbest solution to this controversy. But that’s very on brand for you to propose it.
Barring all religious expression keeps the whole thing neutral and that’s what the government is supposed to be according to the 1st amendment.
The freedom to exercise religion is not hindered when the government does not allow any religion to present itself as dominant on public property. Because allowing just one would be seen as an endorsment of one over the others not allowing any of them would not be.
“The freedom to exercise religion is not hindered when the government does not allow any religion to present itself as dominant on public property.”
This might be the stupidest thing that I’ve read in a while. You’re truly astounding.
It may sound stupid to you, but that’s how the Constitution works. SCOTUS has affirmed this is a solution that is constitutionally sound multiple times.
I looks like you don’t really understand how the 1st amendment works with regard to religion.
“It may sound stupid to you, but that’s how the Constitution works. SCOTUS has affirmed this is a solution that is constitutionally sound multiple times.
I looks like you don’t really understand how the 1st amendment works with regard to religion.”
Buddy, what you don’t know about the first amendment can and does fill books. You’re so out of your depth here it’s almost like you want to be the poster child for the Dunning–Kruger effect.
I’m not your buddy. You are clearly clueless about how the 1st amendment works. The tell is you haven’t made any argument showing us you know. Just personal attacks and insults.
“I’m not your buddy. You are clearly clueless about how the 1st amendment works. The tell is you haven’t made any argument showing us you know. Just personal attacks and insults.”
I’m not the one arguing that the solution to a religious issue is to ignore the first amendment altogether by banning all free expression of religion. I guess this is par for the course for you over there in Beijing, but it doesn’t fly here.
I must look up the dunning Kruger effect
“The freedom to exercise religion is not hindered when the government does not allow any religion to present itself as dominant on public property.”
“The freedom to exercise religion is not hindered when the government does not allow any religion to be exercised publicly”. FIFY.
*. Oh, I see, mission accomplished?
*. They could make it a theme decoration such as a tribute to an American historical event studied in high school. You know, all those history classes being taught, eh?
Get a clue. There were rules.
This did not violate them.
But if the school wanted a HUGE BLM flag or painting, now that;s OK….. Right!
*. She put up good cash money to participate. The right was denied because of her religion and the religious rights of Satan.
Return the money with apology.
The school tried to be non-controversial. Most likely expecting the kids to put dots or flowers, but no, some religious zealot, a brainless child no less, surely with the help of her parents, had to inject religion. Did anyone ask if the school gave the kids guidelines? The school tried to defuse the situation, but she wouldn’t play nice. What if a Muslim tried the same tactic? A devil worshiper (as feared) maybe, would you religious zealots consider that blasphemy and attack the artist on 1st A grounds as anti-Christian?
Your hope is that non-Christians get a big kick in the ass, your way or the highway. Religious bigotry has never been more apparent using the 1st as a weapon.
The first is the weapon, moron.
The weapon used to defend against this tyranny.
There were rules, get a clue. This did not violate them.
No problem with any religion, including Muslim (wtf?) and Satanism. So long as it didnt violate the rules.
I lost track of the number of baseless assumptions that you made.
Meaning, you can’t count?
Yeah, I ran out of fingers and toes and I gave up.
Touché!
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Schools and other institutions often forget that 2nd part.”
Perhaps it’s because “schools and other institutions” are not Congress. And they don’t pass laws.
The First Amendment has long been interpreted to apply to government as a whole, prohibiting any branch at any level from using the power of the state to either establish a religion or unreasonably interfere with someone freely practicing their religion.
It has also long been held to apply to state and local governments (including public school districts) through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
“. . . to apply to . . .”
You rewrote the original commenter’s sentence.
His “schools” could be public or private. His “other institutions” could be anything from banks, factories and social clubs, to the military, law firms and medical practices.
If you want to rebut a counter-argument (which was mine), don’t alter the original argument.
Or a public street paint with huge BLM or LGBQ colors.
“. . . the so called [sic] separation of church and state.”
“So-called?”
Itching for a theocracy?
Of all places… a parking lot.
Which I’m sure most will not even notice… except for libs.
*. Seriously, in the hope no one must see this world EVAH again.
Imagine how many worlds there really are. Sigh
She should have done a drawing of Muhammad.
Oh, wait.
What the …? High school students get their own private parking spaces on government property?
Its school district property. What government are you referring to please?
Lmao
What do you think a school district is? A private company???
While practice varies significantly by state (and in some cases, within a state), most American school districts operate as independent local governmental units under a grant of authority and within geographic limits created by state law.
“Lmao
What do you think a school district is? A private company???
While practice varies significantly by state (and in some cases, within a state), most American school districts operate as independent local governmental units under a grant of authority and within geographic limits created by state law.”
I don’t see why you think this is some gotcha. We have multiple overlapping governments: state, local, county, federal, tribal. Troll harder, I guess.
The local.
There is no right to a parking space, even on school property. When a student pays a fee to reserve a particular spot it makes it a privilege. A privilege can come with certain restrictions. Any student can park at the school for free on any parking space not reserved for a fee. Those who paid the $50 fee for the privilege are allowed to decorate it and I’m assuming that also means they are bound by certain rules.
Yes, there were rules and the rules cannot prohibit the free expression of religion.
See the first amendment.
The problem he’s having is that the first amendment doesn’t exist in his country. He’s just not familiar with it.
You do not have a right to a parking space. There is no constitutional right to park at a school parking lot. A school can restrict parking for students. Parking at a school parking lot is a privilege not a right. The school allows a student to reserve a particular spot for a fee and to decorate it. If the school doesn’t want controversy regarding religious symbols or expressions on it’s parking spaces then they can just eliminiate the practice all together. It’s a constitutionally valid recourse for the school if it does not want students expressing religious views on parking spaces they allow students to reserve for a fee.
“If the school doesn’t want controversy regarding religious symbols or expressions on it’s parking spaces then they can just eliminiate the practice all together. ”
As I already said, barring all religious expression is probably the dumbest solution to this controversy, so it’s not a surprise that it’s your proposed solution.
It may be a dumb solution to you, but it’s the only legal solution that is constitutional. It keeps government neutral on religious matters. It’s essentially all or nothing. No special treatment for one religion over another.
“It may be a dumb solution to you, but it’s the only legal solution that is constitutional. It keeps government neutral on religious matters. It’s essentially all or nothing. No special treatment for one religion over another.”
How about just allowing the free expression of any religion? It’s bizarre that you are unable to see that screamingly obvious alternative.
It’s bizarre how you still don’t understand that you are agreeing with me and still don’t realize it. I’ve been saying all along that the government can allow expression of religion on public property as long as all religions are allowed. But if it doesn’t want to allow one particular religion or view it must deny it to all. That is often the case when Christians in government allow things like ten commandment monuments and prayers at public meetings. If they are forced to allow other religions they don’t like they deny all it to all out of spite and that is perfectly legal.
“But if it doesn’t want to allow one particular religion or view it must deny it to all. That is often the case when Christians in government allow things like ten commandment monuments and prayers at public meetings. If they are forced to allow other religions they don’t like they deny all it to all out of spite and that is perfectly legal.”
It’s great when you self refute whatever stupid point that you thought that you were making. Keep it up.
*. Ok, clocking out. Thong bikinis are HUGELY offensive to Christians and Moslems.
Bye
The rules say —> offensive pics, symbols etc.
Do a theme thing like fave movie next time.
Yet it appears the school didn’t say what rules.
City & State, plus don’t forget. They get funds from the feds.
Given how much her parents have probably paid in school taxes, a private parking space is probably the least that the school can offer the few students who can drive.
Face it, folks! The Law has become a joke. It no longer deserves respect or obedience. Lawyers and judges are a blight on society. Good job guys.
“Face it, folks! The Law has become a joke. It no longer deserves respect or obedience. Lawyers and judges are a blight on society. Good job guys.”
Lawyers might the only profession that can force you to use their services. It’s not like dentists can go around breaking teeth just to generate some business.
As such, lawyers need to step up and do a much better job policing themselves. We can’t do it for you.
You mean kill all lawyers?
“You mean kill all lawyers?”
Dick the Butcher has entered the chat.
“You mean kill all lawyers?”
There was once a political party of that name (in NJ of all places) that frequently fielded candidates for office and was billed on ballots that way. That was back when at least a few Americans (even in NJ) retained some semblance of a sense of humor…
I am surprised the professor failed to highlight the significant wrinkle in this case, which is the fact that the parking space is school property. This makes this very different than, say, a t-shirt.
The school essentially has permitted the student to decorate its property. It should have the right to revoke it.
“The school essentially has permitted the student to decorate its property.”
Don’t you mean our property? This is a public school, after all.
Its not your school, unless you live in the district. Yes its property, different rules/policies in each school district in the USA. Look at the ongoing controversy in Laudon [sic] County VA. Different district, different rules. BTW, some school districts do pay taxes, so that entitles them to a 1st A voice. Maybe?
Some school districts lay and collect taxes.
Name one that pays taxes.
Instead of throwing insults, why don’t you make an effort yourself to find out, then write an argument countering. Too lazy or just stupid?
It is spelled “Loudoun” County VA. A Far-Left haven in the remote DC suburbs. One of many.
Loudoun County VA. Is that the district that had the dude in a dress raping girls? Where the administration kept moving him around to hide his crimes? The place where they arrested the father of a raped girl when he dared to question the situation?
Yep!
And how many of those school administrators are in jail right now? What about the rapist?
Its a money making endeavor., enhance the budget.
Seems the school tried hard to be fair and open. The girl just has a heap of attitude or somebody pushed her into this.
Is she a religious zealots? I think so.
“Its a money making endeavor., enhance the budget.
Seems the school tried hard to be fair and open. The girl just has a heap of attitude or somebody pushed her into this.
Is she a religious zealots? I think so.”
Bake the wedding cake for the gay couple.
if we had to approve your cross, we’d have to approve a satanic symbol and [we] wouldn’t want to attend a school like that.
Ironically, had they not pushed the Bible out of public schools, he wouldn’t need to be concerned about satanic symbols at school.
“Ironically, had they not pushed the Bible out of public schools, he wouldn’t need to be concerned about satanic symbols at school.”
Being a reasonable non-believer, neither symbol really bothers me. People should try not constantly taking offense to everything. It’s quite liberating.
Being a Christian American, I applaud the cross / message on the on hand, and will tolerate the other.
Tolerance, what a concept.
Bibles are allowed in schools. Students can and have always had the right to bring a bible to school. They have always had the right to pray too.
The real irony is if schools endorsed the bible they would be obligated to allow a satanic bible is there is such a thing.
The assistant principal is right about that point. If the school were to allow the student’s religious expression depicting a cross or a bible verse they would be required to allow a student to depict a pentagram and a satanic verse. The satanic temple is a government recognized religion and the school would be obligated to allow a student to decorate their parking space with satanic temple imagery and tenets.
“Bibles are allowed in schools. Students can and have always had the right to bring a bible to school. They have always had the right to pray too.
The real irony is if schools endorsed the bible they would be obligated to allow a satanic bible is there is such a thing.
The assistant principal is right about that point. If the school were to allow the student’s religious expression depicting a cross or a bible verse they would be required to allow a student to depict a pentagram and a satanic verse. The satanic temple is a government recognized religion and the school would be obligated to allow a student to decorate their parking space with satanic temple imagery and tenets.”
As usual, our foreign troll understands nothing regarding the exercise of religion in American schools. Government schools have been explicit about cracking down on any display of Christian faith for decades. It was once routine to have team prayers before a sporting event. Good luck doing that now.
“Government schools have been explicit about cracking down on any display of Christian faith for decades.”
You are clearly confused. The government (schools) are not allowed to endorse a religious view over all others. Teachers who are government employees cannot promote their religious views in the classroom. That’s unconstitutional. What is indeed allowed and has always been is students can practice their religious views and bring their bibles to school and pray. That has never been banned or disallowed.
Prayers before sporting events led by a coach or teacher while on school time are still unconstitutional. Any prayers or religious practice outside school hours are perfectly legal.
If a public school were to allow christian prayers and still be legal they would have to allow satanic prayers, Buddhist prayers, Muslim Prayers, etc. The school would have to accomodate all religions and treat them as equal. Christians would never tolerate that and that’s why it’s better not to endorse any religion and remain neutral.
“If a public school were to allow christian prayers and still be legal they would have to allow satanic prayers, Buddhist prayers, Muslim Prayers, etc.”
And the problem here is…?
“The school would have to accomodate [sic] all religions and treat them as equal. Christians would never tolerate that and that’s why it’s better not to endorse any religion and remain neutral.”
First, I see that you still haven’t discovered the modern miracle that is the spellchecker. Second, your baseless smear is just that. You’re assuming bigotry from Christians in America that you want to be true. Why do you hate Christians?
it’s not a smear if it’s true. Christians are pushing for more religion in schools. Particularly in Oklahoma. They only want their particular denomination’s views to be part of school curriculum including Bibles. If they are allowed to do that, they are obligated to allow every other religion to impose their ideas without restriction.
This is no different from past controversies surrounding prayers and invocations at city and county comission meetings. The Supreme court opinion affirmed that Christian prayers and invocations are constitutional as long as all other religions requesting one are allowed as well. Many Christian commissioners who did not like the idea and wanted to prevent others chose not to have any prayers of invocations at all. Because they won’t tolerate other religions being given the same right they would rather deny it to everyone out of spite.
“They only want their particular denomination’s views to be part of school curriculum including Bibles.”
Presented as fact without evidence.
“Many Christian commissioners who did not like the idea and wanted to prevent others chose not to have any prayers of invocations at all. Because they won’t tolerate other religions being given the same right they would rather deny it to everyone out of spite.”
Presented as fact without evidence.
You really suck at this. Have you considered the fact that you’re just not that bright?
Oklahoma is already trying to do this. They tried to use one particular Trump-branded bible and teach bible themed social studies courses from PragerU.
Have you considered proving me wrong first? I mentioned Oklahoma. Perhaps you could start there and offer a rebuttal.
“Oklahoma is already trying to do this. They tried to use one particular Trump-branded bible and teach bible themed social studies courses from PragerU.
Have you considered proving me wrong first? I mentioned Oklahoma. Perhaps you could start there and offer a rebuttal.”
Complaints about some Trump “branded” bible and snide allusions to Dennis Prager does not make a case. I repeat, you’re really bad at this.
I agree with professor Turley. The school should not be denying this student’s religious expression. I think it’s an overreaction. Besides, the parking space would be covered by a vehicle during school hours. I don’t see what the big deal is. This student’s design will be ‘lost’ among other designs around it and nobody will really care in the end.
If the school is allowing the parking spaces to be used for student expression they are obligated to give all students who wish to participate a equal opportunity express their views. Similarly if a student wanted to paint a pentagram and express a belief in Satanic views the school would be obligated to allow it because Satanism is also a religious view.
The only way the school can deny this student’s religious expression is to end the practice of allowing students to decorate the parking spaces. This has been done when groups who want to put the ten commandments on public property are countered by groups wanting to put Satanic statues or monuments. The solution has been to not allow any monuments or statues at all.
There are already states trying to put up the ten commandments in class rooms as “historical documents” to bypass constitutional prohibitions on government promoting one religion over another.
“the school should not be denying this student’s religious expression.” Oh yes they should. the kid is 19 y/o (?), what capacity does she have to think the situation through? Answer: None. She’s not doing anything different than Muslims/CAIR doing in America.
If she is too young to be able to determine on an expression of her faith, she is certainly too young to be allowed to vote.
““the school should not be denying this student’s religious expression.” Oh yes they should. the kid is 19 y/o (?), what capacity does she have to think the situation through? Answer: None. She’s not doing anything different than Muslims/CAIR doing in America.”
We had 19 year-olds running into machine gun fire on the beaches at Normandy, but somehow 19 year-olds today are unable to reason, according to you.
Two entirely different sets of standards. The military actually prefers recruits who cannot think for themselves. It is a well-known and uncontroversial medical fact that the human brain is not fully developed until around age 25 for males and a couple of years earlier for females. That is one reason for the minimum age limits in the Constitution for members of Congress and the President.
We should not let them vote until age 25.
“The military actually prefers recruits who cannot think for themselves”
I don’t get why you felt the need to smear our service members like this. We are not the Chinese or Russian military, we don’t expect our people to clear a minefield one body at a time. We actually do want people who can reason.
Not smearing anybody. It is a fact. Have you ever been through basic training? Can you imagine the drill sergeant asking a recruit to use reason and thought when considering whether to obey an order? Jeeeze!
Wise.
I’m sure ano has never served.
Government should not PUSH “A” Religion. Democrat Fascism is a Religion!
Time to Punish these people!
Students can express themselves in that way. It’s unconstitutional when public-school teachers and administrators push their religious hokum on to students.
In the latter case, keep thy religion to thyself.
Unconstitutional? Prove it please.
It’s literally the first sentence in the first amendment to the Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Anything else stupid that you want to ask us? Somehow I feel this isn’t going to be last dumb thing that you will say today.
What a dumb idea—decorate your parking space high school student! I could have told them something would have been controversial.
Only in a very degenerate society would such designs be considered controversial.
Thank you for highlighting these actions taken by schools who are mistaken about the so called separation of church and state. Perhaps you could elaborate on the issue in a future column