Two students break the rules

[Salty]

Brittany Minder did not wear an approved dress

Roy Costner IV did not deliver an approved speech

One we applauded, the other we were critical of.

Why is there a difference?

 

[Arbo]

Not sure there is a difference.

The first seems to want to flaunt it.

The second seems to want to flaunt it.

 

[DHK]

Brittany Minder did not wear an approved dress

Roy Costner IV did not deliver an approved speech

One we applauded, the other we were critical of.

Why is there a difference?

In the first case, the media report has a misleading headline.
Here is one of the comments:

The truth is her chest size had nothing to do with it. The issue is that she decided, in defiance of known rules, to put it out on display. She made the wrong call. The school made the right call. I feel sorry for the girl only because she has a real problem for a mother.

She violated the guidelines of the school and dressed immodestly.
She was in the wrong. Case closed.

In the second case a young man stood up and exercised his first amendment right, his right to freedom of speech, his right to freedom of expression of religion--a right that had recently been taken away from them by the state government.
He did not hurt anyone. Unlike the girl who probably offended many by the way that she was dressed, this young man was applauded by all for his show of courage in the face of a wrong ruling by the state.

 

[Aaron]

Brittany Minder did not wear an approved dress

Roy Costner IV did not deliver an approved speech

One we applauded, the other we were critical of.

Why is there a difference?

One is a standard of decency, and the other was the forbidding to speak in Jesus name.

Did you study in the 80's to become a teacher? I haven't seen a post from you that doesn't seem to be "values neutral," or "form without content."

 

[Don]

One is a standard of decency, and the other was the forbidding to speak in Jesus name.

Was the young man ever actually told he was forbidden to speak in Jesus' name? There was no invocation; but the young man was up there to give the valedictorian speech, not the invocation. What he said was correct, true, and needed to be said; but he had previously told his school leadership that he would be saying something else. There's no indication that he had previously provided a speech that mentioned his faith, and subsequently been told that he wasn't allowed to say that. He admitted that he pre-planned the speech he actually gave; but there's no indication that he notified the school leadership, although the requirement was that his speech be approved by them.

If you can provide any related news that disproves these points, I'll gladly recant; but I think you've inadvertently mixed what the boy did and what he gave a speech about/for.

 

[agedman]

Was the young man ever actually told he was forbidden to speak in Jesus' name? There was no invocation; but the young man was up there to give the valedictorian speech, not the invocation. What he said was correct, true, and needed to be said; but he had previously told his school leadership that he would be saying something else. There's no indication that he had previously provided a speech that mentioned his faith, and subsequently been told that he wasn't allowed to say that. He admitted that he pre-planned the speech he actually gave; but there's no indication that he notified the school leadership, although the requirement was that his speech be approved by them.

If you can provide any related news that disproves these points, I'll gladly recant; but I think you've inadvertently mixed what the boy did and what he gave a speech about/for.

The young lady chose to do evil from her heart. She planned and plotted to do wrong and justly openly rebuked.


The young man did no evil.

Even the School administration said he did no wrong. He may have planned what he was going to do, but it was not wrong in the doing.

Students do have the right to pray ANYTIME they desire. They may be restricted in leading, inviting, or encouraging others to pray, but this man didn't do that. He invited no one to join him. He merely quoted the Lord's prayer.

The crowd reaction was spontaneous.

Are you looking for wrong where none exists?

 

[Aaron]

Was the young man ever actually told he was forbidden to speak in Jesus' name?

Why, no. We all know the warm reception given Christ's name in American public schools.

 

[HankD]

I'll play the devil's advocate.

God created the human body and said it was "tov mod" (very good).

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.​

Careful.

HankD​

 

[annsni]

The young lady chose to do evil from her heart. She planned and plotted to do wrong and justly openly rebuked.


The young man did no evil.

Do have evidence that the young lady chose to do evil from her heart? That she planned and plotted to do wrong? You see, we have evidence that the boy planned what he did to deceive. We have no evidence of such from the girl so you have a false accusation here. If she said "I had a dress approved but chose this one because this is the one that I wanted to wear," then we might have an agreement but without such a statement, I cannot agree with you that this was a willful disobeying of the rules.

 

[agedman]

Do have evidence that the young lady chose to do evil from her heart? That she planned and plotted to do wrong? You see, we have evidence that the boy planned what he did to deceive. We have no evidence of such from the girl so you have a false accusation here. If she said "I had a dress approved but chose this one because this is the one that I wanted to wear," then we might have an agreement but without such a statement, I cannot agree with you that this was a willful disobeying of the rules.

Of course, I have "proof."

To willfully violate that rule is to flaunt evil intent from the heart.

The original article leaves very little doubt that the rule was unknown to BOTH the parents' and daughter.

From the report:

"Minder's parents have no problem with the rules, but say their daughter was singled out for having a large chest.

"All women are not created equal, and you can not compare a golf ball to a grapefruit. It ain't gonna happen," Kim Minder said.

Gary Minder wonders what kind of dress the school would have found acceptable.

"A girl like Brittany should not have to go to a dance in a burlap sack because she's large busted," he said. "It's ridiculous."

A school district spokesman said if a student's appearance does not meet the dress code, staff members will help them come up with a solution that allows them to attend the event.

In Minder's case, she wasn't allowed in the prom until she covered her cleavage with a shawl. She only stayed for about an hour.
​

Taken from: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Teen-says-she-was-turned-away-from-prom-for-having-large-breasts-210034171.html?tab=video&c=y

Notice the father "wonders," yet "has no problem with the school rules."

There is not a public school in the US that is not required to make public and publish the school rules for all staff, students, and parents, and in most cases the parents are required to "sign off" on the rules as part of the enrollment and continuing enrollment of the student. This is done at ALL grade levels.

There is NO excuse.

Personally, I think the parents needed to have not even put the daughter in such a situation, but taught her to not think she has to display the abundant assets.

But, isn't that typical of young women and immature parenting?

 

[agedman]

Do have evidence that the young lady chose to do evil from her heart? That she planned and plotted to do wrong? You see, we have evidence that the boy planned what he did to deceive. We have no evidence of such from the girl so you have a false accusation here. If she said "I had a dress approved but chose this one because this is the one that I wanted to wear," then we might have an agreement but without such a statement, I cannot agree with you that this was a willful disobeying of the rules.

To address the issue of the young man:

Do you have evidence that the young man broke the school rules?

Do you have evidence that the young man planned evil from the heart?
​

Seems to me you are attempting to excuse the young lady, and equate her attitude of evil intent with that of the young man.

Expressing a freedom/right that approved by law is NOT pre - planned evil.

 

[annsni]

To address the issue of the young man:

Do you have evidence that the young man broke the school rules?

Do you have evidence that the young man planned evil from the heart?
​

Seems to me you are attempting to excuse the young lady, and equate her attitude of evil intent with that of the young man.

Expressing a freedom/right that approved by law is NOT pre - planned evil.

No - I'm not excusing the young lady but I see both as having done similar things. The young lady had a mirror. She should have seen the cleavage and known that a rule was going to be broken. The young man lied when he gave a speech for approval with the full knowledge that he was not going to use it. Neither one is more noble or more wrong than the other.

 

[DHK]

Do have evidence that the young lady chose to do evil from her heart? That she planned and plotted to do wrong? You see, we have evidence that the boy planned what he did to deceive. We have no evidence of such from the girl so you have a false accusation here. If she said "I had a dress approved but chose this one because this is the one that I wanted to wear," then we might have an agreement but without such a statement, I cannot agree with you that this was a willful disobeying of the rules.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The rules of the school clearly stated:

It says no strapless dresses unless covered...

Another comment says:

What is sad is that she broke the dress code. She got caught (others who also broke the code did not).What is sad is that her PARENTS are blowing this all out of proportion (no pun intended, sorry) by going to the media and ignoring the fact that their daughter broke the rules and is the ONLY one to blame for all this fuss.

What is sad is that this girl will not learn a lesson from this, other than "if I complain and pout, I'll get more attention than I deserve".
What is sad is that this non-story now nearly has 800 comments...

It is clear that she broke the rules just by reading the many comments and reactions to the article.

 

[agedman]

No - I'm not excusing the young lady but I see both as having done similar things. The young lady had a mirror. She should have seen the cleavage and known that a rule was going to be broken. The young man lied when he gave a speech for approval with the full knowledge that he was not going to use it. Neither one is more noble or more wrong than the other.

The difference is "permission."

The young lady had no permission and new it.

The young man had permission and new it.

It isn't a matter of whether he changed his speech or not. It isn't a matter of whether his speech was pre - approved or not. He broke no rules, he broke no laws. He exercised his freedom of choice. He quoted literature that impacted his life. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if he had quoted something other than the Scriptures. Fortunately, the public school system still allows for quotes to be made from great literature - the Bible included.

IF the young lady had exercised hers she would have looked into the mirror and realizing that the dress was inappropriate either chosen to cover up or stay home. Rather, she said in her heart - I have gotten by with being more exposed than appropriate in the past - I will get by again.

She sinned.

He did not.

 

[Amy.G]

The young man had permission and new it.

No exactly. I saw him in an interview on Fox News yesterday and according to his own words, he was told not to mention God or any god.

Now I think that's terrible, but nevertheless he knew the rule and broke it.

 

[Revmitchell]

The house church in China breaks the law every day.

 

[Salty]

The house church in China breaks the law every day.

.... Augustine with, "An unjust law is no law at all." King goes on to explain that a just law is a law that uplifts human personality and it squares with moral law ....

So if you say Roy was wrong - then so was Rosa Parks

 

[agedman]

No exactly. I saw him in an interview on Fox News yesterday and according to his own words, he was told not to mention God or any god.

Now I think that's terrible, but nevertheless he knew the rule and broke it.

Does the "Lord's Prayer" mention "God or any god?"

It is addressed to "Our Father in Heaven."

So, he really didn't mention God's name or any other god's name.

He stated a term of relationship to the Heavenly Father.

Now, you and I both recognize that Father as God, but the prayer does not make that distinction.

He could just as easily have quoted any portion of Scripture and it still would not violate the law.

Remember there was a supreme court case just recently that challenged whether cheer/pep banners could bear quotes from the Bible? They can.

So, no law was broken, and it was not wrong for him to quote the Bible.

What would have been wrong is if he said, "Lets all join in and pray this prayer to God." THAT would have violated the typical school standards.

A student can stand in the middle of the hall and quote the Bible as long as there is no obstruction, inciting to riot or other such anomalies to the learning by students.

Too many Christians have cowed to the lie that God and the Bible are outlawed. Even school staffs have bowed under pressure and the mere threat of lawsuit.

BUT, there is NO law, and any such laws have been shot down by the courts as a violation of personal rights.