Americans have two conflicting belief systems, and we can’t seem to accept the premise that they are irreconcilable. Most of us belief in God, and identify ourselves with a religion. Most of us believe in fairness. Sorry, but you can’t always have both.
Turley posts about an awfully harsh consequence for a kid who attends a Christian High School in Ohio (need I explain this further?) who has been suspended for attending his girlfriend’s prom, where they (gasp) had music and danced!
Tyler Frost, 17, a senior at Heritage Christian School in Findlay, Ohio has been suspended for attending a prom with his girlfriend because the Findlay High School’s prom allowed dancing and music. This Taliban-like ruling is based on the Christian school’s policy that forbids dancing, rock music, hand holding and kissing.
The head of the school won’t cut the kid any slack.
Principal Tim England says that Frost was supposed to receive his diploma on May 24 but will now receive an “incomplete” on his remaining assignments. He absence will be hard to miss: he is in a class of four students.
England further threatens that, if he learns that Frost “is involved with alcohol or sex” at the prom, he will be expelled from Heritage.
Sounds ridiculous? Outrageous? Totally unfair? Well get over it. It’s not. Not even close. You see, this was a religious school, and it had rules. The parents and students agreed, in this case they actually had to sign a contract with the school, to abide the school’s rules. Nobody made the Frost family pick the Heritage Christian School as the place to send little Tyler. Nobody told them they had to attend a school with ridiculous religious rules. Apparently, they didn’t seem so ridiculous to the Frost family at the time they signed up. Yet they made the decision to do so, and are now stuck with the religious precepts they agreed to.
Here’s the problem: We are entitled to pick our religion, whether it be stuck in the 50’s or avant garde. That’s the point of the establishment clause. We are each entitled to believe as wish. If our beliefs happen to be bizarre and irrational, so be it. This is America and no one can tell us what to believe.
But religion, by definition, is not modulated by reason. It’s belief, and there is nothing fair about it. Don’t like a religion? Don’t be a part of it. Don’t like a sect that holds music and dancing to be the devil’s work? Find one more to your liking. But once you’ve sign on to a religion, you don’t get to reinvent it when things don’t go your way. Leave it, yes. Disagree with it while remaining a part of it? Nope. Not your choice.
While denying Tyler Frost the opportunity graduate seems overly harsh and, frankly, unbearably doctrinaire, that was the deal when he and his parents signed up for the Heritage Christian School. Don’t blame the school for being what it is. And if you want fairness, then perhaps religious sects aren’t where you belong. You can’t have a religion and then demand that it changes its precepts to meet your idea of fairness, no matter what you believe.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you have missed the grounds on which a law suit could be based: “Johnson believes those rules should not, and do not, apply outside the classroom.” If the contract they signed does not clearly stipulate that the behavioral standards it demands should be observed at all times, not just during school hours, I think they have a case. Indeed, without knowing what the contract says, I think it’s difficult to make a judgment about this. There’s a video on youtube here:
From what the principal says in that video, it seems to me the objection is based on what might happen (that the student might be tempted by lustful thoughts and act on those thoughts). If there isn’t actually a prohibition in that contract, on dancing or listening to rock music or anything else that is part of the event, and this is merely about the possibility that doing those things might lead to a breach of the rules (on physical or sexual contact or whatever), then I don’t think the school has a leg to stand on.
I also think the fact that the principle gave his permission for the student to attend the event suggested that the school would accept it. To create that impression and then later threaten to impose a sanction but without withdrawing permission is surely illegitimate (not to mention unprofessional). If the principle believed that attending this event was a breach of the school’s rules, why did he give the student permission to do so?
Incidentally, the father states in that video “as long as he’s in school I 100% agree he needs to abide by any laws, religion, or whatever they push”. That makes it sound to me as if the parents chose the school for reasons other than religious doctrine (perhaps the perceived quality of its teaching).
Perhaps, but I don’t see how the parent’s purpose in sending him to a religious school, or the father’s interpretation of the rules, carries any weight whatsoever. They chose the school, they were told the consequences and decided that they didn’t want to adhere to the religious precepts of the school as the principal, who speaks for the school, determined them to be.
The point is that this is the nature of religion. If the parents went to the school because they had good teachers, it doesn’t matter. They accept the school’s religious precepts regardless. If the parents disagreed with the interpretation of religious rules, it doesn’t matter. They are not the arbiters of the religious precepts, whether they apply only in school or 24/7. That’s the nature of religion. You follow or leave. It’s not up to individuals to disagree with religion, but whether to partake or not.
Religion doesn’t have to meet individual approval, except for the choice of whether they wish to be a part of it or not. If they don’t like it, they can find another religious group/school/church to attend, but they have no right to demand that the religious group/school/church change to meet their approval.
Does this story hinge on the nature of religion or the nature of contracts?
Would the situation be significantly different if the family had signed a contract with a secular private school or with a military college?
(That’s not a rhetorical question or a challenge. I’m asking because I’m interested in knowing the answer.)
It’s all religion, which is unlike any other institution, both by its nature as well as its protected status. Religion by definition need not be reasonable, rational or subject to approval. That is what makes it religion.
Falwell’s Liberty University Tosses Young Democrats as “Unchristian”
Having already espoused the idea that a religious school has the authority to dictate the conduct of its students to comport with its religious doctrine, no matter how absurd that seems to those who do not share the faith, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty U has taken it to the next level.
From Mark Hine, VP of Student Affairs at Liberty U:
Falwell’s Liberty University Tosses Young Democrats as “Unchristian”
Having already espoused the idea that a religious school has the authority to dictate the conduct of its students to comport with its religious doctrine, no matter how absurd that seems to those who do not share the faith, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty U has taken it to the next level. From Mark Hine, VP of Student Affairs at Liberty U:
…