• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Good ol' ADF at it again.

Careyp74

Illuminator
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
3,432
Good ol' Alliance Defense Fund (the other ADF) at it again.

http://news.aol.com/article/nj-teen-barred-from-abortion-protest/771321

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. -A New Jersey high school student claims in a federal lawsuit that school administrators violated her First Amendment free-speech and religious-freedom rights when they said she couldn't participate in a day of silent protest against abortion.
The girl, identified in court papers as C.H., says she asked the Bridgeton High School principal last month for permission to join in the Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity, a worldwide protest organized each year by Stand True, a ministry in Troy, Ohio. But the principal said no, telling her she couldn't do anything "religious," according to her lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Camden by a lawyer hired by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal group that takes on religious freedom cases on behalf of Christians. The organization sent an advisory before the day of protest that it would defend students who are barred from participating.
ADF senior counsel David Cortman says his group has intervened in dozens of cases across the country over the six years the protest has been held and has filed suits in about a dozen. He said some have been successful and others are still pending.
Cortman said the group has heard from students barred from protesting last month at two other New Jersey schools, as well as schools in Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Idaho.
When schools bar the protests, he said, they usually cite the separation of church and state — which his group says is not in the Constitution.
"The school district basically held that there is no religion allowed in school, which violates the students' First Amendment rights,"
Cortman said.
In the Bridgeton case, the student planned to remain silent on Oct. 20, except when called on in class at her public school. She also wanted to wear an armband with the word "life" on it and to hand out anti-abortion pamphlets. Some students who participate in the protest put tape across their mouths to show they're speaking for the unborn, who can't speak for themselves, Cortman said.
The Bridgeton girl says in the lawsuit she was later punished for attempting to share her views because school officials did not excuse two days of absence due to an illness in the family.
Now, the girl is seeking a court order to be allowed to conduct a protest.
Her lawyer, Michael Kiernan, referred calls on the case to ADF, which said that the student and her family — including her father, Ronald Hudak, who is also named as a plaintiff — were not going to be made available for comment.
H. Victor Gilson, the school superintendent in Bridgeton, said Tuesday that he hadn't seen the lawsuit yet, but the girl's request was denied for two reasons.
The armband would have violated the school's strict dress code, he said. He said it allows "no insignias unless it has to do with Bridgeton High School."
And he said the school has a policy that generally doesn't allow students or staff to distribute literature without prior approval. He says the policy is in place partly to guard against lawsuits like this one.
He said it's rare for a student to make such a request and said he could not recall the last time a student even asked to hand out materials.

sounds to me like they are causing trouble on purpose, using a topic like abortion to get the whole 'separation of church and state' removed.
 
Last edited:
Not the ADF I was hoping for.

And yes, your ADF is clearly causing trouble on purpose. But, that's BAU for folks trying to get a case with all the right qualities to get to the SCOTUS.
 
Not the ADF I was hoping for.

And yes, your ADF is clearly causing trouble on purpose. But, that's BAU for folks trying to get a case with all the right qualities to get to the SCOTUS.

sorry, the American Dance Festival has not been moved up in the schedule.

Or were you referring to Oracle software?

ETA: BAU? since when is the ADF considered an UNSUB? :)
 
Last edited:
As I was reading the quote in the OP, when I got to the referrence to the pamphlets, I said to myself 'ah, that was the problem, not religion' Sure enough, when I got to the end it was. I didn't think about the armband at first, becasue my HS did not have a strict dress code, but I understand they are more popular now.

I have a feeling that if all she asked to do was to stay silent as a form of protest (except when called upon in class) that it would have been allowed. It seems as if the extras (the armbands and the pamphlets) are specifically included in the protest to prompt the banning in order to create a court case.
 
I have a feeling that if all she asked to do was to stay silent as a form of protest (except when called upon in class) that it would have been allowed. It seems as if the extras (the armbands and the pamphlets) are specifically included in the protest to prompt the banning in order to create a court case.

QFT
 
I thought this was about the Australian Defence Force.

It must be hard for courts to balance the seperation of church and state and freedom of speech.
 
As I was reading the quote in the OP, when I got to the referrence to the pamphlets, I said to myself 'ah, that was the problem, not religion' Sure enough, when I got to the end it was. I didn't think about the armband at first, becasue my HS did not have a strict dress code, but I understand they are more popular now.

I have a feeling that if all she asked to do was to stay silent as a form of protest (except when called upon in class) that it would have been allowed. It seems as if the extras (the armbands and the pamphlets) are specifically included in the protest to prompt the banning in order to create a court case.

Yes, I wonder if the girl knew about the ADF beforehand, and decided to follow their instructions?
 
Yes, I wonder if the girl knew about the ADF beforehand, and decided to follow their instructions?

Why would you wonder such a thing. I think it is obvious from the quote you provided in the OP.

A couple of things.

The pamphlets
While she could have designed and produced them herself, this seems something more likely that she would have downloaded and printed or had otherwise provided to her.

The request for permission
When I was in high school, I would never have asked my school for permission to do a protest. I would simply have done it. That is the impetuousness of humans at that age. Asking for permission is only asking for it to be declined, thus creating an issue that can be sued over.

Also, if she had simply gone ahead and done what she planned and not asked for permission, the school would have only stopped the pamphlets and possibly the armband. There is no way that they could force her to not remain mute the entire day in protest.

In other words, without asking for permission, the school would have only stopped the parts that violated school policies, not the overall protest. But by asking permission for everything as a block, they can tie the legitimate religious expression into the acts that violate school policy, thus making it seem as if the religious expression were the cause of the banning.
 
On topic: This isn't the first time the ADF has shown how incredibly ignorant they are. They have no idea how the first amendment works in court. Either that or they just don't care.

Considering they're making the same tired argument that all such religious litigation-friendly "I want to preach at school" groups tend to make (the "not in the Constitution" one), my guess is the latter.
 
So wait a minute - they are claiming that she wasn't allowed to participate in a "day of silence" protest? (is that anything like the "cone of silence"?) What do they think the school is going to do, force her to speak (outside of being called upon in class)?

Even before you got to the end of the story, it was obvious that it was nonsense. She can be silent all she wants, for any reason at all. Why would the school care if she didn't talk outside of class?

This is so obviously dumb. How stupid do they think people are?
 
So wait a minute - they are claiming that she wasn't allowed to participate in a "day of silence" protest? (is that anything like the "cone of silence"?) What do they think the school is going to do, force her to speak (outside of being called upon in class)?

Even before you got to the end of the story, it was obvious that it was nonsense. She can be silent all she wants, for any reason at all. Why would the school care if she didn't talk outside of class?

This is so obviously dumb. How stupid do they think people are?

Oh people are plenty stupid. There will be all sorts of people, including educators, who will hold this up as an example of school quashing religious freedoms and being anti-Christian specifically.

The real question is how stupid do they think the courts are?
 
Why would you wonder such a thing. I think it is obvious from the quote you provided in the OP.

A couple of things.

The pamphlets
While she could have designed and produced them herself, this seems something more likely that she would have downloaded and printed or had otherwise provided to her.

The request for permission
When I was in high school, I would never have asked my school for permission to do a protest. I would simply have done it. That is the impetuousness of humans at that age. Asking for permission is only asking for it to be declined, thus creating an issue that can be sued over.

Also, if she had simply gone ahead and done what she planned and not asked for permission, the school would have only stopped the pamphlets and possibly the armband. There is no way that they could force her to not remain mute the entire day in protest.

In other words, without asking for permission, the school would have only stopped the parts that violated school policies, not the overall protest. But by asking permission for everything as a block, they can tie the legitimate religious expression into the acts that violate school policy, thus making it seem as if the religious expression were the cause of the banning.

She can get info like that from the Pro-Life groups, I am wondering about ADF specifically. We know their tactics are sly and meant to cause problems. Pro-Life groups are not necessarily like that. I wonder if the girl just happened to get caught up, or willingly followed the ADF's instructions.
 
So wait a minute - they are claiming that she wasn't allowed to participate in a "day of silence" protest? (is that anything like the "cone of silence"?) What do they think the school is going to do, force her to speak (outside of being called upon in class)?

Even before you got to the end of the story, it was obvious that it was nonsense. She can be silent all she wants, for any reason at all. Why would the school care if she didn't talk outside of class?

This is so obviously dumb. How stupid do they think people are?

It isn't necessarily how stupid people are. It could also be how devious newspapers are for leaving out info, like the real reason behind the suspension. They could be hoping the media makes a big stick based on a girl not being allowed to not talk.
 
http://news.aol.com/article/nj-teen-barred-from-abortion-protest/771321



sounds to me like they are causing trouble on purpose, using a topic like abortion to get the whole 'separation of church and state' removed.

Can the government ban the religious half of that debate, because it's religious and it's in a school? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I'd be inclined to agree it would be disruptive (I suppose, in a quiet sort of way), and the opposite side, something similar for pro-choice, would, and should, similarly be stopped, and for the same reason: disruptive.

Yet since they hauled out the "religion" argument as to why it was not permitted, instead of "disruptive" (though I suspect there'll be much backfilling on that point from the coming lawsuit) I would support the lawsuit.



Here's the fine point: Had she been on "the other side", with a pro-choice protest using exactly the same mechanics, she would not (in theory) have been stopped because pro-choice isn't a "religious" position. And the one thing I cannot abide is cheating by one side to shut the other up, above all else.
 
Last edited:
Yet since they hauled out the "religion" argument as to why it was not permitted, instead of "disruptive" (though I suspect there'll be much backfilling on that point from the coming lawsuit) I would support the lawsuit.

What happened to Criticil Thinking here. Everybody read the article. Only those who filed the lawsuit are making this claim.
The girl, identified in court papers as C.H., says she asked the Bridgeton High School principal last month for permission to join in the Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity, a worldwide protest organized each year by Stand True, a ministry in Troy, Ohio. But the principal said no, telling her she couldn't do anything "religious," according to her lawsuit.

According to the artilce a school representative gave very specific reasons for why this protest was not allowed and did not mention religion once.
H. Victor Gilson, the school superintendent in Bridgeton, said Tuesday that he hadn't seen the lawsuit yet, but the girl's request was denied for two reasons.
The armband would have violated the school's strict dress code, he said. He said it allows "no insignias unless it has to do with Bridgeton High School."
And he said the school has a policy that generally doesn't allow students or staff to distribute literature without prior approval. He says the policy is in place partly to guard against lawsuits like this one.
He said it's rare for a student to make such a request and said he could not recall the last time a student even asked to hand out materials.

Why are people (Beerina is not the only one, just the most recent) giving this girl the benefit of assuming her allegations are true, especially when she is alligned with a group that has a documented history of 'lying for Jesus'.
 
Can the government ban the religious half of that debate, because it's religious and it's in a school? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I'd be inclined to agree it would be disruptive (I suppose, in a quiet sort of way), and the opposite side, something similar for pro-choice, would, and should, similarly be stopped, and for the same reason: disruptive.

Yet since they hauled out the "religion" argument as to why it was not permitted, instead of "disruptive" (though I suspect there'll be much backfilling on that point from the coming lawsuit) I would support the lawsuit.

Here's the fine point: Had she been on "the other side", with a pro-choice protest using exactly the same mechanics, she would not (in theory) have been stopped because pro-choice isn't a "religious" position. And the one thing I cannot abide is cheating by one side to shut the other up, above all else.

She would be stopped, because the same rules apply in either case. Had it been about religion, it would only have been because the plaintiff would make it about religion. Having a Pro-Life stance does not need a religious base to it. ADF does it for a reason, their religious agenda. If you want to protest, leave out religion, get approval, and don't disrupt class. Otherwise you will get what you deserve. Who was she actually trying to fight, abortion, or the school district?

I believe that this country has enough support of people's rights from the ACLU, I don't think it needs the ADF to throw its weight around.
 
What happened to Criticil Thinking here. Everybody read the article. Only those who filed the lawsuit are making this claim.

According to the artilce a school representative gave very specific reasons for why this protest was not allowed and did not mention religion once.

Why are people (Beerina is not the only one, just the most recent) giving this girl the benefit of assuming her allegations are true, especially when she is alligned with a group that has a documented history of 'lying for Jesus'.

This isn't normal for Beerina, either there is more documentation with facts pertaining to the case that wasn't covered here, or he missed who the religion comment was attributed to.
 

Back
Top Bottom