Showing posts with label Elementary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elementary. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Video games promote a culture of violence but abortion doesn't?
Flipping through the news channels just the other day, I overheard a news-anchor assert that anyone who suggests there is a link between abortion and the killing spree which just took place in Newtown, Connecticut is "crazy."
Really?
This same woman, like so many others in the mainstream media who believe that their views are somehow more relevant because they reach beyond the end of a bar, declared that there is a connection between violent video games and the tragedy which occurred at Sandy Hook elementary. In other words, killing imaginary figures in a video game is part of the problem but killing actual children in the womb has absolutely nothing to do with societal violence.
Insanity.
Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, said that, "...we are confronted by...a veritable structure of sin." And the most significant part of this structure of sin is the abortion movement, which President Barack Obama fully supports. John Paul continues, "This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable 'culture of death.' This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting at the international level relations between peoples and States." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 12).
Those who, like the confused news anchor in question, dismiss the link between this "war of the powerful against the weak" and incidents of violence such as the Sandy Hook tragedy, are either living in denial or are simply stupid. Hatred of the truth is the root of all criminal violence. Violence entered creation with the rebellion of Lucifer. And his rebellion arose from pride. And pride is the offspring of the vice which is known as hatred of truth.
As Fr. Miceli reminded us, "Hatred of truth is the result of the creature's attempt to rearrange God's hierarchy of beings and values into an order which the creature prefers to the plan of God. This attempt immediately produces the violence of disorder, the chaos of falsity and immorality. For hatred of truth is really hatred of God who creates all things wisely and governs them lovingly." (Essay entitled The Taproot of Violence).
The President has asked what we're doing as a society to protect all children. The answer is: nothing, as long as abortion continues in this land. If only he could understand this. But then, hatred of truth is at the root of all criminal violence. And President Obama has shown his hatred for truth with his demonic support of abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Plano Independent School District wants to ban First Amendment rights of elementary students who want to reference Jesus or God
An article from World Net Daily is reporting that, "A hearing is scheduled Monday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that could determine if students in elementary schools have the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The case arose in the Plano Independent School District in Texas where Thomas Elementary School Principal Lynn Swanson and Rasor Elementary School Principal Jackie Bomchill were sued for restricting student speech when it referenced 'God' or 'Jesus.'
According to the Liberty Institute, in the first incident, officials banned 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a school party.
'Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils after school because they mentioned 'God,'' the Institute reported.
But that's not all, the group said.
'They even banned an entire classroom from writing 'Merry Christmas' on cards to our troops serving in Iraq.'
The dispute went to district court then to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit where school officials' efforts to have the complaint rejected because of their 'immunity' failed.
Now the appeals court has agreed to an en banc hearing in which 17 judges will listen to arguments and decide the dispute.
The school officials are arguing 'that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students,' explains the appeal brief submitted by Liberty Institute."
Well then, Plano Independent School District officials are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact...The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom."
What the Supreme Court said in Tinker is that free speech rights of students can only be "carefully restricted" or "reasonably regulated" by school administrators. And only if these school administrators can show that such free speech rights would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission. Is there anyone out there - who is sane - who can argue that a pencil which mentions God or a candy cane with Jesus' name on it constitutes a substantial disruption of a school's educational mission?
It is my firm belief that the Plano Independent School District officials in question could benefit greatly from a mental-health checkup. Not to mention a brief primer in constitutional law.
The case arose in the Plano Independent School District in Texas where Thomas Elementary School Principal Lynn Swanson and Rasor Elementary School Principal Jackie Bomchill were sued for restricting student speech when it referenced 'God' or 'Jesus.'
According to the Liberty Institute, in the first incident, officials banned 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a school party.
'Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils after school because they mentioned 'God,'' the Institute reported.
But that's not all, the group said.
'They even banned an entire classroom from writing 'Merry Christmas' on cards to our troops serving in Iraq.'
The dispute went to district court then to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit where school officials' efforts to have the complaint rejected because of their 'immunity' failed.
Now the appeals court has agreed to an en banc hearing in which 17 judges will listen to arguments and decide the dispute.
The school officials are arguing 'that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students,' explains the appeal brief submitted by Liberty Institute."
Well then, Plano Independent School District officials are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, that, "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle but not in fact...The Constitution says that Congress (and the States) may not abridge the right to free speech. This provision means what it says. We properly read it to permit reasonable regulation of speech-connected activities in carefully restricted circumstances. But we do not confine the permissible exercise of First Amendment rights to a telephone booth or the four corners of a pamphlet, or to supervised and ordained discussion in a school classroom."
What the Supreme Court said in Tinker is that free speech rights of students can only be "carefully restricted" or "reasonably regulated" by school administrators. And only if these school administrators can show that such free speech rights would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission. Is there anyone out there - who is sane - who can argue that a pencil which mentions God or a candy cane with Jesus' name on it constitutes a substantial disruption of a school's educational mission?
It is my firm belief that the Plano Independent School District officials in question could benefit greatly from a mental-health checkup. Not to mention a brief primer in constitutional law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
