What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

We are all relativists now, Part II

A Nova Scotia student, William Swinimer, has been given a 5-day suspension for continuing (after being warned) to wear a Christian T-shirt deemed offensive to non-Christians. What does it say? "Life is wasted without Jesus."

The powers and principalities are not subtle about the locus of their objection:

School board Supt. Nancy Pynch-Worthylake said the wording on the shirt is problematic because it is directed at the beliefs of others.

"If I have an expression that says 'My life is enhanced with Jesus,' then there's no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that's my opinion about my own belief," she said.

Thanks, Nancy, that's very clear. We are all relativists now. Christian expressions are allowed so long as all they say is that Jesus is good for me. Christian statements are non-threatening so long as they're purely personal, subjective, and relative. The problem comes in where anyone implies that Jesus is also good for somebody else, that other people will be better off if they know Jesus. That, in fact, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. (Just imagine what they'd do with a T-shirt that said, "Jesus is the only way.") Statements that imply that Christianity is objectively true and that this might make a claim on somebody else's life are verboten.

In other words, expressions of real Christianity are verboten.

We learn from the video accompanying the story that William has been a "problem" in other ways. Not only has he made atheists feel criticized, poor babies, by wearing a T-shirt that implies that their lives are wasted without Jesus, he has also been preaching (aka witnessing) to people. Can't have that salt and light stuff. This little light of yours, I'm not gonna let it shine. The contempt of his fellow students is evident in their faces, and chilling.

I would say that relativism is the state religion of Nova Scotia, except that there's a sense in which we all know that that's not true, either. Expressions that condemn, say, homophobia would certainly not be forbidden. In fact, I'm certain that teachers at Forest Heights Community School make such statements themselves from positions of authority, even though that entails criticizing the beliefs of others. And a T-shirt that said, "Tolerance is greater than hatred" (okay, I'm sure you can make up something catchier, but you get the idea) would surely not be banned simply because it entailed a criticism of the beliefs of those deemed intolerant.

So selective relativism is the state religion of Nova Scotia. Which is to say that leftist ideology is the state religion of Nova Scotia.

Shine on, William. You will have your reward in heaven.

HT: Wintery Knight

The original "We're all relativists now" post is here.

Comments (43)

Thanks for the link! I appreciate your comments. Why must Christian taxpayers be forced to fund a system that denigrates their beliefs, and what caused so many Christians to vote for a system of public education that silences them? We need Christians to think about how fiscal conservatism is connected to religious liberty. I have nothing to fear from Bill Gates when it comes to my freedom to be who I really am. He doesn't tell me what to do with my faith. But the government - they take my money and then boss me AND MY FUTURE CHILDREN around. It's the shaming of the little children by grown ups that is the worst.

"If I have an expression that says 'My life is enhanced with Jesus,' then there's no issue with that"

I'd be very surprised if even that would satisfy the Left.

Actually, that's exactly what Superintendent Nancy Pynch-Worthylake (a name straight out of a satiric novel) said would be allowed. Revealing, isn't it?

Relativism: religion for the intolerant.

A t-shirt that says "Religious Liberty means my being able to say 'Jesus Is The One True God' " would be fun. Sure, they would want to rip it off, but that's where you get creative and (secretly) film the lib-intolerants going haywire over a t-shirt message, and let the film go viral.

Some schools have gotten smarter, and simply ban all messages on clothing, theoretically as a "distraction" from education. As far as I am concerned, they can call that a "school uniform" of sorts. At least that comes down on all sides equally.

I like to hear it from the horse's mouth, so I tracked down the South Shore Regional School Board site, which has oversight of the high school.

http://www.ssrsb.ca/

They have published a lot of words and invoked Canadian national law in advance of a facilitated discussion on Monday. If Canadian public schools are like their American counterparts, facilitated discussion is code for the wagons will be circled around the school personnel and it will be made quite clear, in a most invalidating way to those in disagreement with the educators, who has the power and who does not. Might makes right, in other words.

The Toronto Globe and Mail has provided good coverage of this controversy.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nova-scotia-to-debate-religious-t-shirt-controversy/article2422790/

Superintendent Nancy Pynch-Worthylake (a name straight out of a satiric novel)...
Lydia, that was my thought too. Maybe the ironic name of a character in one of Evelyn Waugh's novels?
A t-shirt that says "Religious Liberty means my being able to say 'Jesus Is The One True God' " would be fun.

Or even just, "Religious liberty means my being able to say 'Life is wasted without Jesus'".

Some schools have gotten smarter, and simply ban all messages on clothing, theoretically as a "distraction" from education.

I thought about that. These guys preferred to tell us exactly where they were coming from. It's informative, anyway.

what caused so many Christians to vote for a system of public education that silences them

Why did so many conservatives get outraged over an incident hundreds or thousands of miles away where a bureaucrat threw out a little girl's lunch because it "wasn't healthy enough," but don't offer even a peep or protest about zero tolerance policies at the local schools they send their kids to? It's because most conservatives are too lazy to actually take a political stand on something so fundamental to their family. They'll get mad, they'll get outraged, but they won't even put their kids in private school when they have the money.

A t-shirt that says "Religious Liberty means my being able to say 'Jesus Is The One True God' " would be fun. Sure, they would want to rip it off, but that's where you get creative and (secretly) film the lib-intolerants going haywire over a t-shirt message, and let the film go viral.

Ho hum, frankly. At some point, perhaps soon, the left's war against us is going to go hot and we're going to have to know how to dish it out and no longer simply take it and catch it on film. (Do we need more video evidence of leftist aggression and intolerance? Laura Wood recently linked to this video from Tradition, Family and Property: http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2012/05/hatred-from-marriage-redefiners.html)

It would be wise to spend some resources acquiring the proper skills while there is still time. Ann Barnhardt covers this angle frequently.

There seems to be a problem with the abovementioned link to my blog. And, if the link I've provided below doesn't work, go to heteroseparatist.com, and go to 02 May 2012.

http://heteroseparatist.blogspot.com/2012/05/hatred-from-marriage-redefiners.html

Sure, they would want to rip it off, but that's where you get creative and (secretly) film the lib-intolerants going haywire over a t-shirt message, and let the film go viral.

And then the administration will seize the phone, delete the video and add the phone in as some sort of additional violation on the student's part unless the student is either savy enough to use a streaming service like Cop Recorder or fast enough to get it on Youtube before the school can punish them.

Lydia,

Here's a possible news tip for you on the subject of child protective services.

Horrible story. An argument for _all_ home schooling families to belong to HSLDA. It's possible that HSLDA reports only its success stories, but I think they could have helped here.

My life is not enhanced, and actually sucks, with Nancy Pynch-Worthylake. How's that, Ms. PW? BTW, your name is absurd, too.

Wintery Knight:

Why must Christian taxpayers be forced to fund a system that denigrates their beliefs, and what caused so many Christians to vote for a system of public education that silences them? We need Christians to think about how fiscal conservatism is connected to religious liberty. I have nothing to fear from Bill Gates when it comes to my freedom to be who I really am. He doesn't tell me what to do with my faith. But the government - they take my money and then boss me AND MY FUTURE CHILDREN around. It's the shaming of the little children by grown ups that is the worst.

This post gets right to the heart of the matter. It's not a believer/non-believer, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican issue either. Theocratic government is just as bad as socialism. Both forms represent government suppression of individual liberties. Both are tyranny. So why do we embrace the idea of government anything? Other than national defense, protection from force and fraud, and regulation of toxic waste & such, why do we act like we prefer to have the government involved (so long as the government is on OUR side)?

Government is the embodiment of what it means to 'strain out a gnat but swallow a camel' - they don't do well on the most basic functions but rabidly pursue the trivial.



From the link Thomas posted, it seems this is much more a school administration grappling with a delicate issue than it is about relativism.

They want students to be able to express their beliefs, but have to figure out how to resolve issues when conflict arises.

They put up with it for weeks, asked him multiple times to stop wearing the shirt, and are convening a forum to discuss how to proceed in a way that will satisfy everyone. It is actually the pastor who indicates an unwillingness to charitably work through the issues.

Most importantly, they imply they will allow him to wear the shirt once he returns from suspension.

They are not operating out of relativist ideology, but are desperately trying to figure out how to handle a contentious situation.


Oh, rubbish, Desmond. The only reason this is treated as a delicate or difficult situation is because they aren't willing to tell the atheist to grow up. Good grief! So an atheist complained, because it seemed like someone was saying that his life was wasted without Jesus. Poh baby! If the atheist insists that he doesn't want somebody else wearing the T-shirt, then guess what? There isn't going to be a solution that will satisfy everyone. This doesn't make the situation delicate or difficult, if the school officials would just realize who is being unreasonable here. There is an answer to that question. It's the atheist! The Christian boy is being stubborn, but I can see why he's being stubborn.

Moreover, Nancy P-W has made it explicit that had he worn a T-shirt that said that his life is enhanced with Jesus, they would have backed him up. In other words, if an atheist had said he was "offended" by that T-shirt, allegedly he would have been told to get over it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection here with relativism. Nancy P-W has been clear as can be: You're allowed to wear a shirt that says that your religion makes you feel good, makes your life "enhanced," but you're not allowed to wear a T-shirt that implies that your religion is true across the board and that other people have a problem in that they don't accept your religion. What's amazing here is that his T-shirt doesn't say, "Repent and accept Jesus or you will go to hell!" I can imagine much more inflammatory shirts, but the fact that it's stated in a relatively low-key manner isn't enough for Nancy & Co. It seems, gasp, to be criticizing the choices made by non-Christians, to be implying that their lives might be wasted without Jesus. This is forbidden.

Yeah, that has something to do with relativism. If you don't get that, I can't help you.

How is the atheist going to handle it if he, say, decides to become a philosopher and his father-in-law says, "Philosophers are wasting their lives. You should get a real job"? He's going to have to grow up, right? It's utterly stupid to have a principle that people can't criticize other people's lives. And as I said, there's no way in Hades that the school would apply this if some student wore a T-shirt that criticized the views of so-called "haters" and "homophobes"--i.e., those who hold traditional moral views.

Of course people have to be able to take criticism. And sometimes other people in the world are going to think you're wasting your life for some reason or other. It needn't even be religion.

Atheists are learning how to play the victim/crybaby card, because it gives them power. But it shouldn't.

This is not about relativism being the state religion. This is about the administrators trying to handle a disruption to their educational environment.

Perhaps they are acting poorly in that regard, and yes it would be great if Christians could openly witness in society without causing disruption, but just because the administrators' actions coincide with those of a logically consistent relativist doesn't mean their actions are driven by relativism. It doesn't mean leftist ideology is taking over government.

If this were about ideology then they wouldn't allow the student to wear the shirt when he returns, but indications are that they will. Let's see if he persists and faces expulsion; then I may be more convinced of your sweeping conclusion.

I tend to agree with Desmond. The administrators probably are muddle-headed multicultural relativists, but this is a typical speech code designed to minimize the chances that anyone might be offended and result in damage to Johnny's delicate self-esteem, which *absolutely* must be protected. Whether they would apply the code across-the-board is an interesting question, but I wouldn't be surprised if the administrators (who tend to be gutless wonders) caved to complaints by Christians about a comparably "offensive" T-shirt worn by an atheist (though it might very well require much more pressure from Christians to get a similar response). I would add that if one accepts Justice Thomas' view on the right to free speech of children as set forth in Morse v. Frederick, then U.S. schoolchildren would be out of luck on 1st Amendment grounds (though that doesn't necessarily mean that Justice Thomas is wrong).

The administrators probably are muddle-headed multicultural relativists, but this is a typical speech code designed to minimize the chances that anyone might be offended

There would be better reason to go with this explanation if the t-shirt said something denigrating a _point of view_ or a specific target audience. It doesn't. "without Jesus" can point just as much to people who are already Christians but don't live up to that, and people who spend Sunday with Jesus but don't give the other 6 days to Him, and so on. The shirt's message isn't targeting non-Christians only, although non-Christians are within its umbra of impact. And it doesn't target any specific group of non-Christians in the least, doesn't single out Muslims or Hindus or Jews or atheists.

The notion that we can sequester out messages that might be offensive to others and quash only those is silly, and (in the long run) is a notion that only supports the relativist group anyway. If you have a "PEPSI" shirt and my dad works for Coke and I like Coke way better than Pepsi, I might be offended at your shirt, because I might take your wearing Pepsi to be not merely an implied message "I like Pepsi" but includes "maybe you should like Pepsi" and "Pepsi is 'the one', it's better than Coke" (at least for some people). Anything that promotes one item inherently is de-promoting alternatives unless it explicitly says otherwise. The theory that it's ok to suppress messages that _might_ offend others is just an insane PC sort of nonsense that can be supported only by the insane PC sort of ideologues.

If someone is ACTUALLY offended by the shirt, they should be free to go up to Swinimer and say "that shirt offends me" (politely) and say why, and invite Swinimer to not offend again by wearing it. That way both parties learn something about another actual person, and a healthy exchange may take place. To squelch this BY LAW means people don't need to learn to _just deal_ with offensive stuff intelligently and with restraint. It means opposing messages can't meet on open turf. It's the coddling of *sensibilities* to the stagnation of good sense.

To see what I mean by implied messages, what if the shirt said "I believe I am going to heaven because I am Christian"?

This is all pointed *to me*, so according to Principal Nancy P-W, this shirt theoretically should be allowed. It is not _saying_ that you are going to hell if you are not a Christian. Maybe (if you are a good through-and-through relativist) Swinimer is going to heaven by being a Christian, and Abdul is going to heaven by being a Muslim. Or, even better, the message is merely descriptive: Swinimer *believes* the claim "I am going to heaven" because he is a Christian, and Abdul believes the claim on account of his being a Muslim. It isn't even STAKING A CLAIM as to whether one belief has more to do with going to heaven than another, it't merely engaging in sociology about belief systems.

Perseus, do you truly believe that if someone wore a T-shirt saying, "Life is wasted if you hate" (i.e., a not-terribly-subtle pro-homosexual criticism of moral traditionalists) this policy would be applied?

Anyway, I'm making no First Amendment claims, even for the U.S. I'm saying the policy is stupid and creepy, because it enforces a subjectivizing of Christian religious belief. Whether it's a "typical speech code" or not, that way of protecting Johnny's delicate self-esteem is _strongly_ relativistic. Again, Nancy wasn't subtle: You can say that Jesus enhances your life, but you can't imply that someone else's life is wasted without Jesus. This _definitely_ rules out clear, objective truth claims about a religion. Certainly a "Jesus is the only way" T-shirt would be ruled out under this policy, while, "Jesus makes me feel wonderful every morning" would not. Perseus, I think you are way smart enough to see how this is relativistic.

I'm saying the policy is stupid and creepy, because it enforces a subjectivizing of Christian religious belief.

Heaven forbid that anyone raised in the twenty or so major denominations of Christianity (ignoring the thousands of minor denominations) momentarily think that their own specific beliefs aren't infallibly, objectively true. Over the years, you have had dozens of Protestant vs. Catholic disputes on this blog, not to mention heated arguments about the nature of heaven, predestination, divine omnipotence, and many other intractable problems. You've demonstrated for years that sincere, believing Christians will fight tooth and nail over what that "objective truth" should be, although you all claim to worship the exact same deity. Barring total amnesia, you should at least admit to some degree of relativism, even if you reject the egalitarian notion that all religious beliefs have similar truth values.

Barring total amnesia, you should at least admit to some degree of relativism, even if you reject the egalitarian notion that all religious beliefs have similar truth values.

Nope. Doesn't follow. We should at least admit that some Christians are wrong about some points of religious doctrine.

There is a big, big difference between being wrong and being relativistic. When a bridge about to fail because the engineer multiplied by 10 when he was supposed to divide by 10, it isn't a sound bridge for some people (if they happen to feel that multiplying by 10 is better) and a rickety failing bridge for other people (who happen to prefer dividing by 10 for that formula). Some people are WRONG, and differences about the matter (before it actually falls down) are not relative matters of preference, taste, or even opinion.

I have little problem with a rule that bans all t-shirts with a message in school, if the reason for the ban is that such messages interfere with orderly search for the truth. But banning a t-shirt that might offend someone, not because it attacks anyone or even their beliefs, but because it holds a strong claim can only be justified on the notion that strong claims of truth are uncivil, and constitute an unjust interference on others. That's relativism, and I'm not buying. Strong claims to truth have as much right to the public square as weak, namby pamby claims.

Speaking charitably, all the administrators are doing is trying to maintain a positive environment for education.

That they feel the solution to this particular disruption is to silence the speech instead of to tell the "offended" students to get over it and teach them productive ways to deal is problematic.

However, it's not a problem stemming from an institutional message that religion is OK only when its kept personal. It's a problem stemming from simple human error in how to manage the student population.

I just think that's a very different thing that claiming that leftist--or any other--ideology is the driving force behind these actions.

It's a problem stemming from simple human error in how to manage the student population.

Well, yes, a simple human error called relativism. The institutional act is to silence certain kinds of speech, because those kinds of speech are perceived to be a problem. The reason for that erroneous perception is that these relativists think that the "positive environment" they want for education is one free of definite truth claims. Which is driven by an ideology.

If *all* the administrators wanted to do was maintain a positive environment for all students, they would ban all tee-shirts with messages. Personally, I find them often distracting to me as a teacher, and I know they often are to the students, no matter what the messages are, even if they are quite innocuous. I would have no problem with such a ban, and then everybody is being treated the same, and the teachers can teach about differing ideas and civil discourse and informed opinion in their class lessons. (Which they should be doing, but of course are probably not, making it all the more reason to ban message tee-shirts since the students aren't being taught how to deal with the messages.)

Dress codes go a long way to helping students focus on academics. But that is not the issue here; the issue is not having a dress code but then trying to impose one on some students unjustly.

Some people are WRONG, and differences about the matter (before it actually falls down) are not relative matters of preference, taste, or even opinion.

Don't underestimate human social resilience. There have been all sorts of bizarre (by Western standards) and/or cruel customs and habits that were perpetuated for centuries that didn't collapse the societies in which they existed. That doesn't mean those customs were right or wrong, it only means that humans have strong coping mechanisms that distort our perceptions.

Strong claims to truth have as much right to the public square as weak, namby pamby claims.

There is an equally strong need for skepticism unless they have followed a rigorous methodology that sharply reduces subjective bias and jumping to unjustified conclusions, otherwise you are placing the listener in the position of requiring blind trust in the subjective experiences of the speaker. I'm not buying an argument that requires blind trust about supposedly objective truth.

P.S. I agree with a dress code that bans all message tee shirts.

Step2, I don't know where you're getting this "blind faith" thing. A T-shirt isn't an exercise in apologetics. I can't imagine where you get the idea that this kid's T-shirt is asking anybody else to place blind trust in his subjective experiences. It's stating a proposition. That proposition, yes, does imply that some other people's lives are wasted. Obviously there isn't room on the T-shirt for telling us all about why we should believe the proposition. Maybe Swinimer is a good apologist and maybe he isn't. But whether he is or isn't, the statement on his T-shirt is obviously a _conclusion_, not an _argument_. That's true of pretty much all statements on T-shirts, including "Coke: It's the real thing."

I just think that's a very different thing that claiming that leftist--or any other--ideology is the driving force behind these actions.

If the administrators in Nova Scotia are anything like their American counterparts, they are filled with all sorts of ideologically-driven ideas about Johnny's delicate self-esteem and what constitutes a "positive learning environment."

I'm saying the policy is stupid and creepy, because it enforces a subjectivizing of Christian religious belief. ...I think you are way smart enough to see how this is relativistic.

It's subjectivizing virtually all strong opinions without necessarily being relativistic (though the two tend to go together). The major concern is not the validity of universal truth claims as such, but rather the effect that those claims might have on other students. It is reminiscent of the old English common law concerning criminal libel, which did not allow truth as a defense because the central consideration was the effect that libel had on public peace.

BTW, I'm also in favor of banning clothing with messages on them. Student self-expression--particularly in that manner--is overrated.

I wish my pastor would ban message shirts from church. Including sports jerseys with numbers, for cryin' out loud. Actually, even recognizable team jerseys without numbers should go. Wrong place for a message. And my college has a dress code that bans message shirts from classrooms, dining halls, and chapel, with a vast improvement in the tone of the place.

The reason for that erroneous perception is that these relativists think that the "positive environment" they want for education is one free of definite truth claims.
It is not at all clear that this is the case. All we know is that the decisions were made based on the fact that other students were uncomfortable, not that they think definite truth claims are wrong.

Again, they are implying they WILL NOT pursue further action against the student if he continues to wear the shirt after the suspension. How does that data point fit the theory that ideological relativism is the driving force here?

BTW, I'm also in favor of banning clothing with messages on them.
Perhaps its better to use such messages as a chance to actually TEACH people how to cope in the world, as adults, to divisive speach? You know, sort of what a SCHOOL ought to be doing?

Perhaps its better to use such messages as a chance to actually TEACH people how to cope in the world, as adults, to divisive speach? You know, sort of what a SCHOOL ought to be doing?

There it is in a terrible little nutshell. Our therapeutic culture should seek to train people to learn how to "cope" with "divisive" speech. That doesn't require teachers so much as psychologists and social workers. The circumstances in which teachers address such claims should not be subject to the whims of students.

I would say that relativism is the state religion of Nova Scotia... [etc.]

You write as if you're familiar with the place, but maybe I'm just reading that into your words. Well, I grew up in Nova Scotia, and have a passionate love-angst relationship with the province. On the one hand, it is God's country in the romantic sense: scenic beauty, tranquility, peace, slower pace of life. On the other hand, you are correct: relativism *is* the state religion of Nova Scotia. The place is heartrendingly pagan; one might think that being the poorest, most backward province, religiosity should be higher there, but alas, no. I've never really understood why, although I have my theories.

One thing I can tell unfamiliar readers is that the town where this story occurred, Bridgewater, is a podunk one-horse burg of no significance. (No disrespect meant; my grandparents lived there and it's nice as small towns go). It's *certainly* not a hotbed of immigration with a significant population of "other religions". Who was offended? To me, one of the lessons here is that moving away from Capital City is not a guaranteed means of evading the leftist nanny machine. Not if they can help it, at any rate.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the connection here with relativism. Nancy P-W has been clear as can be: You're allowed to wear a shirt that says that your religion makes you feel good, makes your life "enhanced," but you're not allowed to wear a T-shirt that implies that your religion is true across the board and that other people have a problem in that they don't accept your religion.

Being a typical peace-making Canadian, I had initially agreed with Perseus' take on the affair. But this is a very good point.

All we know is that the decisions were made based on the fact that other students were uncomfortable, not that they think definite truth claims are wrong.

Desmond, no. Nancy P-W says (let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's telling the truth) that if you wear a T-shirt that says only that your life is enhanced with Jesus, that's okay. Now, presumably, this means it would be okay even if some atheist is offended. Nancy P-W isn't just saying, "Someone was offended at your T-shirt, therefore automatically you can't wear it." She's developed or is articulating a school principle that goes along with, in this case, the position of the offended student and that distinguishes allowed from disallowed T-shirt messages. And that principle is that your T-shirt message can say that your religion enhances your life but can't criticize other people's lives without your religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

Samson J.,

You write as if you're familiar with the place, but maybe I'm just reading that into your words.

No, I meant only that my initial reaction to this particular story was to say that relativism is the state religion of Nova Scotia, because it is a pithy thing to say and is to some extent implied by this incident. In America, the legal situation is that any religion "imposed" by the public schools is deemed a state religion. Since the public school officials in this case in Nova Scotia are enforcing a relativistic ideology, one could argue that that ideology is the state religion of that province.

Who was offended?

The video accompanying the story implies that it was an atheist student. Atheists, as I've said, are playing the victim card more and more these days and using the "diversity" mantra more and more on their side. Some explicitly want atheism to be treated as a religion in itself, because that gets them various benefits and gives them more clout.

A close friend of mine here in Michigan reported that at a local large group doctor's office at this past Christmas time, they actually put up an atheist display sign that went on at some length about how "some people don't find prayer helpful." When my friend complained, she was told that a focus group had advised them at Christmas time to "reach out" to the atheists!


To me, one of the lessons here is that moving away from Capital City is not a guaranteed means of evading the leftist nanny machine. Not if they can help it, at any rate.

When it comes to sending your kids to the public schools, I totally agree. If one were home schooling, and if one were allowed to home school and control one's own content and curriculum, it might be different. But the great goal among public school officials at various levels is to standardize, and teachers are often only too happy to teach in some "podunk" town to bring the light of their ideology to the poor, benighted children.

But this is a very good point.

Thanks.

Nancy P-W says (let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's telling the truth) that if you wear a T-shirt that says only that your life is enhanced with Jesus, that's okay. Now, presumably, this means it would be okay even if some atheist is offended. Nancy P-W isn't just saying, "Someone was offended at your T-shirt, therefore automatically you can't wear it." She's developed or is articulating a school principle that goes along with, in this case, the position of the offended student and that distinguishes allowed from disallowed T-shirt messages.

The principle being articulated by Nancy P-W is that universal truth claims (made publicly) qualify as being disruptive, not that universal truth claims are false/invalid. Drawing the line where she did is presumably the result of her attempt to balance student self-expression with concerns about disruption (so she adopted a qualified rather than an absolute heckler's veto). Her principle might very well have been influenced by relativistic beliefs, but it's also quintessentially democratic and liberal (note: lower case "d" and "l") in its suspicion of ruling others, as in: "I am your equal, so who are you to say what's good for me?" Thus it's fine for me to say what's good for me, but not fine for me to say what's good for you. So (as a political theorist) I see the situation as the democratic principle playing itself out in an absurd way.

The principle being articulated by Nancy P-W is that universal truth claims (made publicly) qualify as being disruptive, not that universal truth claims are false/invalid.

Wow, Perseus, surely you see the problem here. Suppose that someone said, "The articulation of the Copernican view of the relation of the sun and the earth, if made publicly, is disruptive, so it is banned." Doesn't this have _some_ relation to whether it's true or not? I mean, after all, if it's banned, this is definitely going to give the impression that it's false. It's going to make it a lot harder to get that truth out there. If it really is true that the earth goes around the sun, it's kind of, you know, worrisome for people to be banning its public statement. At a minimum, banning it shows a major disregard for the dissemination of it if it _is_ true.

Frankly, I think you're splitting hairs. There is no evidence whatsoever that Nancy P-W thinks universal truth claims of the sort she is banning as disruptive are actually true, especially not the particular one in question. Perhaps the notion of truth doesn't enter her mind. Maybe she's a postmodernist or a flakehead and is incapable of thinking calmly about the questions, "Is it perhaps true that life is wasted without Jesus? If so, is that an important truth? If so, should we be banning its expression on the grounds that some atheist crybaby says he's offended by it?"

Functionally speaking, if you enforce a ban on the public expression of universal truth-claims, you are trying to mold people away from seriously entertaining such claims as true. Because if they are true, they are important. And if they are important, people are likely to think that they _must_ talk about them. It's definitely a form of attempted thought control that strongly favors relativism, whether Nancy is smart enough and honest enough consciously to think that through or not.

Maybe she's a postmodernist or a flakehead and is incapable of thinking calmly about the questions, "Is it perhaps true that life is wasted without Jesus? If so, is that an important truth? If so, should we be banning its expression on the grounds that some atheist crybaby says he's offended by it?"
I think this is exactly it, Lydia. I don't think the admins are operating from a philosophically mature POV. I think you are absolutely right about the danger of banning speech that claims universal truths. But I don't know that this speech is being banned per se, as no action was taken until others complained and the implication is that further action post-suspension will also not be taken. The only principle she is articulating is that you can't wear a T-shirt that other students complain about in a way that makes sense to the admins. That may be dumb, but it's not relativism.
It's definitely a form of attempted thought control that strongly favors relativism, whether Nancy is smart enough and honest enough consciously to think that through or not.
This. OK, I apologize for not being able to state it this way earlier. This is exactly what I was trying to say.


Suppose that someone said, "The articulation of the Copernican view of the relation of the sun and the earth, if made publicly, is disruptive, so it is banned." Doesn't this have _some_ relation to whether it's true or not? I mean, after all, if it's banned, this is definitely going to give the impression that it's false.

It depends on the context. In this case, we're talking about a ban on such messages found on clothing worn by students. Would all such universal truth claims be prohibited in every context at school? I don't know. And it seems that Nancy P-W is as disturbed by the manner of the expression as its claim to universality (so there might be a way to phrase a universal truth claim in a manner that she deems non-offensive).

BTW, it hardly does William Swinimer's father much credit to support his son wearing to class a shirt with a religious message and then complain that the school shouldn't waste time on free speech forums and instead focus on "reading, writing and arithmetic." He should either support his son making the case for robust free speech or tell him to cease and desist from distracting his fellow students with a message that has little to do with reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.