Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Shameful Disregarding of the 1st Amendment

One of our Anonymous commenters who's been sparring with Dog Gone came up with a real beauty.

And in a most excellent use of the First amendment to browbeat leftists into irrelevancy and out of education.....

The Quakertown Community School Board has agreed to look into allegations made by a parent that a high school teacher is using his classroom to promote his political viewpoints and express disrespect for Christianity and the tea party.

Glenn Rickabaugh, a tea party member from Milford Township, read part of a 1,000-word letter at Thursday's board meeting, in which he claimed the teacher wore a T-shirt with the words "Jesus was a liberal" and used a sexually derogatory phrase when referring to the tea party.

Rickabaugh, who has a child in the high school, also said the teacher espoused beliefs that the Second Amendment has no place in contemporary society and that socialized medicine is better for Americans.
Wouldn't that be more like a shameful disregarding of the 1st Amendment in order "to browbeat leftists into irrelevancy and out of education?"

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. "Rickabaugh, who has a child in the high school, also said the teacher espoused beliefs that the Second Amendment has no place in contemporary society and that socialized medicine is better for Americans."

    Give that teacher a raise for accuracy! Countries with socialized medicine have better ratings in pretty much all metrics than we do. We let lots of people die.

    As to Jesus being a liberal? Well, heck, even Right Winger nut Glenn Beck, in a few incoherent moments in his weeping rants, said the same thing!
    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/glenn-beck-social-justice-christians-rage-back-nazism/story?id=10085008

    On his radio and television shows, Beck suggested any church promoting "social justice" or "economic justice" merely was using code words for Nazism and communism.

    "I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site," he said. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. ... Am I advising people to leave their church?

    "If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish," he said. "Go alert your bishop and tell them, 'Excuse me, are you down with this whole social justice thing?' If it's my church, I'm alerting the church authorities: 'Excuse me, what's this social justice thing?' And if they say, 'Yeah, we're all in on this social justice thing,' I am in the wrong place."

    The Rev. Jim Wallis, an evangelical leader who is the CEO and president of Sojourners, a Christian networking group in Washington, D.C., has been one of the loudest voices against Beck.

    "When Glenn Beck is asking Christians to leave their churches, the Catholic Church, the black churches, Hispanic, evangelical, to leave all our churches, I'm saying it's time for Christians to leave the Glenn Beck show," he said. "This offends Christians. This is salt, something at the heart of their faith. It's something many of us have spent our lives trying to do, to practice.

    "Yesterday, he went further and he said social justice is a perversion of the gospel. ... I'm saying it's at the heart of the gospel."

    Heck, just when it looked like there was something we could agree on between the right wing extremists (including those in the tea party) and the rest of us....

    Glenn Rickabaugh doesn't want his child educated; he wants his child indoctrinated.

    Someone should point out to him the difference. You know - EDUCATE him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Rickabaugh, who has a child in the high school, also said the teacher espoused beliefs "that scientific method" has no place in contemporary society and that "slavery" is better for Americans."

    Gee now that does not sound so bad, not so much fun when the shoe is on the other foot.....

    "Glenn Rickabaugh doesn't want his child educated; he wants his child indoctrinated."

    Since Mr. R does not want this teacher's "beliefs" forced on his children, he is well within his First amendment rights to complain about this statist teacher attempts at indoctrination.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was a real asshole commenter. I didn't like the way he thought the second amendment protected him from the first. But as to our friend the high school teacher..

    I guess the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Code of Ethics for Educators would be the appropriate place to answer these questions.

    (4) Professional educators shall exhibit consistent and equitable treatment of students, fellow educators and parents. They shall respect the civil rights of all and not discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, culture, religion, sex or sexual orientation, marital status, age, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, disabling condition or vocational interest. This list of bases or discrimination is not all-inclusive.

    (5) Professional educators shall accept the value of diversity in educational practice. Diversity requires educators to have a range of methodologies and to request the necessary tools for effective teaching and learning.

    If a teacher espouses socialized medicine or disavows the second amendment, would that constitute discrimination based on political beliefs? Would not the value of diversity also include conservative viewpoints?

    (7) Professional educators shall exhibit acceptable and professional language and communication skills. Their verbal and written communications with parents, students and staff shall reflect sensitivity to the fundamental human rights of dignity, privacy and respect.


    If this teacher really did call them “teabaggers”, surely he has broken the code of professional language. We all know what teabagging is. Maybe that’s not so bright to use the term with high school students.

    It does sound like the teacher is getting a little bit too political in the classroom. That would be okay if it was a political science course. There may be some ethical considerations here. It’s going to be up to the school board to decide now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Considering neither politics nor religion have a place in education, this is a deserved browbeating.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bwaaaaahahhahhahhahhha,

    More righteous use of First and Second amendment rights,

    Activists outbid cops for turned-in guns
    'They're going to destroy firearms; we're going to put them in hands of citizens'
    Posted: February 28, 2011
    10:01 pm Eastern

    By Drew Zahn
    © 2011 WorldNetDaily

    While the Austin, Texas, police were offering grocery cards in exchange for unwanted firearms over the weekend, local activists showed up to outbid the men in uniform, insisting liberty would be better served if the guns were in the hands of law-abiding citizens instead.

    At the "no-questions-asked" event held at Oak Meadow Baptist Church in South Austin, the Austin Police Department offered, for example, a $100 Visa grocery card for an unwanted handgun. The activists offered $110 in cash.

    "We don't agree with the 'Guns for Groceries' program, because they're going to destroy most of the firearms," explained John Bush, executive director of the group Texans for Accountable Government. "The firearms that we purchase, we're going to put them in the hands of [Texans] who are in need of firearms to protect their families but they can't afford them."

    The group's website explains further: "TAG holds strongly to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and agrees with the countless studies that show that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes for a safer city – not a more dangerous environment, as APD's 'Guns for Groceries' implies."

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=269349

    Go cry into your pillow, socialist morons!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Flying Junior said...
    "That was a real asshole commenter. I didn't like the way he thought the second amendment protected him from the first. But as to our friend the high school teacher.."

    That is why you will never get it....

    The first allows you to speak, It does not require me to listen.

    And the Second means you cannot force me to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I get it, I am within my 1st Amendment rights to demand that you be silenced.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I get it, I am within my 1st Amendment rights to demand that you be silenced."

    Why not? You use your 1st Amendment rights to demand that we be disarmed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AztecRed said, "You use your 1st Amendment rights to demand that we be disarmed."

    Is that so? I guess that means you admit to being a felon or mental defective? Or have you fallen afoul of the The Mike B is King solution formerly known as the One strike you're out rule.

    Otherwise, you're wrong. I don't want to disarm you. I want to restrict you and constrain you, I want to force you to be responsible. You see, I don't think allowing people to be irresponsible with guns is a harbinger of freedom in a society, quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete