Persecution of Christians UPDATE

How sad that American schoolchildren have no other means to learn the Christian view? With the oppressive Anti-Christian regime of Bush keeping the message off television and cutting off all funding for faith-based services, and the recent outlawing of the practice of Christianity, true religion is indeed threatened.

I'm sorry, I'm a little steamed. I just saw that John Conyers was not satisfied with Fox News - they offered an apology for running a story about William Jefferson with his picture under it, and he said the apology wasn't specific enough. Talk about your phony outrage!

The outrage comes from the fact that the conversation in question came (as I stated in the post) OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING. Just like every other person in this country, our teachers have free speech rights. As long as the speech does not interfere with the classroom (which this didn't) the school board has no jurisdiction.

LL

http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources/Document.aspx?ID=424

As a general principle, teachers retain their First Amendment rights in public schools. The United States Supreme Court has held that "teachers [do not] shed their constitutional rights . . . at the school house gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). However, public schools have broad authority to safeguard against Establishment Clause violations. Generally speaking, teachers represent the school when in the classroom or at school-sponsored events and, therefore, should take care to avoid Establishment Clause violations.


.....teachers may discuss religious matters with their students on an individual basis if the student initiates the topic, the student is not compelled or forced to discuss the topic, and the student is not compelled to accept the teacher's views. Roman v. Appleby, 558 F. Supp. 449 (E.D. Penn. 1983).

Should you need to speak with someone immediately, please call our toll-free number, (800) 296-4529. Please inform our intake specialist answering your call that you have received this response.

Sincerely,

AMERICAN CENTER FOR
LAW & JUSTICE

I have a few comments on this issue with Chris Lind. Since everyone is talking about the first amendment and inalienable rights, I should be able to publish this under my real name; however I feel that it is best to do so anonymously since I strongly believe that how an authority figure employed by a school district acts matters both inside and outside the school building.

On the "petition" started in support of Lind's employment, the following three arguments are being made by students/parents/community members in support of Lind:

1. He is one of the best teachers at PLHS.
2. Becuase the objectionable behavior occurred outside of school hours/location, the school does not have a say in his behavior.
3. He is the only source of support and respect for students.

I offer the counter arguments:

1. Chris Lind is not a teacher. He is an unlicensed, campus supervisor. A person needs a high school diploma to do his job. While I have respect for all of our campus supervisors who do a phenomenal job keeping the non-classroom areas supervised, Lind should not be called a teacher.

2. Since when are school personnel not judged on their behavior outside of school? Do we not fire sexual predators from schools if they have only preyed on the children at their homes on their own time? Teachers, administrators, custodians, anyone who works in a school building accept a certain responsibility to behave appropriately even when they are not in their capacity in the school building. It is NOT OKAY for Lind to invite students to his home, fraternize with students outside of the school building, and push his views on ANY issue onto students at any time. Because his views are moral, religious, etc. does not make it okay for him to talk about them. If a teacher was discussing satanism and devil worship on his/her own time, would it be fair for the school board to support this? Absolutely not.

3. Finally, the students' opinion that Lind is their only support and the only "teacher" that respects them is proof positive of the brainstorming effect he has on these kids. Every single teacher comes to work each day because they care about kids. It isn't the money, it isn't the hours. We come to work to make a difference in a positive way and to help kids become self-sufficient, thinking adults. We support them. It is a brainwasher's first level of attack to turn a victim's support system against him/her. The students public outcry against the firing of this man who has handled his job inappropriately shows as clearly as possible how he has overstepped his boundries with kids.

Good counter arguments all. I shall try to address them.

1)When I posted this, I simply stated he was an employee because I too had heard teacher but since I didn't know in what capacity I chose different words. From your remarks I see that was a smart choice. However, having college education is not the only criteria for being a teacher. As are parent, college educated or not, are you not your child's first "teacher"? A college degree (which I have) is not the be all and end all. Not to disparage you personally, but I went to college with far too many people who were Education Majors because they could not cut it in the School of Business or the School of Arts.

2) Teacher or not, there are still free speech rights to consider. Speech off campus can not be dictated by the school just as my employer can not dictate my speech outside of work. Would your reaction be the same if the school board was trying to stifle the off campus speech of a union member who was arguing for a strike? I would certainly hope it would be different. My view would not change however. It would still be just as wrong. School personnels actions off campus should only be judged if the actions are illegal! Has Mr. Lind committed any crimes? If so why has he not been arrested or investigate? As far as "pushing" his views, would you consider it pushing his views if he was advocating becoming a teacher? Or advocating alternative lifestyles? If it is not "ok" for him to talk about his morals, then it is equally not ok for you to talk to the students about YOUR MORALS. There is this pesky little thing called equal access under the law...

3) I assume you meant "brainwashing" and not "brainstorming" and will proceed accordingly. Did you never have a teacher or other adult in your life when you were a teen who you could talk to without fear of judgement? I know I did....my band instructer. He was the kind of person anyone could feel comfortable talking to. He treated us as adults - where our other teachers and our parents didn't and as a result his students had all the admiration in the world for him. It's not that we thought our other teachers "didn't care", it's just that our other teachers did not chose to try to relate to us as he did. Of all of my high school teachers I still remember Mr. Balzer and Frau Tate - because they were cut from the same cloth. The rest of them were all perfectly capable teachers, but they just did not leave the mark that these two did. As an angst ridden teen that kind of outlet is a necessity.

Let me finish with this question. You stated that you felt how an authority figure acts inside and outside the school matters. Have you never campaigned for a school board candidate? Have you never put a sign for a school bonding referendum up in your yard? Or handed out a pro-bonding referendum flyer in your classroom? If so, you are exercising the same speech that you would deny Chris Lind. Why is your speech acceptable and Chris' is not? This is a very important question that everyone needs to answer before we move much further down the road. Are you really ready to say that a Christian employee of the district has no free speech righs?

LL

Molding minds, I can't even begin to see what the objection the school board has to what he said off campus on his own time.

Maybe that is something PL Teacher can help us understand.

LL

Let me say right up front that I applaud Chris being a Christian and living a Christian life. I am also a Christian. So, my argument/opinion on this issue doesn't have anything to do with religion; it has to do with him establishing what I feel is an inappropriate relationship with students that blurs boundry issues.

You asked me:

"You stated that you felt how an authority figure acts inside and outside the school matters. Have you never campaigned for a school board candidate? Have you never put a sign for a school bonding referendum up in your yard? Or handed out a pro-bonding referendum flyer in your classroom?"

The answer to all of those questions is no. Nor have I ever discussed a strike situation with students or their parents. We are instructed not to do that inside the classroom or out. My job is to teach the students, not lobby for their "votes" or try to get them to see things my way. It's my responsibility to give them skills so that they can make their own decisions.

I agree with you--a college degree does not a teacher make. I didn't mean to imply (and I think I might have) that the only people who can help and teach kids in a school are the teachers. Every single person from the top down helps to educate kids every day.

The question Lady Predator has about what the school board has to do with Chris doing these things on his own time is an important one. It is less a matter of doing things off the clock than it is doing things with students. School officials (and I mean everyone here--teachers, admin, secretaries, anybody) need to be extremely careful about their behaviors involving students. I don't socialize with my students. They do not consider me a "friend"--and they shouldn't. There are a number of comments on the petition for Chris that portray a very "us" versus "them" attitude, with Chris on the side of the students against all of the unfair mean teachers who don't care about kids. This is, honestly, quite hurtful. Teenagers are always looking for friends, for acceptance. Adults need to handle that responsibly and I don't think Chris is doing that.

Maybe he isn't doing anything wrong. Maybe he is being the most positive influence on kids, and giving some kids a friend when they need one. But, I'll ask this: wouldn't you want your child's school to at least investigate a staff member who socializes with students out of school, invites them out, runs a myspace page (that he was instructed to take down because of the issues of drugs/alcohol/pornography on student pages he connected with), and fosters an environment that pits your child against his/her teachers? Many, many sexual predators begin doing just this. Chris is NOT a sexual predator, and as far as I know this question has never been raised. But, it is the school's responsibility to investigate anyone who they are responsible for that has interactions with kids.

The fact that this investigation went as public as it did is as a direct result of Chris himself. He has bars on his myspace page with a sign that says "free Chris." He has a webpage up that asks kids to sign his position and fight the school. If he is doing nothing wrong, he needs to let things run their course and things will likely go his way.

Again, it's unfortunate that the argument is coming down to religion. No one is saying "Fire Chris because he's a Christian" or even "Fire Chris because he's advocating abstainance" (though that's how the petition sounds.) He absolutely has freedom of speech, as do we all. But, that freedom has responsibilities that come with it.

Thank you for giving me a voice in this. We will never agree, I'm sure, but I appreciate you giving a balanced view of both sides of the issue. I wish everyone could do that and understand that this is not a witch hunt...at the very core (for both sides) we want our students/children to be protected.

I'm aghast. I thought that surely what was going on here was some sort of sexual predator situation, what with all the hue and cry from... whom, exactly? Apparently the objection here is simply that this person is NOT a teacher, and is interfering with the "molding of young minds" as dictated by the godless State, and it will not be tolerated. The Teachers Union is defending its monopoly not only oh where the child may be educated, but an absolute monopoly on what the child may be taught. I am assuming that no teacher is permitted to teach Sunday School, anywhere?

It seems to me there is a simple test, here. If the objection is to a school district employee meeting children privately in his home-- the "appearance of impropriety"-- that is one thing. If the objection is over the content of those meetings, something the child could and should have gotten from parents, friends, or a youth pastor (if one were allowed in the school), then what we have is the school board violating the first amendment rights of free speech, religious expression, and association, all simultaneously. From what I know about this so far, I would say they are fortunate I'm not one of the parents involved.

PL Teacher - thanks for your thoughtful responses. If you conduct thoughtful dialog like this in your classroom I look forward to the day the Junior Logician is in your class!

"My job is to teach the students, not lobby for their "votes" or try to get them to see things my way. "

You are a rare bird in this school district. All throught elememtary school, whenever there was a referendum, the Junior Logician brought home WEEKLY flyers for the "Stand by Me" campaign. My next door neighbor (also a teacher) has "Stand by Me" campaign signs up in her yard every time there is a referendum. A friend of the family had two daughters that recently graduated from PLHS that had instructors that MOCKED their Catholic faith in the classroom and MOCKED THEM for believing in it! That is one of many reasons why I am skeptical of the boards actions.

"But, I'll ask this: wouldn't you want your child's school to at least investigate a staff member who socializes with students out of school, invites them out..."

I would think that the school district would have done that PRIOR to hiring the employee. If they are not doing complete background checks of employees prior to hiring, they are wrong. Heck, in the industry I work in (telecommunications) I have had several background checks done and I don't deal with the public in person every day. However, once you have done the background check you should not be "monitoring" what your employees do off hours. BUt the parents also bear some responsibility in knowing where their teenager is and with whom, don't you agree?

"runs a myspace page (that he was instructed to take down because of the issues of drugs/alcohol/pornography on student pages he connected with)..."

I cut this in three to give distinct longer answers. Myspace (as I understand it...the Junior Logician does not have one and I have counciled him on the dangers of one) is a site where people can link to you and you may not have that much control over who links to you and you definately have no control over your "friends" content. I see no reason why the district should dictate whether an employee can have a Myspace website. As I said - I wouldn't do it...unless the Junior Logician had one and then I would do it to monitor what he is doing. That is what responsible caring adults do. Yeah the bad guys do it too which is WHY a responsible caring adult should do that! I know a lot of youth pastors who have Myspace pages...as do a number of pop artists. Does that make them pedaphiles or potential pedophiles?

"and fosters an environment that pits your child against his/her teachers?"

Please - teen age life is all about kids being pitted against parents AND teachers! I was considered to be a little Miss Goodie Two-Shoes in HS and I fought with several of my teachers. And we won't even go into what I did to my poor parents! As far as the petition goes why not? If the kids appreciate him and what he means to them let them sign. If not, he might realize that he is not making an impact after all and maybe this is a good time for a career change!

"Chris is NOT a sexual predator, and as far as I know this question has never been raised. "

Actually......I got an email from the superintendent that hinted, not so vaguely, at the accusation. I have talked to others who said that the superintendent actually DID make the accusation clearly. Obviously as I was not privy to those discussions I can not (and will not) say that the accusations were definately made - only that others claim that it was made.

As far as the investigation going public, if you were being wronged, wouldn't YOU go to public with it? Wouldn't YOU stand up and fight for your rights? I would certainly hope you would. Anytime ANY governmental organization tries to take away the rights of the citizens or their employees we should ALL stand up and cry foul! That is what our Founding Fathers did, was it not? Isn't that what led to our fight for independence?

LL

LL, your comments and strong position on this issue clearly show your ignorance of the situation. To be honest, as a Christian teacher, my stomach turned when I saw your headline and read your post. The "Persecuted Christian" angle is almost laughable considering the facts of the case- in fact it would be if there wasn't so many people ready to jump on the bandwagon. I have a few issues with what you have argued:

1. (This is a little off topic) Teachers are licensed professionals- see the DoE website for particulars. So no, Chris is not a teacher. While it is true that children may learn from anyone, we work in a profession that is recognized by the state and has been held in high esteem throughout western culture. Giving your child a cough drop does not make you a Doctor, putting Drano in your sink does not make you a Plumber. I, too, had experiences in college with Ed majors who didn't seem very bright. I still see them, the show up for a couple of years as a sub, then drop out of the profession because either no one will hire them or they aren’t up to the job. They end up back in business. So, stop with the cheep shots at teachers.

2. As for this case, your desire to make this a case about persecution of Christians has caused you to overlook the fundamental reason to why the school is looking to terminate Chris. He is using his position at a publicly funded school to make contacts with children. He continues these contacts on his MySpace page, sometimes initiating contact with students who feel uncomfortable with the situation. He then sets up meetings with children outside the school setting WITHOUT parent consent or knowledge. The complaints have come from parents, not godless liberals (as you would like us to believe). Many students have told me in private that he has made them feel uncomfortable when he has requested to be their "friend" on MySpace. The district administration has been more than patient, giving him numerous warnings about contacting students without parental knowledge, even asking him to remove his MySpace page. Chris has refused to comply.

Regardless of what the meetings are about, we have professional guidelines in which as school employees we need to abide by. One of those is respecting the rights of parents. We should not call students on their cell phones, text message them, send them private emails, or use Internet pages to connect with them. We should for sure not do this without the consent of the child’s parent. This case has much more to do with a school responding to complaints from parents than you are acknowledging.

LL,

Thank you for your compliments...I am surprised that teachers would lobby so strenuously-even to the point of sending flyers home. We are, as I said, instructed by our union to answer questions only if asked and are given information to respond with verbally. Very interesting how different things are at the high school level.

I am appalled that there are teachers who mocked a student's Catholic faith. I do hope that the students' parents called the principal. Teachers have a tremendous amount of independence in the classroom, which leads to both good and bad, and it's important that the principal is notified asap when teachers abuse their authority.

I agree that a background check should be done prior to a staff person being hired, and they are done on all of us. But, as we all know, lots of people "pass" these background checks that should not be around kids. Unfortunately, the system isn't perfect.

In regards to myspace, I am so glad to hear that you are aware of the dangers and have talked to your child about it. I believe the issue was that Lind was not reporting illegal activity that he witnessed (the drugs, alcohol, etc.) which, as mandated resporters, we are all required to do. Certainly he cannot control what his "friends" put on their pages.

Teens vs. parents/teachers. Of course, teens pit themselves against parents as a part of life. But, I think it's irresponsible for an adult to encourage this and support the 'us' vs. 'them' atmosphere I am seeing. I would never, ever say a bad word against a fellow teacher or a parent to students, even when I think they might be doing totally the wrong thing. If I thought someone was doing something very wrong, I would suggest resources for the student to seek out--or seek them out myself. It is beyond my comprehension for an adult to sink down to a level of belittling other coworkers.

I had not heard about the insinuation of Lind being a sexual predator. I know him and though I strongly disagree with his actions, I do not believe that he has physically crossed any lines. What I know is that after his first suspension earlier this year, he was given a list of behaviors to change and he elected to not change those behaviors. I, like you, was not a part of any direct meetings so my information is second/third hand. I am surprised that this question has come up--I have seen many things first hand that Lind has done that I disagree with, but none of them have been even remotely sexual in nature.

Would I fight if I had been wronged? Absolutely. I thought about this after you asked, and I think it's more HOW he's fighting then THAT he is fighting.

The good that I see coming out of this, whether Lind stays or goes, is that students are fighting FOR something. I remember participating in a "sit in" in 1991 to protest Desert Storm, and it felt really good to be a part of a protest. I also appreciate that students are using appropriate means to express their disagreement with what is happening (I just wish that they could limit their comments to "I like Chris" rather than "Chris is great and all of the other teachers are unfair, rude, etc."

And yes, yay for dialog! When constructive and two way, I think we all win.

PL2 - did you even bother to read any of the comments and clarifications that went back and forth between PLT1 and myself. You would see (if you had read those remarks) that you were the one that was way off base.

PL1 - as you read from PL2's comments, the accusations ARE out there. Having known Chris for almost 14 years, I know he would not do anything untoward like that. I would trust him with the Junior Logician and I don't say that lightly or of just anyone I know. I know more than a few adults that I would not trust with my child.

PL2 - as far as who made the complaint, one of the Press outlets covering this was told that the complaint did not come from parents or students...it came from a fellow teacher! I DO NOT KNOW THIS TO BE FACT! I am simply telling you what the reporter called me to verify. I could not verify it so the reporter went on to call someone else who may have known. Obviously the school board and Chris are not going to say upon advise of lawyers - we should all understand and appreciate that!

Regarding the Catholic bashing - I don't recall if the parents complained or not. Knowing the father the way I do, if he knew about the situation he would have complained. The fact that his middle daughter experienced the same thing a couple of years later....

Regarding the petition, I heard a couple of the students who were speaking to the press after the last school board meeting say that it was THEIR decision to start the petition - not Chris'.

Now here is the point where you and I agree more than you can imagine. It is SO VERY GOOD for these kids to get fired up about things like this. It gets them thinking critically about the world around them. It also gets them thinking about the process. As a political junkie, if this means that these kids show up for the caucuses in March SPLENDID! What could be better than getting our teenagers involved in their future?

Stick around PL1 - you just might find more that we agree on!

To all my teacher friends out there, enjoy your summer and see you next fall (ok - except for my neighbor who I see every day...)

LL

Christian" because that is what it boils down too. If Chris passed out some GLSEN materials not a word have been said.

The facts are an employee does *not* lose his free speech rights not even at a public school.

If Chris's MySpace is not in bad taste then he isn't doing anything wrong. BTW his MySpace page is "private" which means it's contents is not viewable by the general public.

Lady Predator....one of the two teachers mentioned possible "illegal" activity on one of the friends pages that should have been reported. One thing that should be asked in light of your comments is how does anyone know who Chris' MySpace friends are if his page is private? One question to be asked of him is has the page always been private or was it open at one time to the general public?

However, the one thing that puzzles me regarding the supposedly illegal content on the linked page. How does anyone know that activity really took place? I think we all know stories of people on the internet claiming to do things that they didn't do or who claim to be things and people that they are not. There is time when judgement has to come into play. If you know the person in question and based on that knowledge you believe that the act is "staged" are you really required to report it?

That is a question that I hope one of our PL Teachers will answer for us.

LL

Cache, which mean it has been private for a long time so the only people who can see his page are those who he lets be friends. I think his MySpace stuff is just wild and unfounded speculation.

A few comments:

First, I do appreciate the dialog that you are allowing. However, understand that it is easy to get defensive while responding to the charge that the school that I work so hard for is guilty of "persecution." A hefty charge, considering the amount of real persecution there is happening in the world. So I apologize if my postups sound defensive and confrontational. Understand that I am as interested as you are in working this issue out. So, here goes:

"PL2 - did you even bother to read any of the comments and clarifications that went back and forth between PLT1 and myself. You would see (if you had read those remarks) that you were the one that was way off base. "

Umm, well I did read every word. About 5 times. The title of the post is still "Persecution of Christians UPDATE." I am arguing that you are off base when you claim that he is being fired because he is a Christian. That is just simply not true- and in fact rather intellectually lazy. He is being fired because he has initiated personal contact with children without parental approval, numerous times. You and others are defending him because he is a Christian, and that is just fine- part of me thinks it is noble. But remember that, you are defending him because you know him and you know he is a Christian. You would not be defending a custodian who calls your child on his cell phone to ask them to hang out at his house to watch R rated movies without your knowledge. I am just asking for consistency. The logic behind your argument is that since you support what he is saying, then his actions are ok. Parents should have the right to determine what they think is ok. I am a little disappointed that you are failing to recognize parental rights here, clearly a fundamental conservative issue.

"PL2 - as far as who made the complaint, one of the Press outlets covering this was told that the complaint did not come from parents or students...it came from a fellow teacher!"

That is interesting, it is my understanding that there has been at least one parental complaint- if not more. I would like to know that information. I do know that over time, there have been numerous complaints about the behavior of Chris. But what is not disputed is that in some cases, parents did not consent or in some cases even have knowlege of Chris' contact with their children.

"as you read from PL2's comments, the accusations ARE out there."

Nowhere in my postup did I accuse Chris of anything. I simply stated the facts of the case. He does contact students without parent knowledge or consent. He does meet students outside of school without parental consent. Students have told me that he "creeps them out" when he has requested that they be his "friend" on MySpace. None of what he has done is illegal. I know Chris, I do not believe he has done anything illegal. However, as an employee of the school, I also know our professional limits. I believe his actions have crossed them and warrant his firing.

"However, the one thing that puzzles me regarding the supposedly illegal content on the linked page. How does anyone know that activity really took place? I think we all know stories of people on the Internet claiming to do things that they didn't do or who claim to be things and people that they are not. There is time when judgment has to come into play."

The law is pretty straightforward. If we come across knowledge of illegal behavior we have to report it. However, you raise a good point, if I am in class and I hear a student joke about drugs, I can use discretion. But on MySpace many students will post pictures of them drinking or using drugs. Or in the message board there will be comments made by students referring to specific times of drug use or alcohol use. In that case the evidence is pretty clear. It would be required by law to be reported. I have no evidence or knowledge if that was actually something that is in play here. However, I do believe that it was part of an earlier disciplinary action regarding Chris.

"I'm glad she used the term "Persecuted Christian" because that is what it boils down too. If Chris passed out some GLSEN materials not a word have been said."

I agree, and if he would have only passed out Christian materials nothing would be said either. In fact, I think you would be surprised how many active Christian teachers there are at PLHS. Enough to put the persecution argument to rest. However, if he used his connections at school to initiate contact with children without parental approval, then met with them to discuss GLSEN views. He would meet the same fate. And my guess is that Lady Predator would be cheering that decision. How is that for consistency?

He has a MySpace page, ask any student at PLHS- they will tell you in detail. This is something he has even validated in an interview with the school newspaper last year. It is private, which meens the only people that can access the page are his "friends" which includes a large number of students at PLHS. You, I and the parents of the children can not access the page. Do you see why some parents may be concerned about that?

and lets not forget, I have had more than one student tell me that he has solicited them to be his "friend" on MySpace by sending them a "friend request."

But how do you know based on a picture on a web page that the behavior has really happened? That is the million dollar question!

Regarding discussions of GLSEN views - would the same be true if the discussion were on campus?

PL2 - I ask this in all sincerety....suppose (for the sake of argument) both Chris and I were practicing Muslims and he met with these kids to discuss Islam. Would you be as offended by the use of the word persecution? Or if either of us were members of the SMSC Tribal community and we were talking about that culture? Would you be as concerned with my choice of words? These are not questions I ask lightly or blithely. I ask because these are questions that we all must ask ourselves everytime we interact with someone else. Are we allowing our "prejudices" to color our words?

You may say that I am allowing my "prejudices" to color my comments and you may have a point. However, given that Christian youth pastors are routinely denied access to the PL public schools while Islamic Imams and Native American shamans are allowed in gives me pause to think that there is some prejudice in process. I would simply and respectfully request that if one is allowed (the Imam or the shaman) then the Buddhist monk or the Christian youth pastor should also be allowed. THUS the thought process behind the words used.

I hope that clarifies.

LL

Last spring Lind's (and many students') myspace pages were public. Lind uses his site for expressing his religious views, which no one took issue with (as far as I know). The concern came up with student athletes and activity participants in which alcohol/drug/cigarette consumption is prohibited according to MSHSL (Minnesota State High School League) rules.

Lind was told to set his site to private, which he did. Many students, upon finding out that their teachers were reading about their illegal activities, also set their pages to private. Parents, please please PLEASE look at your child's myspace page. I guarantee they have one.

The objection is one that I faced myself earlier this year when several students stumbled upon my blog. I was also called into the principal's office and when the principal found out that not only do I not give out my blog address to students, I deny that I have a blog if students ask, he asked me to keep in mind that students read the site when writing my content. I said okay and I haven't heard a word since.

Some of these minute differences between what is allowed and what is not in a school system is something that is hard for many people to understand. Having a myspace page: fine. Having a myspace page where all of your friends are teenagers and you are in your forties: not fine.

As I understand MySpace, the reason for having a private page is protection. It is a way to keep real PREDATORS from seeing your child or their friends. No one has said that he denied having the page. What we are saying is that there is nothing inherently nefarious for an adult to have a MySpace page. A lot of people do have them.

As far as the "solicitation" to be a MySpace friend, that is part of on-line life. While I do not (as I said earlier) have a MySpace page, I do have an instant messenger ID - both AOL and Yahoo. I use one for work and one for personal use. Both ID's get "solicitations" to allow others access to my list. The work list solicitation is obviously a person that I work with that I need to communicate with. The Yahoo one gets a lot of hits from people that I marginally know or that I don't know. Those routinely get denied. Both instant messeging and MySpace are networking sites. Networking, by it's very defination requires contact with others! If you are a wise on-line user (something I am trying to instill into the Junior Logician) you watch who you give your information out to - it is again a protection against the real predators that are out there.

LL

"Networking, by it's very defination requires contact with others! If you are a wise on-line user (something I am trying to instill into the Junior Logician) you watch who you give your information out to"

Exactly. An adult school employee contacting a child without parental consent is not illegal. I have never claimed that it is. However, it is inapproprate- which is what PL Teacher has pointed out very succinctly in her last post. I have no problem with an adult, heck even a school employee having a MySpace page. But using it to Initiate contact with students crosses the line.

"I ask this in all sincerety....suppose (for the sake of argument) both Chris and I were practicing Muslims and he met with these kids to discuss Islam. Would you be as offended by the use of the word persecution?"

Yes. Because there are millions of people in the world who are actually being persecuted. To equate this to Ethinic Hmong being exiled out of Thiland or Black Sudanese Christians being slaughtered in Darfur is ridiculous and shameful.

The legal defination of persecution: The infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive.

In a community where over 90% of the population is Christian, a school in which around 80% of the students and staff are Christian. I believe all of the district office, administration and school board are all Christians as well. It is hard to argue that there is a systematic effort to inflict suffering or harm on Christians. If there is, who is inflicting it? Where is the all-powerful puppetmaster who is directing this persecution?

"As I understand MySpace, the reason for having a private page is protection. It is a way to keep real PREDATORS from seeing your child or their friends."

It is also a way to keep parents from seeing their child's page and their child's friends' pages. Thus making it very difficult for a parent to monitor the online actions of their kids. It is easy to deny having a MySpace page if your parents can not find out if you have one.

Also, lets remember children trust adults at school. As I have stated, I believe Chris is not a bad person. However, allowing staff members to contact students privately, without parental consent could in the future open up an oppertunity for a predetor. There is a reason PL teacher and I have spoken out so strongly against this.

"But how do you know based on a picture on a web page that the behavior has really happened?"

A picture of a kid holding a beer is usually pretty conclusive evidence that minor possession has happened. Pictures of kids taking keg stands. Postups about how awesome it was getting drunk last night. Pictures of kids holding pipes. All pretty damning.

I know this sounds crazy, but they are there.

But this is all really beside the point. Again, I do not believe this has anything to do with the latest complaint.

We seem to be afflicted with either a dearth of information, or conflicting dearths of information. Frankly, though, I have no trust in any school board when it comes to finding the truth, much less giving it to the average citizen. I think we have to concentrate, at this point, on getting all of the facts known, and then apply whatever principles we believe are relevant to the actual situation. LL is correct, that if all he did was tell students things that the godless State doesn't want them to know, he should keep his job and the school board should be fired. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that school systems have been on the front lines of the anti-religion battles.

I agree to an extent with the first part of your post. Your post would have been valid if you would have stopped half way. You argue that we should wait for detail to come out before making an informed decsion. But then you continue with your own idle speculation:

"if all he did was tell students things that the godless State doesn't want them to know, he should keep his job and the school board should be fired."

I am fine with you having pre-held assumptions of how schools approach religion. You are entitled to that opinion. But I have a hard time being lectured on speculation in the same post in which the person is speculating. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone with actual information on this case to agree that "all he did was tell students things the godless State doesnt want them to know." There is very little evidence that your speculation is actually the case.

Using the term persecution in the Chris Lind situation is completely outlandish. I sense quite a bit of "poor me" mentality with this situation, which is too bad when we are all adults. Chris is an adult and therefore should be able to make adult decisions while considering the consequences at the same time. It does not matter what the content is that he is trying to pass along to our children. What matters is that he is, as an adult, soliciting relationships with students without parental consent or knowledge in most cases. As an adult, if Chris would like to share his thoughts to children and spread Christianity then a proper forum should have been thought out. Starting a youth group, obtaining a counseling license and working through a local church, contacting parents FIRST by offerring them the opportunity to be aware of his intentions and allowing parents to work with their children to then make decisions together to meet with Chris outside of school would have all been more positive and proper decisions rather than using a public school and MYSpace to build inappropriate relationships with young kids. As a parent I would feel extremely uncomfortable with ANY adult pursuing friendships with my teenager without contacting me first and explaining their intentions. As a parent I would also find it highly offensive that he, again without my consent, would push his thoughts on morality and lifestyle choices onto my children whenever he feels it to be convenient. This behavior from an adult is not acceptable.

Lady Predator, you reference the treatment Chris may have received had he been passing out GLSEN materials and how you doubt no action would have been made then. That is not the situation. The situation is that he is contacting children in an inappropriate fashion without the consent of parents and without an organized and approved manner.

What you also need to remember is that minorities such as those who belong to GLSEN are treated unfairly every single day by closed minded people. Students of minority should feel safe in public school and should not have to worry about an adult in the school approaching them about personal topics. This behavior from Chris again is inappropriate. This is not his role at the school. His role is Campus Supervisor, which means, directing students to where they need to be, giving students messages from the office, helping with attendance issues, NOT discussing morality choices that are HIS opinion. As I said above, if that is what he would like to do then he needs to find the proper forum to do so. Not using the public school system, where there is separation of church and state, to build "secret" relationships with students regardless of the content. I say "secret" because he does not contact parents first, he does not ask students first if they would like to talk, he takes it upon himself to approach students whenever he feels like it and that is not okay.

Lastly, the comments about how Christian pastors are not allowed to come to the school, yet Imams are is completely false and shows the immediate closed mindedness you have and the decision you have made to make this about religion when it should not be. In fact, there have been several speakers that have entered through our doors that have been Christian. Let me give you several examples. First, just this year, SADD invited a psychiatrist (whose name I will keep private), who is quite well known in the Christian community and who Chris Lind knows personally, to speak to the entire school about positive decisions and positive relationships. He was quite successful in talking to the entire student body. Second, a few years ago the school also had a Christian pastor from the Prior Lake community come in and talk about living in Israel during a very turmultuous time for the country and what it was like having friends on both sides of the struggle and he being in the middle. Third, last year two speakers came to speak to sophomores about real persecution, one was a Holocaust survivor, and the other was a young man from Egypt whose village was burned because of actual persecutions of Christians taking place in his country and he had to flee to Kenya again let me stress because he was Christian. I have just given you three examples in the past three years of where Christians have in fact been invited to come into the school to talk about their experiences, etc. So please do not use this "poor me" "poor christian" mentality which is clearly not happening and clearly not the reason why Chris Lind has been asked to change his behaviors.

I will comment later dear teachers. I am running to events for the Junior Logician until almost 9 tonight!

LL

PL2: My "opinion" is not based on speculation at all, but personal experience and a wide range of reports of schools being openly hostile to religious expression, Christianity most particularly. Thanks to the questions you have raised, I fully intend to withhold judgement until all the facts are known, IF the school will permit them to be known. Again, my experience has been that these "persecutions" are often shoved behind closed doors, lest they be seen for what they are. We shall see if we shall see.

PLP: You are not dissuading me from my bias by saying that "Christians" have indeed been allowed to enter the school. What you have described is not a religious person speaking about their religious precepts, principles, or moral choices-- quite the opposite.

The "separation of church and state" that you describe is intended to separate Christian children from their faith and instead indoctrinate them in the state's secular religion. If the schools would simply ignore all values teaching, or deliberately teach the common values of hard work, respect, and honesty, that would be one thing. But to have Christian values specifically contradicted, and to disallow any reinforcement of the parents' teachings, is the obvious norm in the public schools.

I don't normally post from work, but I was at lunch when I came across this on the Star Tribune's website.

http://www.startribune.com/south/story/1239595.html

THEIR synopsis is that the action is because of Chris' faith AND it also lays to rest the idea that Chris met with these students without parental permission. It flat out says that Chris would call the parents for permission to meet with the kids.

There is definatly more to this story than the school board is letting on.

LL

LL says: "AND it also lays to rest the idea that Chris met with these students without parental permission. It flat out says that Chris would call the parents for permission to meet with the kids."

Umm, no it doesn't. Not even close. The article actually confirms with Chris's own words what I have been saying on here the entire time. Here is the quote:

"Lind says he would meet with students "maybe once" without parents' knowledge but would call parents for permission to mentor their children beyond that point."

He was meeting with children (at the very least for the first time) WITHOUT parental consent. Only after the meetings continued would he call parents. He has unequivocally validated what I have posted.

Also, he did NOT have parental consent when he would solicit students to be his "friend" on MySpace, thus opening lines of communication with minors without consent of parents. Again, not illegal, but clearly inappropriate.

I will say that the Trib article seems much more balanced and based on fact than the PL American article. The author at least followed through with some other sources than Chris and his supporters.

"A picture of a kid holding a beer is usually pretty conclusive evidence that minor possession has happened. Pictures of kids taking keg stands. Postups about how awesome it was getting drunk last night. Pictures of kids holding pipes. All pretty damning."

But do you know if the kid drank that beer? How do you know the kid didn't take that picture while he was helping pick up cans that adults consumed? Do you know for sure what they are drinking? You can surmise, but you do not know for sure. I remember (ok - admission of severe lameness coming up) how a friend of mine and I "conspired" to make a concoction of Hall's Mentholyptis and water to fool younger kid into thinking we were drinking schnaps or some such thing. Going by your characterizations, someone should have reported me to the police instead of telling me (and my friend) what a bloody stupid thing that was to do (which is what my mother did).

Look - I readily admit that we have a teen alcohol problem here in the district. I remember how many of our students were arrested after partying on the Apple River a couple of years back. However, PICTURES alone are not conclusive evidence of anything. If they were, we would all be in be in big trouble because I am sure we ALL have pictures that were taken in the past that were not a complete and accurate depiction of what was happening.

LL

As an alumna of PLHS ('02) and member of Chris' church while I lived in Prior Lake, I am saddened to hear of this incident. Although, I completely agree with a staff person's right to form relationships with students (who's really against that anyway?) I am concerned about the supposed comments made about lesbians and made directly to students, especially if they were unsolicited. As a Christian, it doesn't matter how much you disagree with someone or something, it is never okay to make them or a community the subject of jokes. This is bigotry & harassment. Most importantly, this does NOT honor Christ whom we claim to serve. Second, I am concerned that Christians are so quick to point to religous freedom instead of being concerned whether these things were said. When we or one of ours is wrong we need to take responsibility for it.
Many will read this and label me as "liberal", shake their heads, & probably think to themselves, "I bet she doesn't believe in the Bible either" or "I'll pray for her". But we must remember who is our neighbor. Chris is our neighbor. Those students, still young & impressionable, & vulnerable due to their age, are also our neighbors. Gay men & lesbian women are our neighbors. We must absolutely defend even those we do not agree with simply because of their dignity as human beings. This does not mean joining their clubs, marching with them, or inviting them over for dinner (although, if we did we would be a lot more like Jesus who ate & spent time with people the religious community of his time would not even go near!)

Shame on us when we isolate others from the genuine love of Christ. As Christians we have done it to African-Americans in this country, been party to the slaughter of others who are different throughout the centuries...And whether we were there or not we must claim responsibility & learn to apologize.

"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and ther remember that your brother has something against you, leave you offering there beofre the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come present your offering."

PLT1 said:

“Since when are school personnel not judged on their behavior outside of school? Do we not fire sexual predators from schools if they have only preyed on the children at their homes on their own time?”

PLT2 said:

“You would not be defending a custodian who calls your child on his cell phone to ask them to hang out at his house to watch R rated movies without your knowledge. I am just asking for consistency.”

I find it curious that Lind’s Christian faith has been likened to pedophilia and the viewing of naughty movies.

PLT2 said:

“In a community where over 90% of the population is Christian, a school in which around 80% of the students and staff are Christian. I believe all of the district office, administration and school board are all Christians as well. It is hard to argue that there is a systematic effort to inflict suffering or harm on Christians.”

We all know there is a difference between a Christian and a CHRISTIAN (read: born again, fundamentalist, Bible thumper, etc.). CHRISTIANS, the kind that take the Great Commission seriously and act upon it, are bound to be treated differently. However, I also squirm a bit at the use of the word “persecution” in Lind’s situation. I think of Voice of the Martyrs when I think of religious persecution, and I don’t anticipate seeing Lind’s picture on the cover anytime soon. On the other hand, losing one’s job is surely a harm and a hardship. And if one believes Lind’s termination was based in part on his faith (or at least on his unwillingness to not act on that faith in his workplace) – that seems to technically fit the bill for religious persecution.

PL Professional said:

“What you also need to remember is that minorities such as those who belong to GLSEN are treated unfairly every single day by closed minded people.”

I think this precisely makes the point of the Lind supporters. Homosexuality (and sexual licentiousness in general) is seen as some kind of near-virtue by many in the employ of today’s public school system. Gays, lesbians, transgenders… are seen as a slighted minority. They need to be protected by “safe zones”. The “closed minded people” (read: CHRISTIANS) and – most importantly – their children need to be reprogrammed to tolerate (read: accept and embrace) these “alternate lifestyles”.

This is why Lind is (was) at Prior Lake High School. This is why many like Lind are in public high schools across the country. The public school system in many areas has drifted so far away from the traditional Judeo-Christian values still held by the vast majority of Americans, that many feel the need to infiltrate the system with these values through some back channel (e.g. by becoming a coach or a campus supervisor).

Personally, I think the entire situation is a symptom of the larger problem with forced public education. If the “closed minded people” (or those within this group that cannot afford to pay for private school and outrageous property taxes – the bulk of which funds public schools) could opt out and send their children elsewhere, the Lind situation, and countless others like it, would never transpire.

I don’t think those in the public school system realize how much harm they do themselves with this kind of action. Right or wrong (and I am not completely unsympathetic with PLT1’s argument), by firing Lind, the Prior Lake/Savage School District is only reinforcing the notion in the minds of many “closed minded people” that public schools are not hospitable places for CHRISTIAN children. This will only fuel the exodus of children from public schools into home-schooling and private/parochial schools. I believe this growing exodus will eventuate in a demand by those who cannot afford to finance public school and alternative schooling for some type of voucher system.

My chief gripe with the Lind situation is not that he was disciplined, but that others in similar situations are not. I distinctly remember a particular science teacher (1997-ish) having a stack of explicitly anti-Christian literature (Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am Not a Christian” among them) placed prominently on the front of his desk. I remember that same teacher having non-scientific discussions with like-minded (atheist) students before and after class. I remember that same teacher telling a joke at the end of one class: He was standing with his arms outstretched in a Christ/Crucifix pose and said, “Hey Peter, I can see your house from up here!” He said this loudly in front of a class of about 25 students. I was pretty thick-skinned, and not traumatized by the joke. However, I remember a female senior friend of mine in that class who was brought to tears.

This chap was not reprimanded (to my knowledge – this was in my junior year at PLHS, and I never heard of any discipline through my senior year). I have a very difficult time accepting that Lind would have been terminated had he been seeking out GLBT students and encouraging them to pursue their “alternate lifestyles”. I don’t believe it is unreasonable to deduce that Lind was terminated, not because of his “inappropriate” contacts with students (though I admit that argument can be made), but because of the nature of those contacts.

You need to get your story straight. Lind was fired because he told students it was pick on lesbians day. He's not the victim you and he make him out to be. He hides behind being a "Christian" and had tried to make is firing over religion instead of his bad behavior. Now he sits on the school board that fired him and is still threatening to sue the school board. Obviously, he isn't on the school board to help improve the schools but to fatten his own pocketbook. Shame on you Chris Lind, your the kind who give Christians a bad name.

A Christian who is does not support Chris Lind!

My dear Ssmith....the FACTS according to the head of human resources for the school district is that Mr. Lind was fired for insubordination (for not taking down the MySpace page). The FACTS according to Superintendent Westerhouse is that Chris Lind was fired FOR INSUBORDINATION for not agreeing to the districts demand that he not work in any youth ministry where he could have contact with any past, present or future PLHS Student. The FACTS according to the reports in the local paper are that Mr. Lind was fired for insubordination.

So tell me how is it that I, in light of what everything that the school board has said IN IT'S OFFICIAL CAPACITIES as an employer and as an accountable public entity, don't have my facts straight?

LL

Mayhaps you should re-read Matthew 7:1 before you go getting all judgmental on folks. You DON'T know what Chris' motivations are. You DON'T KNOW that he is only there to "fatten" his wallet. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.....

LL