Christians Protest Principal for Prohibiting Disrespect, Intolerance

In Sacramento, California, Christians have been participating in rallies against Dave Terwilliger, principal of San Juan High School, because he won't let students wear t-shirts telling other students that they are going to hell. Local Christians are suitably outraged at being denied the "right" to express their faith-based disrespect of and intolerance for other people's children while attending classes in public school.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in America, atheists are condemned by Christians for being "disrespectful" and "intolerant" because they have the temerity to say that no gods exist and, furthermore, that belief is gods is absurd.

Terwilliger suspended the first round of students nearly three weeks ago, saying the shirts disrupted the learning environment. Students said the shirts were an expression of their religious views and intended as a counterpoint to the April 18 Day of Silence, an annual student protest in support of gay rights.

Ever since, rallies in front of San Juan High have become a routine part of life, with supporters using bullhorns and cardboard signs to make their case. More than 100 rallied near the campus Monday, and five more students were suspended for wearing inappropriate shirts.

The Otterstads entered the fray on Sunday by taking the protests a step further -- to the principal's home and house of worship. On Sunday morning, the Otterstads and other church members -- estimates ranged from 6 to 12 -- picketed outside Celtic Cross Presbyterian Church in Citrus Heights. As Terwilliger worshipped inside, the group hoisted signs labeling him a "hypocrite" and called for his excommunication.

After the service, the group followed Terwilliger to his home on Pomeroy Way, where the rally continued. The group distributed flyers to neighbors that, according to Dick Otterstad, essentially read: "Your neighbor is persecuting Christians. You need to confront him over his tyrannical behavior at a public high school."

Source: Sacramento Bee

What do you suppose is ultimately more important to these Christians: following and expressing their religious beliefs, or jumping on the first opportunity to intimidate and attack those whose religious beliefs differ from their own? Terwilliger is obviously a Christian, but he's just not one who is willing to abuse his position of civil power in order to help persecute gay students in his school. How awful!

Trent Allen, a spokesman for the San Juan Unified School District, said the problem with the shirts worn by San Juan students isn't that they espouse religious beliefs, it's that they target a particular group or refer to a sexual act. The shirts for which students were suspended on Monday quoted Bible verses implying homosexuals would go to hell.

"We don't want an intimidating environment where students feel harassed and persecuted because of one of their identifying qualities," Allen said. He said district and school officials would meet with parents of suspended students Monday night to explain what's OK and what isn't.

It would be wrong to suspend students for merely expressing belief in a god or what their religious faith is, but when religion is the context for attacks on particular groups in society — especially groups which include other students — I think that the situation changes considerably. Would Christians be allowed to wear shirts expressing opposition to racial integration? Would Christians be allowed to wear shirts saying that people guilty of miscegenation would go to hell? I sincerely doubt that many, if any, would support the "right" of Christian student to wear such messages in public school.

Americans are guaranteed broad religious freedoms, and it is also important for religious beliefs to be accommodated, but religion cannot be used as an excuse to do things which would not be permitted in a non-religious context. Secular messages attacking racial minorities, racial integration, and interracial relationships would not be permitted so why should they be permitted in a religious context? Secular attacks against immigrants would not be permitted, so why would they be acceptable in a religious context?

The same standards have to be applied when it comes to gays: if atheists would not be allowed to wear shirts with secular messages attacking homosexuality and gays (not that there are many atheists inclined to express such ideas), then Christians shouldn't be allowed to do the same because their attacks are couched in religious terminology. If they are given this special privilege, then it hardly seems possible to draw any reasonable line afterwards. Who will be next to come under attacks justified as "religious" — atheists? Muslims? Pagans?

Christians don't have a religious "right" to intimidate others whenever they have religious objections to the behavior and/or beliefs of others in society. They may sincerely believe that they have a god-given right and god-mandated duty to hate certain segments of society, but none of this translates into a legal right to use that hatred as a means to intimidate others in public school.

[Dick] Otterstad ran for a seat on the the Black Oak Mine Unified School Board in El Dorado County in 2004. He said he thinks the public school system should be abolished. He said sodomy laws should be reinstated. He got 38.8 percent of the vote in that election.

Imagine: there is a place in America where a man can run for the local school board by campaigning for the elimination of public schools and criminalizing sodomy... and still get nearly 40% of the popular vote. Either the voters in that area don't pay very close attention to the beliefs and agendas of the candidates they vote for, or they sincerely believe that this platform is appropriate for a school board member.

Is it any wonder that atheists can't get elected?

As PZ Myers writes:

Obviously, though, the answer is to play nice with those voters, encourage their quaint folkways, and find some common ground that will convince them to moderate their beliefs and work together in a spirit of cooperation and tolerance with other members of the community. Hmmm, maybe they like science and can join hands with us in improving biology education?

Defenders of the alleged "reasonableness" of Christianity insist that their religion is nothing at all like how it is portrayed by critics, but stories like the above appear on a very regular basis. The 38.8% of voters who supported Dick Otterstad's campaign for school board member are obviously not a fringe, irrelevant, and unimportant group of Christians. This is the backbone of America's Christian community — they help define the nature of Christianity in modern America. Who they are is ultimately what Christianity is.