Beer Baron said:

---

Unless the district had a policy that masks not have any writing on them, this sounds like a clear slam dunk for the kid and her family.

---

From Darg's article:

Quote:

---

The couple is asking a federal judge to declare that the district's policy banning "political, religious, sexual or inappropriate statements" on masks is unconstitutional. The lawsuit also seeks unspecified "nominal damages" and attorneys' fees.

---

It's pretty well established since Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that schools do have the ability to limit first amendment rights if the action "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school"
IMO "Jesus loves me" doesn't meet that requirement.


Quick aside: why would you wear a "Jesus loves me" mask? The implication might be that he doesn't love the reader of the mask. Wouldn't " Jesus loves you" or " Jesus loves us" be much better?

Beer Baron said:

---

Ah, I didn't see that. That sounds pretty even-handed to me unless they let other religious slogans slide, but still I think the kid should win. I really don't like when public schools push things like mandated prayers, but I think the kids should be able to do it in a non-disruptive way on their own. I don't see how the mask thing isn't in line with that.

---

I don't disagree with you. I could see disallowing masks with religious messages if they disrupt the learning experience in anyway. However, I would think that if you disallow one type of religious message you would need to disallow all religious messages.

For example, if this little girl was wearing a "Hail Satan" mask, or a "Allah Ackbar" mask, I believe you would see the same outcome from the school. Just based on my cursory research, it looks like a ruling from the 5th Circuit (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board) gives public schools wide leverage on what they allow to be worn in school.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/284/canady-v-bossier-parish-school-board-5th-cir

It looks like as long as the school is not singling out a specific religion (in this case, Christianity), it seems unlikely that this family will prevail.

But I fully admit to not being a lawyer nor having an in-depth understanding of this issue.

It implies nothing of the sort. "Jesus loves me" is a simple, straightforward statement that implies absolutely nothing.

So if she had a mask that said ""Jimmy Cooper loves me" (an assumed name of a boy in her class) that wouldn't be banned... are we sure she was referring to the biblical Jesus and not a Hispanic boy?
Or would it be more politically correct to have "Jane loves me" on the mask.

mbrooking said:

---

So if she had a mask that said ""Jimmy Cooper loves me" (an assumed name of a boy in her class) that wouldn't be banned... are we sure she was referring to the biblical Jesus and not a Hispanic boy?
Or would it be more politically correct to have "Jane loves me" on the mask.

---

In the article that Darg posted (I suggest reading it, if you haven't...) the families lawyer specifically referenced the girls religious beliefs:

Quote:

---

"Pursuant to her sincerely held religious beliefs, L.B. desires to wear masks to SCS with positive and uplifting religious messages, like the 'Jesus Loves Me' mask the Defendants barred her from wearing," the lawsuit says.

---

Here is the most recent update I could find. To note, there has been no reported movement on this case since December 2020:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/mississippi/mssdce/3:2020cv00704/109924

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Ah, I didn't see that. That sounds pretty even-handed to me unless they let other religious slogans slide, but still I think the kid should win. I really don't like when public schools push things like mandated prayers, but I think the kids should be able to do it in a non-disruptive way on their own. I don't see how the mask thing isn't in line with that.

---

I don't disagree with you. I could see disallowing masks with religious messages if they disrupt the learning experience in anyway. However, I would think that if you disallow one type of religious message you would need to disallow all religious messages.

For example, if this little girl was wearing a "Hail Satan" mask, or a "Allah Ackbar" mask, I believe you would see the same outcome from the school. Just based on my cursory research, it looks like a ruling from the 5th Circuit (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board) gives public schools wide leverage on what they allow to be worn in school.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/284/canady-v-bossier-parish-school-board-5th-cir

It looks like as long as the school is not singling out a specific religion (in this case, Christianity), it seems unlikely that this family will prevail.

But I fully admit to not being a lawyer nor having an in-depth understanding of this issue.

---

The family will win because there is a rich tradition of Christianity in school. The founders taught that Christian education is central to a well ordered society AND their Spirit lives on with this girl. There is no such tradition of satanic teaching in schools.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The founding fathers also have a rich history of racism, sexism, alcoholism, greed, pride, and intolerance of the 'wrong' Christians. I'm not sure what part you think their prejudices and the historical prejudices of schools should play in this case.

---

Schools in general have this tradition not just the founders. Christianity has been a part of education for 2000 years, satanism has not. There is zero rational basis to believe that the secondary character in the Bible is a legitimate religion with a rich history of culture and education.

codker92 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Ah, I didn't see that. That sounds pretty even-handed to me unless they let other religious slogans slide, but still I think the kid should win. I really don't like when public schools push things like mandated prayers, but I think the kids should be able to do it in a non-disruptive way on their own. I don't see how the mask thing isn't in line with that.

---

I don't disagree with you. I could see disallowing masks with religious messages if they disrupt the learning experience in anyway. However, I would think that if you disallow one type of religious message you would need to disallow all religious messages.

For example, if this little girl was wearing a "Hail Satan" mask, or a "Allah Ackbar" mask, I believe you would see the same outcome from the school. Just based on my cursory research, it looks like a ruling from the 5th Circuit (Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board) gives public schools wide leverage on what they allow to be worn in school.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/284/canady-v-bossier-parish-school-board-5th-cir

It looks like as long as the school is not singling out a specific religion (in this case, Christianity), it seems unlikely that this family will prevail.

But I fully admit to not being a lawyer nor having an in-depth understanding of this issue.

---

The family will win because there is a rich tradition of Christianity in school. The founders taught that Christian education is central to a well ordered society AND their Spirit lives on with this girl. There is no such tradition of satanic teaching in schools.

---

If the school can show that it was evenhandedly applying a policy, the family will lose. To note, what the founders taught/believed is irrelevant to this discussion. What the Constitution states, and how the judiciary has interpreted it, is the only thing that matters.

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The founding fathers also have a rich history of racism, sexism, alcoholism, greed, pride, and intolerance of the 'wrong' Christians. I'm not sure what part you think their prejudices and the historical prejudices of schools should play in this case.

---

Schools in general have this tradition not just the founders. Christianity has been a part of education for 2000 years, satanism has not. There is zero rational basis to believe that the secondary character in the Bible is a legitimate religion with a rich history of culture and education.

---

I don't believe "rational" is word you are looking for here because there are plenty of rational reasons to not believe anything about the Bible (the concept of Satan included).

Yeah there is. It's called the tradition of the little girls family. Her ancestors were Christian and went to Christian schools. She can continue to do so now.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The founding fathers also have a rich history of racism, sexism, alcoholism, greed, pride, and intolerance of the 'wrong' Christians. I'm not sure what part you think their prejudices and the historical prejudices of schools should play in this case.

---

Schools in general have this tradition not just the founders. Christianity has been a part of education for 2000 years, satanism has not. There is zero rational basis to believe that the secondary character in the Bible is a legitimate religion with a rich history of culture and education.

---

I don't believe "rational" is word you are looking for here because there are plenty of rational reasons to not believe anything about the Bible (the concept of Satan included).

---

The Bible is an ancient cultural document. What is wrong about it? I don't read your science book like poetry, why won't you let the Bible be what it is? It is a very influential cultural document. The Bible wasn't written for you, it was written for people thousands of years ago.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Yeah there is. It's called the tradition of the little girls family. Her ancestors were Christian and went to Christian schools. She can continue to do so now.

---

This happened in a public school, not a Christian school.

---

Martin Luther was a staunch supporter of public school education for all children. I am too. I have around 100 Syrian migrant children and their families who need homes and a school community to live in. I am going to advocate they go to your school.

codker92 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The founding fathers also have a rich history of racism, sexism, alcoholism, greed, pride, and intolerance of the 'wrong' Christians. I'm not sure what part you think their prejudices and the historical prejudices of schools should play in this case.

---

Schools in general have this tradition not just the founders. Christianity has been a part of education for 2000 years, satanism has not. There is zero rational basis to believe that the secondary character in the Bible is a legitimate religion with a rich history of culture and education.

---

I don't believe "rational" is word you are looking for here because there are plenty of rational reasons to not believe anything about the Bible (the concept of Satan included).

---

The Bible is an ancient cultural document. What is wrong about it? I don't read your science book like poetry, why won't you let the Bible be what it is? It is a very influential cultural document. The Bible wasn't written for you, it was written for people thousands of years ago.

---

I'm glad we agree that "rational" is the wrong word to use in this case.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't feel we are communicating well here. I don't understand how anything you typed is relevant to what I said.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The founding fathers also have a rich history of racism, sexism, alcoholism, greed, pride, and intolerance of the 'wrong' Christians. I'm not sure what part you think their prejudices and the historical prejudices of schools should play in this case.

---

Schools in general have this tradition not just the founders. Christianity has been a part of education for 2000 years, satanism has not. There is zero rational basis to believe that the secondary character in the Bible is a legitimate religion with a rich history of culture and education.

---

I don't believe "rational" is word you are looking for here because there are plenty of rational reasons to not believe anything about the Bible (the concept of Satan included).

---

The Bible is an ancient cultural document. What is wrong about it? I don't read your science book like poetry, why won't you let the Bible be what it is? It is a very influential cultural document. The Bible wasn't written for you, it was written for people thousands of years ago.

---

I'm glad we agree that "rational" is the wrong word to use in this case.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't feel we are communicating well here. I don't understand how anything you typed is relevant to what I said.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

---

I haven't said anything against the girl being allowed to wear the mask. All I did was defend that her mask did not imply that Jesus doesn't love everyone else. For what its worth, I don't really have a problem with her mask. As someone said above, school districts need to be consistent whatever the rules are.

Oh No! I don't want my kids going to school with Muslims! AHHHHH!

Yes, I am aware. We covered that previously in the thread. Schools are allowed to place limits on what clothing children wear to school (Canaday v Bossier Parish School Board).

This would be a clear cut case of discrimination IF they only single out people wearing Christian messages. So far, that does not appear to be the case.

Quote:

---

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

---

What in the world does this mean?

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't feel we are communicating well here. I don't understand how anything you typed is relevant to what I said.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

---

"Disruption" is a very broad, subjective word. We've seen schools restrict all sorts of speech. I don't like it, but it happens and all they have to do is claim it was disruptive. This girl should be allowed to wear that mask, just as a Muslim student should be free to wear one about Muhammed. What's really going to matter to the courts is whether or not this standard is applied consistently.

And why do you act as though Muslim kids going to school with our kids is some sort of threat?

Gaius Rufus said:

---

Yes, I am aware. We covered that previously in the thread. Schools are allowed to place limits on what clothing children wear to school (Canaday v Bossier Parish School Board).

This would be a clear cut case of discrimination IF they only single out people wearing Christian messages. So far, that does not appear to be the case.

---

It doesn't have to be singling out. That is an equal protection claim. This is first amendment. School can't ban personal messages on masks that don't cause disruptions. Period.

PacifistAg said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't feel we are communicating well here. I don't understand how anything you typed is relevant to what I said.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

---

"Disruption" is a very broad, subjective word. We've seen schools restrict all sorts of speech. I don't like it, but it happens and all they have to do is claim it was disruptive. This girl should be allowed to wear that mask, just as a Muslim student should be free to wear one about Muhammed. What's really going to matter to the courts is whether or not this standard is applied consistently.

And why do you act as though Muslim kids going to school with our kids is some sort of threat?

---

Disruption is not ambiguous. If the message does not interfere with the schools ability to teach it's not disruptive. It doesn't matter if rules are applied consistent. A rule that bans a non disruptive message on mask violates first amendment period.

codker92 said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

codker92 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I don't feel we are communicating well here. I don't understand how anything you typed is relevant to what I said.

---

Read Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). A public school cannot limit personal student speech unless it causes a disruption.

What matters is that I am going to settle kids at your school and they are going to wear masks about Muhammed.

---

"Disruption" is a very broad, subjective word. We've seen schools restrict all sorts of speech. I don't like it, but it happens and all they have to do is claim it was disruptive. This girl should be allowed to wear that mask, just as a Muslim student should be free to wear one about Muhammed. What's really going to matter to the courts is whether or not this standard is applied consistently.

And why do you act as though Muslim kids going to school with our kids is some sort of threat?

---

Disruption is not ambiguous. If the message does not interfere with the schools ability to teach it's not disruptive. It doesn't matter if rules are applied consistent. A rule that bans a non disruptive message on mask violates first amendment period.

---

It absolutely is ambiguous. What constitutes "interfering"? What constitutes "disruption"? These are subjective terms that will vary from person to person. What is an interference or disruption to one person, may not be to another. It's entirely subjective. And yes, it does matter if rules are applied consistently. We deal with this all the time in HR. I tell our managers all the time that if you are not enforcing the policy consistently, then you can't enforce the policy. You open the organization up to allegations of discrimination when it's not consistent in its application.

I don't agree with these bans, but these rulings and laws are purposely ambiguous. A great example is how the Justice Stewart saying about porn..."I know it when I see it".