Religion used to defend teen’s anti-gay t-shirt
by Hanlon on March 22, 2007 at 10:53 pmAs I’ve mentioned a number of times already, I’m a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. I think The God Delusion is a book most people simply owe it to themselves to read. And one of the most interesting points is how religion is often used as a defense for some truly abhorrent behavior.
Case in point, we have a teenager in Chicago using religion to defend the fact that he wants to wear an anti-gay T-shirt to school.
Heidi Zamecnik, 17, is asking the court to order her school and Indian Prairie District 204 to allow her to express her anti-gay beliefs on April 19, the day after the 11th annual “Day of Silence” is scheduled to protest harassment of gays in schools.
…
Heidi’s father, Carl Zamecnik, declined to comment Wednesday night on behalf of his family, and he referred calls to an attorney.
Because of her family’s “sincerely held religious beliefs” against homosexuality, “they wish to share their conviction that true happiness cannot be found through homosexual behavior,” the suit says.
Now, if she wanted to go back to her freedom of speech, it would never hold water. If she said she had the constitutional right to express this because of free speech it would be thrown out.
Now try and imagine if this were against any other minority. There’s defense in the Bible to speak out against Jews, people of another race, women, other religions, etc. If she tried to go to school with a shirt that said something to the effect of “NO JEWS” or “JEWS KILLED CHRIST” try and ponder the defense for that. And the story ends on a hilariously ironic note:
The suit says Heidi suffered unlawful discrimination, humiliation and punishment by school personnel merely because they didn’t agree with her viewpoint.
Wow, the poor girl got discriminated against merely for expressing her discrimination.
Posted: March 22nd, 2007 under glbt, religion.
Comments
Comment from Hanlon
Time March 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I’ve always had the same objection when people talk about censorship on TV. The 1st amendment says no law will be passed, rules in private institutions are entirely different. Otherwise Catholic schools would be unconstitutional.




Comment from Rechan
Time March 22, 2007 at 11:52 pm
You know, it’s really simple:
Your freedomes apply to the Government. Your freedome of speech means that the government cannot censor you. It does not mean that the newspaper can refuse to print your editorial, it does not mean that the owner of a billboard can refuse to allow your message to be posted.
The same way, I don’t see how “It has to do with my religion” is any sort of defense to a school. The school can tell you all kinds of other things that you can’t wear, they can dictate your behavior. Are schools, as recipients of government money, representatives of the government enough to quell religious statements?