[Ghostavo]

Dis-agree. If he simply asked to be accommodated, he wouldn't have threatened them with contacting the ACLU. If he simply asked nicely and all this transpired, I would clear him of all wrong. However, he didn't just ask. If you threaten someone, it's a big deal. When you threaten a bunch of people over an issue that they deam important and you are lighting a piece of dynamite under your butt. No matter what the issue is.

So if someone intends to do what you consider to be a crime (which is what this student believed, regardless of what you think about it), and you tell them you'll call the police/lawyers if they do, you are threatening them? And it's wrong?

[Mars]

I don't get you people who are saying he was only doing it for attention. Attention to what? A broken system that defies the constitution? Himself?

No matter his intentions, he clearly demonstrated the problem in his area. I don't give a damn why he did it; he was well within his legal and ethical rights to do it. And it is the obligation of the law AND sane ethics to take his side on this issue.

[General Battuta]

Sure, I don't disagree. Just take his side the smart way.

[Mongoose]

Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.

The key difference, of course, is that the Indy 500 is a private event, so they can have someone sing whatever the hell they choose to.  What's sanctioned by a government body is a whole other story.

[SirCumference]

This is not the teachings off the bible

Which is irrelevant. Religion does not follow its own tenets, nor could it, for it is filled with inconsistencies. This does not render it unexcusable nor inexistent.

I actually think its very relevant, whether or doctrines of the religion are constant or not doesn't make a difference here. No where in the bible does it say to act in the fashion these people did.

Your ignorance of the bible is not an argument. Go read Leviticus and cry. And then cry again.

If you could show me exactly where in Leviticus the Bible advocates belittling non-believers, I'd be very interested to see it.

[Mars]

"Thou shalt not have any gods before me"

A capital offense.

We've wandered very far afeild here, could someone please tell me how anything this guy did was bad, or attention whoring?

[Sushi]

Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.

The key difference, of course, is that the Indy 500 is a private event, so they can have someone sing whatever the hell they choose to.  What's sanctioned by a government body is a whole other story.

Part of the problem is that some people see public schools as primarily a community thing that happens to be supported by the government. In that light, it's not surprising that they want school functions to reflect what they see as their community traditions and ideals, and not surprising that they're upset about a minority party spoiling it for them.

[WeatherOp]

Dis-agree. If he simply asked to be accommodated, he wouldn't have threatened them with contacting the ACLU. If he simply asked nicely and all this transpired, I would clear him of all wrong. However, he didn't just ask. If you threaten someone, it's a big deal. When you threaten a bunch of people over an issue that they deam important and you are lighting a piece of dynamite under your butt. No matter what the issue is.

So if someone intends to do what you consider to be a crime (which is what this student believed, regardless of what you think about it), and you tell them you'll call the police/lawyers if they do, you are threatening them? And it's wrong?

I think he wrong because I believe he was being a jerk about the way he went about doing it. That is my opinion on it. Now you can generalize the issue if you wish, however my point wasn't about whether he was right or wrong or what he believed. He may have believed what he said, but he was not this innocent boy who sent a polite letter and was totally blasted for it. Once again he threatened them, and threatening a group over a sensitive issue will cause a backlash. Just the way things are.

[Nuclear1]

Try to keep Florence Henderson from singing God Bless America at the Indy 500 and lots of racing fans would be up in arms.

The key difference, of course, is that the Indy 500 is a private event, so they can have someone sing whatever the hell they choose to.  What's sanctioned by a government body is a whole other story.

Part of the problem is that some people see public schools as primarily a community thing that happens to be supported by the government. In that light, it's not surprising that they want school functions to reflect what they see as their community traditions and ideals, and not surprising that they're upset about a minority party spoiling it for them.

This is exactly what I meant.

[Ghostavo]

Yeah, that jerk. Expecting them to obey the law...

[Mars]

What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?

[WeatherOp]

Yeah, that jerk. Expecting them to obey the law...

I give, you win.

[Mars]

You weren't the only one who made that point though. I'm not trying to prove you guys idiots, I'm trying to understand the reasoning.

What did he do in his actions that was wrong or against good graces?

[Nuclear1]

Apparently instead of just asking nicely to not have the prayer, he told the superintendent that he opposed the prayer and threatened ACLU involvement if it took place.

Since we don't know exactly what he said, it could have been "you guys better not have the prayer or I'm bringing in the ACLU" or it could have been "sir, I'm an atheist and I would like there not to be a prayer at the graduation as per the law; if it occurs, I will ask the ACLU to take my case"

People seem to be assuming the former.

[Qent]

What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?

Whatever it was was not reported in that article. There are hints that we're not hearing the whole story. No details on the physical threats. The account of his teacher publicly "demeaning" him. My favorite:

[His parents'] initial response was to hold him in their house against his will, take his cell phone and cut off his contact with the outside world, and even cut him off from contact with his older brother, Jerrett.

I.e. he got grounded. But said in such a way that it sounds like a bigger deal than that.

And after getting grounded he got thrown out of the house why? Someone must have done something to escalate, which we heard nothing about either.

[Mongoose]

Not letting him talk to his own brother seems like going a bit further than "grounding" him.

[BlueFlames]

What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?

Whatever it was was not reported in that article.

In other words, your proof that he's acting like a jerk is that you've assumed he's acting like a jerk.  Well done.

[BloodEagle]

What did he do that made him a 'jerk'?

Whatever it was was not reported in that article.

In other words, your proof that he's acting like a jerk is that you've assumed he's acting like a jerk.  Well done.

Or, you know.

#4. The subject was obviously (less than seventy-two hours notice, started with threats, etc.) acting outside of his best interests in the interest of causing a scandal.

Like I said, without knowing more than what's currently available, I don't think anyone can say anything for certain about this.

That being said, the signs certainly point to him simply "acting like a jerk," rather than him merely exercising his rights.

He gave the school less than seventy-two hours notice to change something non-trivial.*  And he (reportedly) started this off with a threat, rather than a request or notification.

*I cannot express how absolutely dick-ish this is.  If you've never had to coordinate a project of significant scale, you can't imagine how difficult it is to make even minor modifications.

[Mars]

It was something that should never have been going on to begin with.

You shouldn't have to give notice. Think about it this way, in the reverse direction: you don't have to give notice to people giving them a certain date and time when they must stop posting porn on the walls of a high school either: it's simply against the law to begin with. Telling a government run school to stop preaching is not a dickish thing to do in the least.

[Nemesis6]

The reason I titled this "Today in American Christianity" is because this occurred in America, in a Christian town, as far as I can tell. I am not blaming Christianity wholesale. As was pointed out, this kind of shunning and harassment could occur if you opposed any deeply entrenched tradition. At the same time, pretending that Christianity is just the excuse to further otherwise human behavior; discrimination, shunning, etc, is kind just shutting your eyes, really. The bible commands that homosexuals be killed, stoned and so on. Likewise it mocks disbelievers, encourages morally bankrupt concepts like Jesus forgiving your sins(I'll explain if need will really be). Fear of what's different, like homosexuals, is to be expected in any culture, religious or not, but the concept of guys liking guys being an evil abomination worthy of eternal torment in a burning inferno is something that Christianity chisels into its believers heads, both scripturally, but also societally. I have a hunch that that these people aren't fundamentalists. It's not fundamentalists ganging up on him, it's cultural Christianity. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if these people were not Christian, their knowledge of atheists would not be poisoned by the bible as their culture has been.

All I can say is, thank God(derp) that the law is clear on this subject, and that, in light of that, "he was a dick!" is absolutely irrelevant. Even then, the lawsuit is the best option, because it's obviously the view of these backward hicks that he's trying to destroy 'murica, so might as well come out swinging... heh.