Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dune on April 24, 2003, 11:10:38 AM
-
I heard about this case on the radio. From KDKA TV (http://kdka.com/local/local_story_114110626.html)
Teacher's Aide Suspended for Wearing Cross
Apr 24, 2003 10:16 am US/Eastern
(AP) (Glen Campbell, PA) A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.
"I got suspended April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in," said Brenda Nichol, 43, of Indiana County.
Officials at ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 wouldn't comment on Nichol's case specifically, but said their employee handbook is based on the school code and prohibits all employees from wearing religious garb. ARIN supplies teachers aides and other services to 11 school districts and two technical schools in Armstrong and Indiana counties.
Nichol acknowledges she was told of the prohibition as far back as 1997, and was warned twice since March that wearing the necklace was cause for suspension. Under the school code, she could be fired for a second offense.
"I think the public needs to know that there is a code out there that is against our freedom," Nichol said. She has enlisted the help of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public-interest law firm founded in 1990 by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. The group plans, but has not yet filed, a federal court lawsuit.
"We get cases about teachers' rights to religious expression in school all the time, whether they can have a Bible on their desk or religious artifacts in their office," said Vincent McCarthy, senior counsel at the ACLJ's office in New Milford, Conn. "What usually happens is we send a demand letter and the case is resolved. They rarely if ever go to court."
"Where the line is drawn is when what the teacher wears or has with them ... has reached the point where you could say it becomes an endorsement of a particular religion by the school," McCarthy said. He doesn't believe that happened in Nichol's case.
But ARIN's executive director, Robert H. Coad Jr., believes the school's policy is reasonable and based on firm legal ground.
Coad said the law is meant to protect people of all faiths from being offended. The same law would prohibit a teacher from wearing a pendant or emblem related to witchcraft, for example.
"How would the people of our community deal with people wearing such things in a public school classroom?" Coad said.
The state's religious garb prohibition was passed in 1895 and incorporated into the school code when it was established in 1949. It has since been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Coad said.
In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia - backed by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf and long, loose dress. The EEOC said that would have been a "reasonable accommodation" of her religious faith, but the appeals court disagreed in 1990, saying "the preservation of religious neutrality (in public schools) is a compelling state interest."
A similar law in Oregon was upheld by that state's Supreme Court in 1986 for the same reasons, according to The First Amendment Center, a constitutional rights group that is part of the Freedom Forum.
Still, that group - in "A Teacher's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools" - suggests teachers probably still have the right "to wear non-obtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or Star of David. But teachers should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g., a 'Jesus Saves' T-shirt)."
McCarthy thinks the whole question is ridiculous considering the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, signed into law in 2000 by then-President Clinton. Among other things, the law also protects the right of inmates to wear religious garb - like Muslim skull caps - in prisons that receive federal money.
"Under (that law) prisoners have more freedom to express themselves by their garb than school teachers," McCarthy said.
So what is your opinion? She wasn't trying to convert anyone. She wasn't spreading the Gospel. She was just wearing a small gold Cross like who knows how many other people wear every day. So, should she have been disciplined for violating the seperation of church and state clause, or is this PC run wild?
And if you feel that she should have been punnished, would you feel the same if she was a Muslim and wearing a Crescent? Or Jewish and wearing a Star of David? Or Bhuddist and wearing a small Bhudda? Or Wiccan and wearing a pentagram?
-
I think a one year suspension for wearing a cross is just as ridiculous as her unwillingness to tuck it under her shirt.
-
Wow, that's messed up. So much for religious freedom. :(
-
I don't want my child to have a teacher that advertises religious affiliation. It has no place in the school system. Kids are much more impressionable then adults.
Please note, she had gotten warnings, so there's no room for outrage, she knew exactly what would happen.
In regards to your statement, funkedup, this nation enjoys the freedom to follow the religion of their choice. Tell me, if a practicing Baalist teacher wanted to wear a necklace of human bones and smear ceremonial blood on his/her face while teaching, would you be as upset at his/her right to practice their religion being stifled?
-
You sure youre from LA? :D
-
"Burn the Witch!"
The same law would prohibit a teacher from wearing a pendant or emblem related to witchcraft, for example.
I wonder if the ACLJ would be helping a devil worshiper.
-
Hey, I got an idea. Maybe we could arrange for the government to return some of the money taken from taxpayers for education. Then these taxpayers could use their money to provide the sort of education, religious or not, that they want for their progeny. I've even thought up a name, we'll call 'em vouchers.
Wonder why no one has thought of this? :confused:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Hey, I got an idea. Maybe we could arrange for the government to return some of the money taken from taxpayers for education. Then these taxpayers could use their money to provide the sort of education, religious or not, that they want for their progeny. I've even thought up a name, we'll call 'em vouchers.
Wonder why no one has thought of this? :confused:
Hey, great idea! That will put our tax dollars into the hands of the Pat Robertsons of the world to be used for building big, gold plated, diamond studded schools! But first, tax the churches.
"Remember, there's a difference between kneeling down and bending over!"
Frank Zappa
-
Seems to me the Christian Church is always the one with the problem of Separation.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Hey, great idea! That will put our tax dollars into the hands of the Pat Robertsons of the world to be used for building big, gold plated, diamond studded schools! But first, tax the churches.
"Remember, there's a difference between kneeling down and bending over!"
Frank Zappa
What's with the "our" tax dollars. I'd rather decide where mine goes and let you do the same with yours. Even if it means giving it to Pat.
-
Hey AKIron,
What about people who don't have kids? Should they be able to withhold the amount of tax money that goes to schools? That seems to be the logical extension of your idea.
Religious schools are fine, as long as they are privately funded.
-
First reaction is... what a load... it's just one small piece of jewelry.
On second thought... Christians would probably have a fit if the teacher was wearing a Pentagram or some other pagan religious symbol.
It's a weak point to make. As I understand it.. the teacher was suspended for failing to comply with a school policy. If she's dead set on being able to wear a visible religious symbol, she should consider going to work for a private religious school.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hey AKIron,
What about people who don't have kids? Should they be able to withhold the amount of tax money that goes to schools? That seems to be the logical extension of your idea.
Religious schools are fine, as long as they are privately funded.
Everyone must support the future of our country by paying taxes for education. Maybe those without school age kids should be allowed to pick an educational institution to which their tax dollars would go.
I'm not advocating theft here. Any school that wishes to receive this money should be required to meet state standards.
I think most private schools exceed state standards and probably provide a better, more in-depth education than public schools. Why deprive those unable to afford them that advantage?
-
we can barely afford to keep public schools afloot, how are vouchers going to change that? what about the poor kids that get vouchers but cannot afford additional costs that the "better" private schools would charge.
Its a hoockey system that courts keep deeming unconstitutional.
-
I think vouchers are a slippery slope to the further seperation of the haves and the have nots.
1. Assuming that a voucher will completely pay for a private school education is folly.
2. The money that used to go to the public schools will be diverted to the voucher program.
3. We would reap much more from improving the existing school systems and mandating a challenging curriculum.
-
oh and democracy is all about compromise, ill support vouchers if we tax and disclose the income of every religous organization in the country.
(btw one of the big supporters of vouchers in florida are the scinotologists, do you really want these guys getting our cash)
-
I suspect many of these schools cannot meet minimum levels of quality in education when they teach the Creationist line as fact.
If my child went to a school that taught that pi was exactly equal to 3 and 2+2=5, nobody would argue with me when I criticized the quality of teaching. But suddenly it's ok to have my tax money go to organizations that cram hogwash into the impressionable minds of the people that will grow up to doctor my children, build the planes they fly in, and lead the country they live in?
-
Many public schools are failing to teach kids to read, and many high school grads probably coudn't tell you what pi is or represents, much less it's value.
I don't think a bit of creationism will hurt their ability to be productive members of society.
-
OK, so we give vouchers so your kids can go to a better school. What happens when EVERYONE sends their kids to that school? You wind up with the same kids, different building.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I suspect many of these schools cannot meet minimum levels of quality in education when they teach the Creationist line as fact.
If my child went to a school that taught that pi was exactly equal to 3 and 2+2=5, nobody would argue with me when I criticized the quality of teaching. But suddenly it's ok to have my tax money go to organizations that cram hogwash into the impressionable minds of the people that will grow up to doctor my children, build the planes they fly in, and lead the country they live in?
Non-sequiteur. You can't equate math with the theory of how the universe was created. Since both "creationism" and the "big bang" are theory, both have room for discussion in the classroom. As does the possibility that both may apply if viewed in a different light. Christians have managed to correctly teach math all along.
Are you really scared to death of people in medical and professional positions that are Christian? Then it's a good thing that not all Christians "cram their faith down your throat" since you probably have more intimate dealings with them than you're aware of. Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian.
As to what schools can and cannot meet minimum standards, it's becoming all too evident that the public school system cannot meet the minimum standards under the guidance of the state and it's attempt to educate our children in an atmosphere devoid of both discipline and moral guidance and as such some states are actually dropping their standards, whereas most of the private schools, a majority of which are Christian, are able to maintain a decent level of education.
I'm afraid it's fairly evident that your reasoning is tainted by bias.
:D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What's with the "our" tax dollars. I'd rather decide where mine goes and let you do the same with yours. Even if it means giving it to Pat.
Hey, another hot idea! I'll not have any of mine used for Dubya's mideast conquests, thank you very much.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Hey, another hot idea! I'll not have any of mine used for Dubya's mideast conquests, thank you very much.
Don't worry ... yours were probably used for vouchers.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
OK, so we give vouchers so your kids can go to a better school. What happens when EVERYONE sends their kids to that school? You wind up with the same kids, different building.
All my kids are grown, but I do have 6 grandkids. I went to a public school and so did all 4 of my kids. We all got a decent education. However, not all public schools make that available.
I'd like for my grandkids to get the best education available, and that's more likely at a private school. One of my daughters can afford it but the other can't.
To answer your question, the difference would be the standards, both for the students and also the teachers. And if I don't like the standards I can find a school where I do.
-
Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian.
This is not true.
I'm afraid it's fairly evident that your reasoning is tainted by bias.
:o
-
Erlkonig quotes me saying to Chairboy:
Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian.
(I'm afraid it's fairly evident that your reasoning is tainted by bias.)
Then Erlkonig replies:
This is not true.
I'm afraid it's fairly evident that your reasoning is tainted by bias.
:o
Actually my reasoning is based on the knowledge of what Christ taught his followers to believe. If you prefer to call this bias, fine by me. Perhaps you don't believe in Christ, in the Christian Bible or the Christian views on the afterlife. That's fine. To make that a reason to avoid dealings with Christians due to their belief and morals seems quite bizarre from my perspective. But, of course, it's your choice. And it's a bias. I never claimed I had no bias ... just that I can't understand the basis for yours. :D
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
You sure youre from LA? :D
im from Los Angeles an it seems to me that people here have no religion except the people who immigrated here to los angeles in less than 3 years.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Actually my reasoning is based on the knowledge of what Christ taught his followers to believe. If you prefer to call this bias, fine by me. Perhaps you don't believe in Christ, in the Christian Bible or the Christian views on the afterlife. That's fine. To make that a reason to avoid dealings with Christians due to their belief and morals seems quite bizarre from my perspective. But, of course, it's your choice. And it's a bias. I never claimed I had no bias ... just that I can't understand the basis for yours. :D
That's okay, my reasoning is based on daily consultations with a tea leaf reader and the insightful editorials published in the Weekly World News.
I was hoping you'd try to justify your claim that non-Christians would prefer dealing with Christians (over non-Christians, as far as I can tell) had they a deeper "spiritual and moral" understanding of the religion. I spent seven years in a Jesuit school - maybe that counts for you, or not. But for me, a person's religion rarely ever figures into wanting to deal with them or not - exceptions being like a certain minority of Christians who see biology class as a stepping stone for introducing their religion into public schools.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To answer your question, the difference would be the standards, both for the students and also the teachers. And if I don't like the standards I can find a school where I do.
I understand where you are coming from. What I am saying is Private schools supposedly are better because they are smaller. If you give everyone the right to pick their school it will become overcrowded. The system will not as effectively carry the load of a smaller student body. You will degrade the Private school education. Vouchers are not the answer.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
That's okay, my reasoning is based on daily consultations with a tea leaf reader and the insightful editorials published in the Weekly World News.
I was hoping you'd try to justify your claim that non-Christians would prefer dealing with Christians (over non-Christians, as far as I can tell) had they a deeper "spiritual and moral" understanding of the religion. I spent seven years in a Jesuit school - maybe that counts for you, or not. But for me, a person's religion rarely ever figures into wanting to deal with them or not - exceptions being like a certain minority of Christians who see biology class as a stepping stone for introducing their religion into public schools.
Then you completely misunderstand my challenge since no such claim was made. I asserted that if Chairboy preferred non-Christians over Christians when it came to professional and personal matters of life and death (or even serious issues that weren't life threatening) based soley on their faith and belief or lack thereof then I think his rationale is flawed. If the person in question knows their science/art/profession and their spiritual belief does not run counter to it .... and, in fact, their spiritual teachings enhance their moral stance when dealing with their fellow man, then why should he use their spiritual belief as a basis for mistrust?
Bear in mind here that Muslims and Jews share the fundamental Christian belief in the origin of the world/universe/humanity and that other religions have their own different ideas that aren't in keeping with either the big bang theory or Darwinism. Do doctors, scientists and other professionals that have these various beliefs also deserve such aversion or is it just Christians that qualify? Should one prefer a person who is just Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddist in name and not belief? What does that say about their true character? Do only atheists deserve trust or respect for their knowledge and ability?
Christians who take their discipleship seriously have proven to benefit humanity every bit as much as members of other persuasions. Such an anti-Christian general bias serves none. You claim you don't use that as a basis yet you felt obligated to to speak up. Then again, you also seem confused on my stance. Hopefully this part of my post made it clearer.
As far as making it a point to keep Christian beliefs and viewpoints out of education, doesn't that sound just a little bit more like an anti-Christian agenda and less like a well-rounded education? After all, I never advocated the elimination of Darwinism or the big bang theory from the system. I will say that all theories in public school should be given an equal amount of creedence (without undue bias for or against one or the other) but to eliminate the Christian perspective yet allow all others is every bit as much an attempt to impress your own beliefs and morals upon the young without allowing them to form their own as it is your claim of Christians desiring the same.
Whether you seem to realize it or not, you have an anti-Christian bias that makes itself too readily apparent at the slightest perception, on your part, of pro-Christian/anti-anything else rhetoric. Was it your disillusionment after your seven years of Jesuit training that may have made you overly sensitive to this particular issue, you think? Not that that's truly the case but we both know that intensive religious training doesn't neccesarily result in one being a true disciple of Christ (or even result in an intimate knowledge of spiritual truths). Many a former priest can tell you that. Some current ones can if they can trust you to keep thier confessions in confidence. Christianity is no more immune to hypocrisy than any other religion, belief or philosophical claim. But to brand any and all of a particular belief as hypocrits based on your personal dealings in the past certainly seems like you're harboring unresolved issues.
-
I used to teach in a public school.
I now teach in a Catholic school.
And I believe that the district handled this appropriately. The aid intentionally disobeyed a law that separates church and state even after she was warned. Yes she has a right to her freedom of religious expression, but not in a public school. Public school teachers have special unique obligations because they can have a real influence on children.
One example is that teachers MUST be a positive role model for children. If a teacher had a history of making pornographic films, belonged to a gang, had a drug history, or had a serious criminal history, would the public want them teaching? Is it OK to not hire teachers over these issues?
An opposite example is that education is the one area where it is sometimes OK to discriminate hiring based on race or sex. The vast majority of teachers in the US are white women (esp. in primary ed.). A school of mostly poor, black, no-father-figure students, taught only by white women is less than ideal. In this situation, it may be OK to seek men and blacks for teaching positions, simply because they can be a role model other than a white woman. These kids may desperately need to see blacks and men in a different light. Blacks may especially have an easier buy in when it comes to respect and classroom control.
Religion is the same deal. All public school teachers should not discuss their religious beliefs. Some students greatly respect their teachers. It may not take much to counteract a parents religious (or nonreligious) beliefs. All public school teachers have a constitutional obligation to appear neutral when it comes to religion.
Let this woman wear her cross in school, and the next thing you know, Osama Bin Laden is YOUR kid's kindergarten teacher!
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Let this woman wear her cross in school, and the next thing you know, Osama Bin Laden is YOUR kid's kindergarten teacher!
Can't argue with logic. That being the case ... you're wrong. Let's talk some more about how the only place acceptable in the public sector to discriminate against a person is the educational system (bearing in mind that your example would have lesbian parents and white parents of black children up in arms ;)). If the teacher was a muslim woman and her religion required her to dress a certain way, then by law, she is supposedly protected from discrimination practices that deal with the way she dresses. Yet the way she dresses is a direct reflection of her religious belief. Certainly children would ask questions. Certainly the teacher will continue to dress that way if the school system demanded repeatedly that she dress "more neutral."
How is wearing a cross different? Is it different because it's supposedly optional? What if it isn't optional in the heart of that teacher's aide? She is certainly kept, by law, from actively witnessing. Is she also required by law to be ashamed of her belief? Is she required by law to dress a certain way when members of another faith are protected from such?
Wearing crosses isn't gonna brainwash the students one bit. Let go of the extreme paranoia.
Thanks. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Then you completely misunderstand my challenge since no such claim was made. I asserted that if Chairboy preferred non-Christians over Christians when it came to professional and personal matters of life and death (or even serious issues that weren't life threatening) based soley on their faith and belief or lack thereof then I think his rationale is flawed.
Well, I don't know how else to read "Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," but whatever. I don't think Chairboy mentioned anything about Christians other than a particular fundamentalist sect with a Creationist agenda. I can only go by what he said in this thread, but it doesn't look like he had anything against Christians in general. Maybe you know something I don't.
As far as making it a point to keep Christian beliefs and viewpoints out of education, doesn't that sound just a little bit more like an anti-Christian agenda and less like a well-rounded education? After all, I never advocated the elimination of Darwinism or the big bang theory from the system.
As far as biology goes, I'm sure there are a ton of creation stories from all around the world that are all very interesting and quite suitable for a religion survey class.
I will say that all theories in public school should be given an equal amount of creedence (without undue bias for or against one or the other) but to eliminate the Christian perspective yet allow all others is every bit as much an attempt to impress your own beliefs and morals upon the young without allowing them to form their own as it is your claim of Christians desiring the same.
I don't think there's any "Christian perspective" on evolution. On one hand you have the Pope recognizing its veracity, on the other certain people who take the Genesis creation stories as a literal account of how life appeared on this planet. I don't know how the big bang theory is taught, but giving equal time to every theory of the creation of the universe has at least some practical drawbacks.
Whether you seem to realize it or not, you have an anti-Christian bias that makes itself too readily apparent at the slightest perception, on your part, of pro-Christian/anti-anything else rhetoric. Was it your disillusionment after your seven years of Jesuit training that may have made you overly sensitive to this particular issue, you think? Not that that's truly the case but we both know that intensive religious training doesn't neccesarily result in one being a true disciple of Christ (or even result in an intimate knowledge of spiritual truths). Many a former priest can tell you that. Some current ones can if they can trust you to keep thier confessions in confidence. Christianity is no more immune to hypocrisy than any other religion, belief or philosophical claim. But to brand any and all of a particular belief as hypocrits based on your personal dealings in the past certainly seems like you're harboring unresolved issues.
Maybe I was unclear. I went to a school taught by Jesuits for grades 6-12, not that I was in training to become a priest. I can imagine, though, that after some discussion you would say that I actually have a pro-Catholic bias. Perhaps it's just your admitted pro-Christian bias that is attributing me a bias I don't objectively have? I have the suspicion that you're ascribing statements and beliefs to me that I never made or held - like when did I ever say anything like all Christians were hypocrites? As long as we're playing armchair psychiatrists, is there some deep insecurity you have regarding your spirituality that causes you to falsely attribute statements in order to divert attention from the issues? Paging Dr. Ripsnort.........hmm, how'd he end up on ignore???
-
They should have religious studies lessons and teach the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. They did so at my school from ages 11 to 16.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Well, I don't know how else to read "Truly, if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity (no need to provide examples of hypocrisy amongst them as exists amongst all) then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," but whatever. I don't think Chairboy mentioned anything about Christians other than a particular fundamentalist sect with a Creationist agenda. I can only go by what he said in this thread, but it doesn't look like he had anything against Christians in general. Maybe you know something I don't.
Chairboy talks of the inferior education given in Christian private schools based solely on it's preference of creationism over evolution and talks of concern over doctors and pilots who receive such an education. I challenged, you defended, I countered, you countered. If it turns out that your defense/counter is based on an entirely different perception of what Chairboy wrote then I'll give you an opportunity to withdraw your defense (as I'm sure you'll gladly step back from such an aggressive stance in your defense of it should it prove that he really doesn't have a problem with the level of education provided by private Christian schools and the doctors and pilots that recieved their elementary education in them).
As far as biology goes, I'm sure there are a ton of creation stories from all around the world that are all very interesting and quite suitable for a religion survey class.
Probably more of a social studies thing dealing with culture and religion and yes, there are.
I don't think there's any "Christian perspective" on evolution. On one hand you have the Pope recognizing its veracity, on the other certain people who take the Genesis creation stories as a literal account of how life appeared on this planet. I don't know how the big bang theory is taught, but giving equal time to every theory of the creation of the universe has at least some practical drawbacks.
The drawbacks being? Not enough time? This isn't a seminary or college we're talking about where more than the fundamentals need addressing. And everyone has a perspective on evolution. Some insist it didn't happen. That is a perspective. One need not agree with it, merely be presented with it. Same goes for a pro-evolution stance. And yes, there are Christians who accept evolution. Open-mindedness apparently isn't a trait only possessed by those with anti-Christian agendas. ;)
Maybe I was unclear. I went to a school taught by Jesuits for grades 6-12, not that I was in training to become a priest. I can imagine, though, that after some discussion you would say that I actually have a pro-Catholic bias. Perhaps it's just your admitted pro-Christian bias that is attributing me a bias I don't objectively have? I have the suspicion that you're ascribing statements and beliefs to me that I never made or held - like when did I ever say anything like all Christians were hypocrites? As long as we're playing armchair psychiatrists, is there some deep insecurity you have regarding your spirituality that causes you to falsely attribute statements in order to divert attention from the issues? Paging Dr. Ripsnort.........hmm, how'd he end up on ignore???
Nonono .... my inserting a statement on Christian hypocrisy was anticipatory and pre-emptive in addressing that possible argument. If you don't think all Christians are hypocrits, well bully for you.
My mentioning your having possible unresolved issues that make you overly sensitive to discussions involving Christianity on the boards was not meant as an attack on you, just an observation on your reactions (which seem more evident with the continuation of our discussion). You obviously didn't embrace whatever Christian teachings you recieved in grades 6-12 as truths, which is fine, but it does seem that it had a negative impact on your life. I can't imagine any other reason that you would bring it up other than to try to impress me with your superior knowledge of the spiritual side of Christianity and it's possible inspiration to do right by your fellow man. But since you seem to not hold with that point of view, I discounted it. Sorry for the "armchair psychoanalysis". It does seem to have touched a sensitive spot and it really didn't have a place in the discussion. Forgive? :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They should have religious studies lessons and teach the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. They did so at my school from ages 11 to 16.
That's good. They only discriminated against all the other religions. :p
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Can't argue with logic. That being the case ... you're wrong. Let's talk some more about how the only place acceptable in the public sector to discriminate against a person is the educational system (bearing in mind that your example would have lesbian parents and white parents of black children up in arms ;)). If the teacher was a muslim woman and her religion required her to dress a certain way, then by law, she is supposedly protected from discrimination practices that deal with the way she dresses. Yet the way she dresses is a direct reflection of her religious belief. Certainly children would ask questions. Certainly the teacher will continue to dress that way if the school system demanded repeatedly that she dress "more neutral."
How is wearing a cross different? Is it different because it's supposedly optional? What if it isn't optional in the heart of that teacher's aide? She is certainly kept, by law, from actively witnessing. Is she also required by law to be ashamed of her belief? Is she required by law to dress a certain way when members of another faith are protected from such?
Wearing crosses isn't gonna brainwash the students one bit. Let go of the extreme paranoia.
Thanks. :D
I don't think the woman in your description should be allowed to wear her garb.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They should have religious studies lessons and teach the fundamentals of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. They did so at my school from ages 11 to 16.
This is fine, as long as one religion is not advocated.
eskimo
-
Colorado's system of vouchers seems pretty "win/win".
One of the most important features of the voucher measure is that it preserves funding for a student's former public school, said Rep. Nancy Spence, the bill's main sponsor in the state legislature.
The scholarships are worth 75 percent of what the state and local districts pay to educate students - 85 percent for high schoolers.
The remaining 15 percent to 25 percent of per-pupil spending will remain with the public school as long as the child remains in school.
The school losing a student still gets 15-25% of the funding it used to get for that student, but no longer has to educate him/her.
So, class overcrowding would go down and funds available per remaining pupil go up. That's good, right?
The student that leaves gets 75-85% of what the state was going to spen on him/her anyway but MUST use it at an accredited school of his choice that agrees to take him.
Who's getting hurt here? I'm missing it.
-
Ex-Teacher here (decided to pursue other interests), I am of firm belief that teachers should not show any religious symbols or divulge their personal opinions within the classroom.
This doesn't mean that the children couldn't hold a debate and put their own views across on say nationalizing health care, or discussing pro's and con's on war with Iraq etc. That is healthy and let's them discuss their ideas with others. The teacher should be a moderator in such discussions but not inject their own opinion (that is what the students should develop on their own)
As far as the suspension I agree with Saurdaukar, both sides were extreme on this issue.
-
Must we ALWAYS leave the Bhuddists out of the BIG picture?
:D
-
Who's getting hurt here? I'm missing it.
Hurt? not sure.
I think this type of system will start building a huge gap in our society by subsidising the education of the richer members of society while drawing funds from the poorer members. If you think 85% of a public school education will allow parents to completely pay for a private education you are sadly mistaken. Consequently the rich will use the subsidy to HELP pay for private schooling, and the poor will be left holding the bag.
You make an 85% decrease in funds from a student sound like a raise! You sure you don't work as a CEO at American? Just because that student is no longer in the system, the overall infrastructure still needs to be maintained and now it will have to be done with less. Our schools here in California are falling apart around the kids....
-
I'm a Christian man who home schooled four children until this past year....they now are in public school in a strong and dedicated district here in Kansas City.
I believe teachers should educate...it's that simple. Again, being a Christian man, my witness is in my walk....how I conduct business, how I treat those under my employment and the example I show others each day is Christianity, not jewelry.
Since my children are now in public schools, I expect the teachers to educate them so they can grow and participate in our society....it's mine and my wifes job to raise them regarding spiritual issues...it's the schools job to teach them academically.
If the school has a dress code, teachers and students should comply...it's that simple.
Why are public schools failing...because families are failing...it's a social crisis and throwing all the money in the world at the problem will never fix it.
Midnight....I thought vouchers would only be available to those under a defined income level....the wealthy will not be eligible for the voucher offering....I may be mistaken, but that is my recollection of the finished legislation.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I believe teachers should educate...it's that simple. Again, being a Christian man, my witness is in my walk....how I conduct business, how I treat those under my employment and the example I show others each day is Christianity, not jewelry.
IMHO, you have just described the very best type of Christian.
-
Focus on the issue at hand, ignore the religious affiliation (as that article actually shows that yes, not only Christians get effected by these laws)...
She was warned, twice, she ignored it, twice.
She got an education on that matter, one she apparently never got in H.S.
When I was warned not to chew gum in class, I learned I had to either stop chewing gum or get detention.
I learned I could still chew gum, I just became conscious of it and made sure not to chew when the teacher looked at me.
She could of easily not been suspended if she had been intelligent about it, put the cross behind her shirt. She defied the administration, so she got her suspension.
Funny thing though, why is it so important to show to the world you have a cross on a necklace?
I have a tattoo that means something to me, but I don't go walking around with my shirt sleeves rolled up so everyone knows I have it.
She wanted to be a handsomehunk about the issue, she felt the repercussions. Religion is not allowed in public schools in any way, shape or form. She got her edumakatiun.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Focus on the issue at hand, ignore the religious affiliation (as that article actually shows that yes, not only Christians get effected by these laws)...
She was warned, twice, she ignored it, twice.
She got an education on that matter, one she apparently never got in H.S.
When I was warned not to chew gum in class, I learned I had to either stop chewing gum or get detention.
I learned I could still chew gum, I just became conscious of it and made sure not to chew when the teacher looked at me.
She could of easily not been suspended if she had been intelligent about it, put the cross behind her shirt. She defied the administration, so she got her suspension.
Funny thing though, why is it so important to show to the world you have a cross on a necklace?
I have a tattoo that means something to me, but I don't go walking around with my shirt sleeves rolled up so everyone knows I have it.
She wanted to be a handsomehunk about the issue, she felt the repercussions. Religion is not allowed in public schools in any way, shape or form. She got her edumakatiun.
-SW
sounds too much like common sense to me...
Tronsky
-
Relax, MT. The program is available ONLY to "low income" families.
Under Spence's bill, the pilot program, would apply only to low-income students who have received failing scores on their CSAP tests. They would get funding equal to as much 85 percent of the per-student operating revenues that go to their public schools.
No more than 500 students in any single school district could participate. Priority would go to districts such as Denver Public Schools where eight or more schools have been rated "low" or "unsatisfactory" by the state.
The pilot program would be evaluated in 2008.
The rich get nothing, so you can stow your outrage. ;)
The "poor", particularly those that are FAILING, get a shot at a way out, a chance to try a better school. Maybe the money will pay for it all, but it probably won't. It'll require a bit of a gamble on yourself and a willingness to sacrifice to "take the chance"... which is sort of what this country was all about.
As a double bonus, the "low" or "unsatisfactory" schools these kids come from get a reduced student/teacher ratio... a good thing... and 25% of the money they would have gotten had they had the individual voucher child enrolled. So, they have an improved student/teacher ration AND more dollars per student than they had before.
And it's only 500 students per district. If a school is so small that losing a few students prevents it from maintaining the physical plant, it should be merged into the nearest school. That's going on here in our older neighborhoods right now as homeowners age and no longer have the kids to send to the local school. It's life.
Win/win.
-
The rich get nothing,
nevermind.
Just don't be certifying schools that teach myth in place of science.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
I don't think the woman in your description should be allowed to wear her garb.
eskimo
Then you are against her freedom of religion which is one of the most fundamental freedoms we enjoy in this country. She feels compelled by her religious belief to adhere to that dress code. She is the computer lab teacher at my daughter's school. I wouldn't dream of petitioning the school board to make her "dress neutrally." That's an extreme based on fear and ignorance. And you know what? Neither of my daughters have expressed an interest in becoming Muslim because of the way she dresses. Go figure. ;)
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Must we ALWAYS leave the Bhuddists out of the BIG picture?
:D
Originally posted by Arlo
Should one prefer a person who is just Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddist in name and not belief?
;) :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Then you are against her freedom of religion which is one of the most fundamental freedoms we enjoy in this country. She feels compelled by her religious belief to adhere to that dress code. She is the computer lab teacher at my daughter's school. I wouldn't dream of petitioning the school board to make her "dress neutrally." That's an extreme based on fear and ignorance. And you know what? Neither of my daughters have expressed an interest in becoming Muslim because of the way she dresses. Go figure. ;)
When it comes to children, and government representatives, rules and rights can be different. Children, have special, or even limited right because of who they are, for obvious reasons.
I'm not "against her freedom of religion". I am against any gonernment employee expressing their religious beliefs in a public school, no matter how slight.
The vast majority of people would not be offended in such a case that you have described, but that is not the point. The point is, that in principle, the government is effectively endorsing a religion by allowing teachers to show or express their religious beliefs to students while in school. Its not something that we vote on, its not something that we let slide as long as no one expresses concern over it, its the constitution.
eskimo
eskimo
-
I'm an atheist.
I think suspending the teacher was way out of line. I think even hinting that she shouldn't wear her cross would be way out of line.
Freedom of religion does not mean that one must censure expressions of personal belief to avoid offending unreasonable idiots.
If she had worn a item that said "Follow Jesus or burn in hell" I'd agree with reprimanding her because that is a statement directed against other people's beliefs. Wearing a cross is a personal statement for herself, not something that challenges any other reasonable person's beliefs and should not be censured in the context of Governement.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
;) :D
Riiiight. And just skip over The First House Of Polyester Worship And Horizontal Throbbing Teenage Desire like it didn't exist.
Roberta, Roberta, Roberta.
-
Karnak, if that were true- she would have no problem wearing it, yet not exposing it.
She insisted on leaving it outside of her shirt/blouse, she's a big girl, she can take the consequences for openly disobeying the administration... atleast twice.
-SW
-
Hmm.
I don't have a problem with her proclaiming "I am a Christian".
It's not what I'd do, but as long as she is simply proclaiming what she is and not what others should be I don't see the problem. It only becomes a problem if she attempts to use her position as a public school teacher to proslytize to the children she is entrusted to teach or if she plays fovorites to the Christian children.
-
I don't either, but if she was warned twice about wearing the jewelry... then she can very well be punished for insisting on violating the administration and the rules set forth for them to enforce.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Hmm.
I don't have a problem with her proclaiming "I am a Christian".
It's not what I'd do, but as long as she is simply proclaiming what she is and not what others should be I don't see the problem. It only becomes a problem if she attempts to use her position as a public school teacher to proslytize to the children she is entrusted to teach or if she plays fovorites to the Christian children.
And where, exactly, do you draw the line? How do you define in absolute terms what is acceptable, and what is not? Who decides this?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
And where, exactly, do you draw the line? How do you define in absolute terms what is acceptable, and what is not? Who decides this?
eskimo
Use common sense.
If it is a cross or a WWJD type thing, its a personal statement. If it is a shirt that says "Believe in Jesus or burn in Hell" it is a statement intended to affect others.
The things I've seen can all be easily classified into personal or directed at others. I don't think it would be too hard.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Use common sense.
If it is a cross or a WWJD type thing, its a personal statement. If it is a shirt that says "Believe in Jesus or burn in Hell" it is a statement intended to affect others.
The things I've seen can all be easily classified into personal or directed at others. I don't think it would be too hard.
Now THAT is scary!
Use who's common sense? Should the teacher be able to wear a burkha? What if she is a satanist, how about a pentagram? The school board was dead on in this case.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Wow, that's messed up. So much for religious freedom. :(
FU ?? Whose religious freedom are you talking about?:}
:D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'm an atheist.
I think suspending the teacher was way out of line. I think even hinting that she shouldn't wear her cross would be way out of line.
Freedom of religion does not mean that one must censure expressions of personal belief to avoid offending unreasonable idiots.
If she had worn a item that said "Follow Jesus or burn in hell" I'd agree with reprimanding her because that is a statement directed against other people's beliefs. Wearing a cross is a personal statement for herself, not something that challenges any other reasonable person's beliefs and should not be censured in the context of Governement.
Thanks, Karnak. :)
-
school board make the rules. she knew them, she wanted to be a "persecuted christian". so she defied policy. When i was in high school i had a "stanic army" tshirt. they told me it was religous so i had to remove it. i did. no biggy. it would be a double standard if she would be allowed to break the rules.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
When it comes to children, and government representatives, rules and rights can be different. Children, have special, or even limited right because of who they are, for obvious reasons.
I'm not "against her freedom of religion". I am against any gonernment employee expressing their religious beliefs in a public school, no matter how slight.
(snip)
its the constitution.
It's a radical interpretation of "seperation of church and state" that wasn't even considered until Madilyn Murray O'Hare had a cow over her children being within hearing range of other children praying to the Christian God, therefore undermining the otherwise supposedly rock-solid atheist foundation she had worked so hard to instill in her kids. The courts accomodated her and Christians within the public shool system took specific measures not to actively promote or even make personal preferences known to students regarding Christianity. But as is usually the case when it comes to those who make undue fuss over little to nothing, an inch was given and now a mile is demanded.
Our forefathers did not have in mind what "Mad Murray O'Hare" misinterpreted the constitution to mean. I suspect that had the minds behind the bench not been overly worried that her case had civil liberty merits at a time when there actually were some merits involved in the way other groups in this nation were being treated, they may have told her not to waste the court's time. As it is, the Surpreme Court upheld her case against the people and the public school system was changed. Such may have not been the case if the SC had the foresight to see how eventually those with anti-Christian agendas would petition the courts for everything from cancelling the playing of the National Anthem at sporting events to abolishing the inscription of "In God We Trust" on our currency. As recently as twenty years ago such efforts would have been called ludicrous to the extreme and laughed out of the courtroom.
Why am I so certain that those who interpret the seperation of church and state to mean that the government must squelch any and all display of one's religious affiliation in public schools (or on any government property or in any state supported organization for that matter) and who claim that that was the intent of our forefathers who wrote and ratified the constitution, do so in error? Because if that was the case, then those same forefathers would have taken measures in thier lifetime to assure that the schools, government offices and military bases of their day properly adhered to the constitution and would have further clarified it when it became evident that "the Christians were taking advantage of the system for their own evil agenda."
When I hear those with anti-Christian agendas use the excuse of "children are highly impressionable and seeing the teacher's assistant wearing a cross day after day will undoubtedly undermine the non-Christian foundation of the children with non-Christian parents!" I just wanna laugh ... and probably would had it not been proven already that such lunacy can and probably will be taken seriously in a court of law. What a shame. There was a time when this nation, on the whole, could be counted on disregarding the absurd when more important things required attention.
:D
-
Sorry Arlo, but the founding fathers forgot to make Christianity the State religion.
Maybe they actually knew what they were doing.
No one thought it was wrong to pray in school until Mad Murray raised her hand, no one thought it was wrong to have sperate-but-equal public accomodations untli Rosa Parks raised her hand.
Acceptance of something in the past is hardly a good case for it being right.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Arlo, but the founding fathers forgot to make Christianity the State religion.
Maybe they actually knew what they were doing.
No one thought it was wrong to pray in school until Mad Murray raised her hand, no one thought it was wrong to have sperate-but-equal public accomodations untli Rosa Parks raised her hand.
Acceptance of something in the past is hardly a good case for it being right.
Oh .. I know they knew what they were doing. And as such they saw no need to fix what was working just fine. Those who seem to not know what they were doing are the current crop of whiners with a desire to "fix" the way the constitution is interpreted so their anti-Christian agenda can continue to progress satisfactorily.
Sorry Target, but it's not about the Christians wanting Christianity to be a "state religion. That old, tired argument doesn't hold water. It's one of the specifics mentioned in the constitution involving freedom of religion. Focusing on it when someone else brings up the part where Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion part is as red a herring as there comes.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And I would have thought you could have picked up on my already mentioning that "Mad Murray's" crusade didn't hold the same merit that Rosa Park's brave stance did.
Rewriting (or in this case reinterpreting - why rewrite if you don't have to?) the constitution to fit a radical agenda that has no actual merit or benefit to the people of this nation is hardly a case for it being right.
:D
-
And you seem to conveniently miss the first part of that little amendment..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Which is the part that is important to the point in question. 'Freedom OF' actually plays second fiddle to 'Freedom FROM'!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And you seem to conveniently miss the first part of that little amendment..
Which is the part that is important to the point in question. 'Freedom OF' actually plays second fiddle to 'Freedom FROM'!
No I didn't. What part of "Christians aren't interested in having Christianity adopted as a state religion" confused you? Your paranoia over Christians wanting to force you to become Christian is outright silly. And freedom to express our religion was foremost in the minds of our forefathers. It's the first amendment penned in the bill of rights for a reason. It includes both the restriction of the government forming a state religion and the restriction on the government prohibiting anyone's free exercise of their religion. Anyone includes Christians ... anyone includes teachers ... anyone includes students ... anyone includes ... anyone. Get it yet?
No ... "freedom of" doesn't play second fiddle to squat.
"Maybe they actually knew what they were doing." - M.T.
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Chairboy talks of the inferior education given in Christian private schools based solely on it's preference of creationism over evolution and talks of concern over doctors and pilots who receive such an education. I challenged, you defended, I countered, you countered. If it turns out that your defense/counter is based on an entirely different perception of what Chairboy wrote then I'll give you an opportunity to withdraw your defense (as I'm sure you'll gladly step back from such an aggressive stance in your defense of it should it prove that he really doesn't have a problem with the level of education provided by private Christian schools and the doctors and pilots that recieved their elementary education in them).
I think our disagreement comes from my reading of the word when in "I suspect many of these schools cannot meet minimum levels of quality in education when they teach the Creationist line as fact," as if while you read it more as because.
Nonono .... my inserting a statement on Christian hypocrisy was anticipatory and pre-emptive in addressing that possible argument.
If I were to write stuff like, "but to want to burn non-Christians at the stake certainly makes you seem like a demented psycho," would you not be completely befuddled as to how far out of left field such a statement came? I'm exagerating, but that's how you come across.
My mentioning your having possible unresolved issues that make you overly sensitive to discussions involving Christianity on the boards was not meant as an attack on you, just an observation on your reactions (which seem more evident with the continuation of our discussion).
Maybe if you bothered to figure out how many religion threads I've participated in on this board you'd realize how sensitive I am to such discussions.
You obviously didn't embrace whatever Christian teachings you recieved in grades 6-12 as truths, which is fine, but it does seem that it had a negative impact on your life. I can't imagine any other reason that you would bring it up other than to try to impress me with your superior knowledge of the spiritual side of Christianity and it's possible inspiration to do right by your fellow man. But since you seem to not hold with that point of view, I discounted it.
I brought up the fact that I had an education in Christian principles because you said, "...if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity [...] then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," which a pretty radical statement to make.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I brought up the fact that I had an education in Christian principles because you said, "...if you were familiar with the actual spiritual and moral side of Christianity [...] then you would more than likely prefer your physician, pilot, police officer or politician to be a Christian," which a pretty radical statement to make.
I suppose it's due to perspective. I'm refering to spirituality - especially when it comes to one's sincerity in treating their fellow man the way that Christ taught his followers to do. You seem to be refering to education. They aren't one and the same. It seemed fairly evident to me that Chairboy considered a physician's or pilot's belief in the origin of mankind more detrimental than their call to treat all of mankind with the utmost compassion. I couldn't fathom his apparently confused priorities unless he was totally unaware of how dedicated to his well-being the doctor or pilot would be because of his faith as well as his professionalism ... if indeed he/she was a disciple of what Christ taught.
"But suddenly it's ok to have my tax money go to organizations that cram hogwash into the impressionable minds of the people that will grow up to doctor my children, build the planes they fly in, and lead the country they live in?" - Chairboy
Is the "hogwash" he refers to only creationism or is it the entire Christian belief? Even if it is just creationism, how does that, in itself, make a Christian doctor, aerospace engineer or politician suspect when it comes to the basic welfare of Chairboy's children?
I don't concur with his premise and I really do think that if he had greater insight to what it really means to be a true disciple of Christ that he wouldn't be so worried about their possible negative impact on his kid's future.
I willingly confess that I'm not a good Christian rolemodel most of the time ... but I've been around enough of them to find it unsettling when I run across others that apparently haven't been.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
No I didn't. What part of "Christians aren't interested in having Christianity adopted as a state religion" confused you? Your paranoia over Christians wanting to force you to become Christian is outright silly. And freedom to express our religion was foremost in the minds of our forefathers. It's the first amendment penned in the bill of rights for a reason. It includes both the restriction of the government forming a state religion and the restriction on the government prohibiting anyone's free exercise of their religion. Anyone includes Christians ... anyone includes teachers ... anyone includes students ... anyone includes ... anyone. Get it yet?
No ... "freedom of" doesn't play second fiddle to squat.
"Maybe they actually knew what they were doing." - M.T.
:D
Arlo
The separation of church and state argument is NOT an anti Christian agenda! Christianity IS my comfort zone and I teach at a Catholic school. My daughters will attend a Catholic school (the alternative is a very good public school) because it is MY choice. If the local public school endorsed Christianity the way MY school does, I would not be concerned about MY children's exposure.
As a teacher, I often try to view things as a minority might. Even if there were only one non-Christian student attending a public school that endorsed Christianity in any way, it would be very wrong to put that student in an uncomfortable situation. Just because no one complains, does not mean that no one has been offended, and does not mean that someone’s own religious beliefs have been stepped on.
Imagine this:
Tomorrow you wake up, and the world around you is 99% Muslim. What laws would you want to be in place to protect your right to be the sole determinant of your child’s religious teaching and (adult) influence?
It’s EASY to expect minorities to conform to the expectations and traditions of the majority. It’s EASY to say; “Our way is normal, who wouldn’t want to do things the way most of us do”. It’s much harder to think outside of your own comfort zone and imagine how others may view a situation.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Arlo
The separation of church and state argument is NOT an anti Christian agenda! Christianity IS my comfort zone and I teach at a Catholic school. My daughters will attend a Catholic school (the alternative is a very good public school) because it is MY choice. If the local public school endorsed Christianity the way MY school does, I would not be concerned about MY children's exposure.
As a teacher, I often try to view things as a minority might. Even if there were only one non-Christian student attending a public school that endorsed Christianity in any way, it would be very wrong to put that student in an uncomfortable situation. Just because no one complains, does not mean that no one has been offended, and does not mean that someone’s own religious beliefs have been stepped on.
Imagine this:
Tomorrow you wake up, and the world around you is 99% Muslim. What laws would you want to be in place to protect your right to be the sole determinant of your child’s religious teaching and (adult) influence?
It’s EASY to expect minorities to conform to the expectations and traditions of the majority. It’s EASY to say; “Our way is normal, who wouldn’t want to do things the way most of us do”. It’s much harder to think outside of your own comfort zone and imagine how others may view a situation.
eskimo
It has nothing to do with my comfort zone. It has nothing to do with making minorities conform. It has nothing to do with stepping on someone else's religious beliefs. My responses to you alone in this thread should have made it perfectly clear that I support everyone's freedom of religious expression as stated and supported in the first amendment of the bill of rights.
Some want to believe that by squelching any and all religious self-expression in schools and on state property that they are adhering to the spirit of the first amendment. I think such logic is a strange perversion of the ideology of our forefathers. Free and open religious expression has existed in government far longer than the current trend of attempting to promote Atheism as a state religion. And if the members of a state sponsored organization demand equal time for all religious beliefs present, then I see no reason why reasonable measures can't be taken to accomodate them.
This isn't even an issue of school teachers and/or administrators trying to force their beliefs on anyone and the school board cracking down on them. It's a school system going to extremes in punishing anyone for exhibiting any trait it percieves as an inappropriate display of their personal beliefs. And yes, it does appear to be aimed specifically at Christians. And no, it shouldn't be taken to such extremes against anyone, no matter what their belief is. That is what freedom to express our religious belief is all about.
The Constitution guarantees us in clear wording that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say "the free exercise in approved manners and areas as the state sees fit." We're not talking the institution of a "state religion". We're talking religious freedom. Religious freedom for everyone - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Athiest - anyone - everyone.
If, for some odd reason, that got lost in the translation and you believe that I'm for oppressing non-Christians, then I'm afraid you've entirely missed my stance on the subject.
:D
-
Your paranoia over Christians wanting to force you to become Christian is outright silly.
And bearing false witness is very unChristian of you sir. I never said I was concerned about this.
It is not the teachers freedom of expression that is in question here. The teacher is free to express her religion as she wishes when she is not acting as a State sanctioned authority.
Maybe it seems like people are picking on Christians, because there are just more Christians. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority.
And just so ya know, I am the product of a private (Catholic) school education too.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And bearing false witness is very unChristian of you sir. I never said I was concerned about this.
You don't support the school's excessive action of suspending the TA for wearing a cross after all, then? Because the main argument I've seen from everyone so far (other than "rules is rules and dems de breaks") is that her wearing that cross was a clear and present danger to the students since they are so impressionable and it could result in some of them converting to Christianity just from giving it one too many looks. You seem to support that argument. And it sounds bizarre and paranoid. I mean, gosh golly gee, that cross could really mess those kids up, yaknow. Not like sex and violence on TV and in video games and such. ;)
It is not the teachers freedom of expression that is in question here. The teacher is free to express her religion as she wishes when she is not acting as a State sanctioned authority.
I suppose Christian chaplains in the military need to remove those offensive crosses on their collars too, eh? Or is the argument of visual brainwashing of young psychies the only one that "has substance?"
Maybe it seems like people are picking on Christians, because there are just more Christians. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority.
A democracy is also measured by it's justice standards for all, majority or minority. Having someone tell me that teachers who practice orthodox Islam should be forced to compromise their religious beliefs or be banned from teaching in public schools is every bit as distasteful as the suspension of the TA for her standing up for her right to wear a cross. Again, it's going beyond protecting students from active proselytizing. It's denying even the most passive expression of faith. The first amendment does indeed protect this fundamental right. I've yet to see a rational argument that can deny that. And yes, so far the only example I've seen are ones that enforce such extremes on Christians. That's not Democracy. That's not Justice. That's just plain stupid.
And just so ya know, I am the product of a private (Catholic) school education too.
Why in the world does everyone seem to think this is the perfect trump card to play when it comes to "proving" they don't really have a bias against Christianity? :rolleyes:
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"rules is rules and dems de breaks"
Yep. All the verbose rationalizing don't mean squat. So the young lady under discussion knew the rules and penalty, had been warned, and continued to break the rules. When the logical result came about, the whines started up about harrassment of Christians. I hope you are not saying good, upstanding Christians are so pure they only have to follow the rules they agree with.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Why in the world does everyone seem to think this is the perfect trump card to play when it comes to "proving" they don't really have a bias against Christianity? :rolleyes: :D
As a card carrying member of the group known as "everyone", I must refute your above statement. My own personal trump card to prove I have no bias against Christianity is the fact that I don't (usually) squeak-slap them when they come to my door to save me.
-
eskimo... are you saying that the school is there to be black childrens "fathers"?
all schools should have to acheive minimum educational standards... Public schools don't do it now and do it even worse the more money we throw at them. Priveat schools do more with a LOT less..
It is a question of focus... they (public schools)have lost so much focus that it is allmost impossible for them to regain it. Money won't help... we have to start all over.. vouchers are the sensible way. vouchers will indeed pay the entire cost of education. Those who think that public schools don't cost parents any additional money are wrong... parents are dunned for money on a weekly, allmost daily basis.
public schools are a bloated unfixable mess. Private schools outperform them in every way measureable.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority.
To further your argument, the ultimate minority is the individual. The rights of which must not be sacrificed for the good of the "minority".
-
Originally posted by Arfann
As a card carrying member of the group known as "everyone", I must refute your above statement. My own personal trump card to prove I have no bias against Christianity is the fact that I don't (usually) squeak-slap them when they come to my door to save me.
Hell of a testament there. I missed out on the droves of Christians in this thread trying to save you.
It seemed more a matter of what is and is not an acceptable measure for a school system to take when it comes to the rights we enjoy as far as our personal expression of our beliefs is concerned. There are some here that would try to have me believe that it was a legal and fair action as supported by the first amendment. That rationalization didn't convince me. Nor did it convince Karnak from what I gathered. And until you or anyone else here can come up with a better argument than "Well them was the rules of that school system, so there!" or "Yes! That cross around her neck was placing those kids in dire jeopardy!" then it seems obviously more of a case of bias than logic.
You can keep with your current stance if you want ... or you can try to actually convince me. But I don't think you're really interested in the latter, anyhow. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
eskimo... are you saying that the school is there to be black childrens "fathers"?
all schools should have to acheive minimum educational standards... Public schools don't do it now and do it even worse the more money we throw at them. Priveat schools do more with a LOT less..
It is a question of focus... they (public schools)have lost so much focus that it is allmost impossible for them to regain it. Money won't help... we have to start all over.. vouchers are the sensible way. vouchers will indeed pay the entire cost of education. Those who think that public schools don't cost parents any additional money are wrong... parents are dunned for money on a weekly, allmost daily basis.
public schools are a bloated unfixable mess. Private schools outperform them in every way measureable.
lazs
Sometimes teachers do have to play a bit of a parent role. Aside from teaching kids to read, write, add, and subtract, teachers have to teach kids how to follow rules, the difference between right and wrong, how to show basic respect for other people, and so on. A heck of a lot of parents are not doing their jobs, and a lot of kids are very neglected and are not heading down the road to function as contributing citizens. Not only does it need to be done for the sake of the whole child, but many kids are so socially behind that they are not capable of learning the basics in the classroom.
Have public schools lost their focus? From what I’ve seen, it’s the laws, written by non-educator politicians that create so much extra work, red tape, and educational standards that teachers are required to cover. When you look at a first grade curriculum, and see the amount of; economics, science, social studies, health topics that teachers are required to cover, its no wonder time left for learning to READ and WRITE has been cut thin.
It is not fair to compare public schools to private. Public schools are required to accept all students, regardless of special needs, attendance history, behavior history, etc.
As a public school teacher I had more special needs students in my class than we have in my entire private school of almost 500 kids. I also had more severe behavior students per class than we have in our entire school.
In private school, we can just kick them out. I’d say about ¼ of my old PS students would get kicked out of my private school for their behavior.
In public school, it can be nearly impossible to force students to attend, and to do their homework. The kids know it and often their parents don’t care. I had a student who missed over half of the school days of the school year. We did all that we could to turn mom in for allowing her kid to be so truant. She skated by because the laws are so protective of parents. We couldn’t even hold this kid back a year. Mom insisted that he should go on to the next grade and there was nothing that we could do about it. In my private school, that would never happen. Our kids attend school, and they do their homework. < notice the period.
Typical kids at my old public school had parents who spent little time with them. Most parents had spent time in jail. Dad was often out of the picture. Some parents openly used drugs and got drunk in front of their kids. Some kids didn’t have a bedroom, they slept on the couch. Many bounced from mom’s house one night, to grandmas, to uncles, etc. Parents usually had minimal education. The PTA had 4 parents (out of 600 kids).
At the school where I now teach, parents are doctors, dentists, architects, soccer moms, business men/women, etc. The parents make sure their kids do their homework, and usually help quite a bit. Major social problems are much more rare. Our kids are polite. Families go to church. They shell our money for their kids to attend our school.
Our test scores are quite a bit higher, go figure.
I guess it is a clear indicator that we are doing a better job than the public schools.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hell of a testament there. I missed out on the droves of Christians in this thread trying to save you.
It seemed more a matter of what is and is not an acceptable measure for a school system to take when it comes to the rights we enjoy as far as our personal expression of our beliefs is concerned. There are some here that would try to have me believe that it was a legal and fair action as supported by the first amendment. That rationalization didn't convince me. Nor did it convince Karnak from what I gathered. And until you or anyone else here can come up with a better argument than "Well them was the rules of that school system, so there!" or "Yes! That cross around her neck was placing those kids in dire jeopardy!" then it seems obviously more of a case of bias than logic.
You can keep with your current stance if you want ... or you can try to actually convince me. But I don't think you're really interested in the latter, anyhow. ;)
Nope, no droves. None claimed, either. Another obvious case of failure to comprehend.
If you, or the teacher's aide don't like the rule or think it's unconstitutional don't ignore it, challenge it. If you just ignore it you will get whatever punishment that entails. I typed the preceding V E R Y S L O W L Y so you'll understand.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Nope, no droves. None claimed, either. Another obvious case of failure to comprehend.
If you, or the teacher's aide don't like the rule or think it's unconstitutional don't ignore it, challenge it. If you just ignore it you will get whatever punishment that entails. I typed the preceding V E R Y S L O W L Y so you'll understand.
More likely you typed it slow because of your disability, tard but I don't discriminate so I'll still say you're stupid. :rolleyes:
I've been challenging it. LOL :D
-
Teachers and teacher's aides have certain privileges the students don't have, f.g smoking cigs in the teacher's lounge. Students do it too, but theoretically they can get in trouble for it, and the teachers can't.
I'm not sure whether the dress code is enforced on teachers, as it is on students, i.e the teachers don't wear uniforms like the students do. (When was last time you saw your Math teacher wearing a suit and tie in public school while teaching a class?)
Some public schools may have parking lot areas reserved for teachers.
............................. ............................. ............................. .................
This is how I see the situation. If there is a clause in the TA's contract that specifically mentions a dress code where no jewely is to be displayed, except wedding ring, then the TA is in agreement with that clause when he is hired and agrees to the terms, (or in this case, when she is hired.) Crosses worn on necklaces are commercial jewelry, for all practical purposes, and don't necessarily mean the wearer is a Christian.
If there was no such term in the contract, then the TA didn't legally agree to it, and could have legal recourse. It all depends on the agreement and its terms.
On the other hand...............here, the students may have more rights than the teachers, since they are required by law to attend school. In the case of a student's religious requirements to wear certain dress, such as a skullcap, etc... this should be allowed, for, if not, then a case could be made for dispossessing freedom of religion. It would not be a fashion statement, but rather a requirement of their religion to ceremonialize specific recognized and accepted observances during a specified period of time, and at a certain age. I believe Jews and Muslims wear skullcaps during religious rites of passage.
Arlo and Karnak have made some good points, and I wish there was more respect for religion taught in public schools. Whether you believe in it or not, it is a fact in this world. True religions teach non-violence and compassion for others. No one will argue the world wouldn't be a better place if there was more of that.
All
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Teachers and teacher's aides have certain privileges the students don't have, f.g smoking cigs in the teacher's lounge. Students do it too, but theoretically they can get in trouble for it, and the teachers can't.
I'm not sure whether the dress code is enforced on teachers, as it is on students, i.e the teachers don't wear uniforms like the students do. (When was last time you saw your Math teacher wearing a suit and tie in public school while teaching a class?)
Some public schools may have parking lot areas reserved for teachers.
............................. ............................. ............................. .................
This is how I see the situation. If there is a clause in the TA's contract that specifically mentions a dress code where no jewely is to be displayed, except wedding ring, then the TA is in agreement with that clause when he is hired and agrees to the terms, (or in this case, when she is hired.) Crosses worn on necklaces are commercial jewelry, for all practical purposes, and don't necessarily mean the wearer is a Christian.
If there was no such term in the contract, then the TA didn't legally agree to it, and could have legal recourse. It all depends on the agreement and its terms.
On the other hand...............here, the students may have more rights than the teachers, since they are required by law to attend school. In the case of a student's religious requirements to wear certain dress, such as a skullcap, etc... this should be allowed, for, if not, then a case could be made for dispossessing freedom of religion. It would not be a fashion statement, but rather a requirement of their religion to ceremonialize specific recognized and accepted observances during a specified period of time, and at a certain age. I believe Jews and Muslims wear skullcaps during religious rites of passage.
Arlo and Karnak have made some good points, and I wish there was more respect for religion taught in public schools. Whether you believe in it or not, it is a fact in this world. True religions teach non-violence and compassion for others. No one will argue the world wouldn't be a better place if there was more of that.
All
Les
Schools do NOT allow teachers or anyone to smoke on campus.
I always wore a coat and tie while I taught public school, even though it was not required. At my Catholic school, students wear uniforms, male teachers wear coats and ties.
In some areas, teachers do have more rights and privileges than students. And in others, students have more rights and privileges than teachers.
I have no problem with a PS student wearing realigious things to school. They were not hired by the state to represent the state. For the same reason, students should also feel free to discuss religion in school.
eskimo
-
LOL Eskimo. My experience is based on an artist's grant from the Alabama State Council on the Arts...$500 bucks for five appearances to local high schools in Baldwin County, to show my etchings and talk about them. One of the high schools was Foley, near Gulf Shores, Alabama. This was the absolute roughest, toughest high school in southern Alabama. The Art teacher was also the P.E. coach and football coach.
I had apprehensions about going to this school, so I asked one of my friends to go with me...a very attractive woman (she got several whistles, and I stared the punks down...LOL) She was a real trooper and had a calming effect on the miscreants.
That is my term. The coach explained to me there were so many bad boys in the class, that they would would not be allowed to look at my etchings because they would disrupt the class and cause trouble for the good students. He was very positive about this.
Les
-
eskimo... are you saying that private schools wouldn't do any better than public schools if they had the same mix of students?
Seems that in NY they did a test wher a Catholic school took 100 of the worst public school kids and improved the scores of something like 80% of em.
Are you sure that at your provate school that if you took those students and put them in public school.... that they wouldn't then become problem children? seems that private school kids that end up in public schools show a drop in performance and an increase in bad behavior.
No... you are not their parent.. I don't believe you should be.. you can be a role model seperate from a parent and should be. Perhaps some kids shouldn't be in the same classrooms as the rest. Why let a few drag down all the rest? Perhaps some percentage of children should be incarcerated... they will be anyway..
For whatever reason... public schools have lost their focus and it would be impossible to wrest it from the buerocrats and unions at this point.... tear it down and start all over...
set academic standards and issue vochers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
eskimo... are you saying that private schools wouldn't do any better than public schools if they had the same mix of students?
Seems that in NY they did a test wher a Catholic school took 100 of the worst public school kids and improved the scores of something like 80% of em.
Are you sure that at your provate school that if you took those students and put them in public school.... that they wouldn't then become problem children? seems that private school kids that end up in public schools show a drop in performance and an increase in bad behavior.
No... you are not their parent.. I don't believe you should be.. you can be a role model seperate from a parent and should be. Perhaps some kids shouldn't be in the same classrooms as the rest. Why let a few drag down all the rest? Perhaps some percentage of children should be incarcerated... they will be anyway..
For whatever reason... public schools have lost their focus and it would be impossible to wrest it from the buerocrats and unions at this point.... tear it down and start all over...
set academic standards and issue vochers.
lazs
Lazs,
I'm saying that a major reason why private schools do better than public schools is that they do not have so many restrictions placed on them. Take any business, tell the employees that they cannot be fired for any reason, and watch what happens to the performance of that company. This comes from politicians who make laws "protecting" all children's right to learn. They think that by keeping all kids in school no matter what they do, they are helping the situation.
As a private school teacher, I spend a lot more of my non student contact time writing lessons than I do dealing with BS-red-tape-paper-work, and giving tests. Again, politicians require so much documentation and testing from PS teachers that there is little time for the important things, like learning.
I would also bet that kids from private school who switch to public drop academically and behavior gets worse. NOT because PS teachers don’t know what they are doing, but because they have almost NO authority and their job has been made so difficult by politicians.
From what I’ve seen, average private school teachers can get great results (academically and behavior wise) simply because students must do what they are asked to do.
In public school, I’ve seen great teachers “fail” with some students because they have no means to force them to do their work. What do you do with a PS student: who refuses to do their work, is disruptive in class, has parents who could care less what their kid does in school, or in some districts - even refuses to attend? Suspension - “Woohoo! A free day off all by myself!”
Expulsion – Good luck, hope you have all of your documents in order!
In school suspension – if the kid didn’t behave or do his work in class, they are not going to do much better in the principal’s office.
In some situations, PS teachers have been given an impossible task.
And yes, I agree. Teacher should not HAVE to play the role of a parent. The problem is, if you ignore it, it doesn’t go away. You still have to deal with those kids who are socially screwed up and not ready or willing to learn. It’s like being a house framer who’s asked to frame on a mud foundation. You can ignore the foundation problem and get nowhere fast, or you can do your best to pour a foundation and frame at the same time.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Arlo
More likely you typed it slow because of your disability, tard but I don't discriminate so I'll still say you're stupid. :rolleyes:
I've been challenging it. LOL :D
Well, it's a bit of a stretch, but I'll try to meet you on your own level.
I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Well, it's a bit of a stretch, but I'll try to meet you on your own level.
I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?
Hmmmm .... looked way too natural actually. Try it again and pretend the glove doesn't fit. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm .... looked way too natural actually. Try it again and pretend the glove doesn't fit. ;)
Oh, yeah, right. WTF does OJ have to do with it? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Oh, yeah, right. WTF does OJ have to do with it? :confused:
Ok .. look ... I'll be a good samaritan and help you get back on track.
Your line: Roolz iz roolz iz roolz and dis here rool suitz me fine so tough titty and all that so dere.
My line: It's not a very good rule and it's actually unconstitutional.
Your line: Iz nawt unconstitoo-shunal! Roolz iz roolz is roolz is roolz is roolz is ....
My line: You need a better argument.
Your line: Well then why down't you just chall-inge it? Huh? You down't compre-hind me or ennathang else tew well.
My line: I think you may have at least part of a point there. You don't make much sense.
And now ....
Your line:
:D
-
First of all, this: "In God We Trust" wasn't on our money till the late fifties. It was not the forefathers idea, it was an anti-commie movement that produced that inscription AND the "under God" in the pledge.
Secondly, it's NOT unconstitutional. She wasn't told she could not wear it, she was told she could not display it.
Can't wear shirts that sponsor products in public schools either, like coke or Miller Light.
But I won't try to change your mind as you requested of someone else, your's is already made up- that's pretty clear.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
First of all, this: "In God We Trust" wasn't on our money till the late fifties. It was not the forefathers idea, it was an anti-commie movement that produced that inscription AND the "under God" in the pledge.
I didn't say it was put on our currency from day one. What I said was the anti-Christian movement using the first amendment as an excuse to remove the "offensive phrase" from the currency so it doesn't rub off on their hands and turn them into holy rollers is a sad waste of time on not just their part but everyone's.
Secondly, it's NOT unconstitutional. She wasn't told she could not wear it, she was told she could not display it.
That's you're interpretation. The use of the first amendment to support anti-Christian agendas didn't start until the sixties. The author and ratifiers of the bill of rights didn't see a problem with how the public school system and other state sponsored institutions allowed Christians to freely express themselves. Perhaps if the Christians actively excluded other groups or forcefully tried to convert them, they would have. But that didn't happen (and still hasn't) and they seemed pretty well pleased with how things were progressing along.
Now we have people whining endlessly about how the bill of rights supports their right to obliterate all mention of God and all Christian symbols within the confines of public schools and state buildings based on their interpretation of seperation of church and state meaning "control of church by state." Control does not equate to seperation. What the state should do is butt out unless an individual or group is trying to force someone to believe in something they don't want to. The purest essense of that amendment.
Can't wear shirts that sponsor products in public schools either, like coke or Miller Light.
Completely non-sequiteur. And probably not all that accurate. Certainly not related to any amendment in the constitution. I know when I went to school there was no such rule banning the wearing of a "Coke" shirt. Maybe those were more naive' times. Certainly they were more sensible in many ways. Banning alcohol related advertisements makes sense but it still isn't a Constitutional thing.
But I won't try to change your mind as you requested of someone else, your's is already made up- that's pretty clear.
Not at the rate you're going. You'll actually have to come up with something rational. Something concrete. The same old anti-Christian agenda rhetoric isn't going to suffice. I've offered some pretty clear views on my part regarding the first amendment. I've boldly stated that there are individuals and groups that have managed to get the courts to accept their misinterpretation of it and ever since then that has been the cornerstone of an agenda that really doesn't accomplish a thing other than revealing that some people are so insecure in their beliefs (or lack thereof) that they find Christianity a threat and are willing to waste everyone else's time and money to "eliminate the threat." Gimme a break. Enough with the paranoia. You can believe or not believe whatever you want to in our free society. The National Anthem, the currency, the pledge of allegience, etc ... were not elements of some dark plot to force you or your children back into Sunday school.
And the school system that suspended the TA over displaying her cross .... crossed the line (ptp). ;) :D
-
Already labelled me as anti-Christian, shows your true colors. No where have I stated anything remotely anti-Christian, but it shows exactly where you are coming from. You wanna be persecuted, and that's how you're intent on seeing it.
First of all is the point, if it had been "In Budda we trust" bet your bellybutton there'd be people protesting to all hell about that one. Otherwise, don't use it as a part of your argumentation if you don't want to hear that it was not something that was added quite recently in the history of your nation and NOT something our nation was founded on or supports.
Secondly, you are interpretating it how you want to as well. Nevertheless, you keep repeating anti-Christian this and that. Try keeping all religion out of state and federal places, and then you'll be on the right track. Right now, you are way over yonder in left field.
Public schools are paid for by, guess who?, the public. The public doesn't consist of only Christians, hence the need to keep all religion out of public schools period. Don't come stating, "it's not offensive!" because it isn't to you... it probably is to someone else.
The statement about displaying product advertisement is indeed not non-sequiteur. It shows that displaying advertisement isn't allowed in public schools, and this isn't a mis-interpretation either. The kids will be told to take those shirts off if they wear them. Do tell, what is the point of displaying your religious affiliation if for nothing else than advertisement? Christianity does not require you to display your crosses, Muslims _DO_ require their women to wear full dress and cover their face. The latter is a requirement by their faith, the former is simply an advertisement.
The point is this nation has no national religion or faith. It's a free country for all, to practice what they wish. Putting the God stuff on the money and in the pledge is an indication of the entire country's religious affiliation. This country is becomming more and more diverse, and when it was NEVER intended to have a state or federally adopted religion to drive it, then it's a good indication those words never should of been placed there in the first place.
You keep spouting "misinterpretation", maybe the problem is you never interpretated it properly in the first place simply because you are obviously already biased to your own side.
And the school system that suspended the TA over displaying her cross .... crossed the line
No, it did not. She was warned twice. She failed to comply twice. That doesn't set a very good example to the students she's supposed to be teaching. If she didn't learn the first two times, and continued to break the rules, she's first of all not a very good TA, and second of all needs a little timeout to realise the rules apply to her too.
If you need to wear jewerly to affirm you faith, it's fairly evident you lack it in any substance anyway.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Ok .. look ... I'll be a good samaritan and help you get back on track.
Your line: Roolz iz roolz iz roolz and dis here rool suitz me fine so tough titty and all that so dere.
My line: It's not a very good rule and it's actually unconstitutional.
Your line: Iz nawt unconstitoo-shunal! Roolz iz roolz is roolz is roolz is roolz is ....
My line: You need a better argument.
Your line: Well then why down't you just chall-inge it? Huh? You down't compre-hind me or ennathang else tew well.
My line: I think you may have at least part of a point there. You don't make much sense.
And now ....
Your line::D
I wondered what you were on. Lines, huh? Explains a lot.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Already labelled me as anti-Christian, shows your true colors. No where have I stated anything remotely anti-Christian, but it shows exactly where you are coming from. You wanna be persecuted, and that's how you're intent on seeing it.
Actually I never once called you anti-Christian nor have I called myself a Christian (I did admit that I'm not that good of a Christian role-model) so it appears that much of your "logic" is assumption based. You saw something you thought could be interpreted as a personal attack and decided that it would be in the best interest of your argument to take it as such. That doesn't do much to convince me that your interpretation of the first amendment is better than mine.
Now .... for the record .... I do indeed profess Christianity as my personal belief. No, I'm not the best of disciples. Feel free to swing that red herring if you must (wait - don't get `em bunched. I didn't say you'd resort to it. I just said it doesn't matter). ;)
First of all is the point, if it had been "In Budda we trust" bet your bellybutton there'd be people protesting to all hell about that one. Otherwise, don't use it as a part of your argumentation if you don't want to hear that it was not something that was added quite recently in the history of your nation and NOT something our nation was founded on or supports.
No ... it was an aside to show how ridiculus some people get when they feel threatened. But, sure ... let's go there. "In God we trust" is not a Christian phrase. You may search all the Christian writings and teachings and you will not find it. Christianity does not endorse or require that inscription on money for it to be "blessed" or for it to avoid being "cursed." The term "God" is quite generic. It can be the God of Christians or Jews or Muslims or Sun worshippers or Techno worshippers or self-worshippers or non-worshippers.
So don't think that my telling you that I think it's a stupid waste of time and taxpayer money and reveals a serious lacking in the common sense of those pursuing this action is a defense of Christianity.
If you took it as a personal affront, then that's probably just because of your stance in relation to it. It was not a personal attack. If you support it then I don't think you're any stupider than the others who do so.
Secondly, you are interpretating it how you want to as well. Nevertheless, you keep repeating anti-Christian this and that. Try keeping all religion out of state and federal places, and then you'll be on the right track. Right now, you are way over yonder in left field.
Your first line does not lead more creedence to your interpretation versus mine. You haven't once addressed my insistance that the author and ratifiers of the first amendment were apparently quite comfortable with how it was being interpreted by schools and state sponsored organizations that allowed Christians complete freedom of religious expression. Yes, I've used the term anti-Christian time and again. That's because nobody has tried to use the first amendment to force any other religion to not express itself .... yet. When that happens, I'll gladly modify it as is fit.
And .. at least I'm on the field. Some aren't even in the stadium.
Public schools are paid for by, guess who?, the public. The public doesn't consist of only Christians, hence the need to keep all religion out of public schools period. Don't come stating, "it's not offensive!" because it isn't to you... it probably is to someone else.
Your hypersenitivity is touching but the constitution that was penned to protect the rights of all, Christian and non-Christian alike, states that everyone in this nation has freedom to express their religion (or not to express any affiliation). It doesn't say "until someone gets easily offended by seeing someone wear a cross on school grounds".
The statement about displaying product advertisement is indeed not non-sequiteur. It shows that displaying advertisement isn't allowed in public schools, and this isn't a mis-interpretation either. The kids will be told to take those shirts off if they wear them. Do tell, what is the point of displaying your religious affiliation if for nothing else than advertisement? Christianity does not require you to display your crosses, Muslims _DO_ require their women to wear full dress and cover their face. The latter is a requirement by their faith, the former is simply an advertisement.
No .. it's non-sequiteur. It does nothing to support the first amendment meaning the "elimination of free expression of religion" instead of what it actually says. There isn't a single amendment in the constitution that says "Congress shall not pass laws allowing the advertisement of commercial products on public school grounds." You're using it as an example to supposedly support the schools right to do something unconstitutional simply because the school has a rule against something. The constitution neither supports nor objects to commercial advertisement on school grounds.
Whether it is a strict requirement of your religion to dress a certain way or it's voluntary on the individual's part is not the issue, either. The first amendment clearly states that Congress can't pass laws that infringe on an individual's right to religious expression. Anyone can express their religious preference as long as they don't force others to believe in something they don't want to.
The point is this nation has no national religion or faith. It's a free country for all, to practice what they wish. Putting the God stuff on the money and in the pledge is an indication of the entire country's religious affiliation. This country is becomming more and more diverse, and when it was NEVER intended to have a state or federally adopted religion to drive it, then it's a good indication those words never should of been placed there in the first place.
You and I are in total agreement on the first two lines. Your problem with the word "God" is duly noted but reading it as an endorsement of a state supported religion is paranoia.
You keep spouting "misinterpretation", maybe the problem is you never interpretated it properly in the first place simply because you are obviously already biased to your own side.
Ahhh .. the "I know you are but what am I" logic is once again substituted for actually directly challenging my basis for my interpretation. So, why didn't you offer a counter-argument to mine? Do you really think the author and ratifiers wrote what they wrote, watched things unfold and told themselves, "Eh ... maybe they'll get this by the mid twentieth century or so."?
And the school system that suspended the TA over displaying her cross .... crossed the line
No, it did not. She was warned twice. She failed to comply twice. That doesn't set a very good example to the students she's supposed to be teaching. If she didn't learn the first two times, and continued to break the rules, she's first of all not a very good TA, and second of all needs a little timeout to realise the rules apply to her too.
Yes ... it did. It infringed on her freedom to express her religious belief. Nothing has been confirmed that she actively proselytized to her students or even mentioned the cross around her neck ... or that even any of the students noticed. If any of them did, though, it would have probably been because rumor got out that she was being harrassed by the school system to conceal it or remove it. The school rule is unconstitutional. The school system there was wrong. As I've said in this thread time and again, the "roolz iz roolz iz roolz" argument .... isn't one, really.
If you need to wear jewerly to affirm you faith, it's fairly evident you lack it in any substance anyway.
I never said I had to. But I support that TA's right to wear hers. As I do the Muslim computer lab teacher's right to her free expression of her faith. As I do someone wearing a Star of David or a Hindu sporting a bindi.
Besides, anyone who's threatened by my merely wearing a cross around my neck has some serious insecurity issues and if they feel the need to take it to extremes, they need help.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
I wondered what you were on. Lines, huh? Explains a lot.
Ok guys .... here's how it's gonna be. If you're just gonna keep repeating "roolz is roolz" and "Well .... it's unconstitutional because if they allow the free expression of religious belief then it's the same as the state supporting a specific religion" (in spite of what the first amendment actually says) ... or ... "nanny nanny boo boo" then it's a deadlock. I'll sit back and wait for some other thought related to the subject at hand to cross your minds. When it does ... let me know and we'll chew the fat. :D
-
The same old anti-Christian agenda rhetoric isn't going to suffice.
You said that. The insinuation is clear, if I am using anti-Christian rhetoric I must be anti-Christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't freely throw this terrific catch phrase into your reply to me.
Lets review, In God We Trust is not a Christian phrase. Did I ever say it was? Indeed, I did not. I did say I did not want federal and state endorsements for any religion.
However, do take note: God is not the same as a god or god so you while this is an argument many of fond of, it doesn't fly. God is a direct reference to one God, many religions have many gods. If I'm not mistaken, however, the Christian God, Jewish God and Catholic God are all the same God.
No one used the First Amendment on anyone other than Christians? Read through this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html#1
Yet, at the same time you expect people to be tolerant of some religious endorsements or statements on the public level (as opposed to private) at the same time you are completely intolerant of their desire for it to remain neutral.
As for the First Amendment, you have yet to prove anyone's right to free excercise of religion has been stifled. What has been proven is that the endorsements of it are not allowed in public schools, nor is forcing people to take part in your free excercise of it.
Your right to free excercise of religion ends where the next person's rights begin, in case you don't understand what that means- people who have children in public schools that do not want their children to be exposed to it have every right to assemble and have the school board change the rules and regulations of religious jewelry, attire, and practice of it while on the public's dime.
Your hypersenitivity is touching
Likewise.
As for the whole advertisement deal, you didn't get the point I was making. Advertisement for private companies is banned, atleast in MD, in public schools. A jewelry cross is nothing more than advertisement. If it isn't, then she would have had NO problem putting it behind her blouse/shirt when asked. She wanted to play the role of a martyr, she got it.
It infringed on her freedom to express her religious belief.
You are substituting expression with excercising, I think you should revisit the First Amendment.
But I support that TA's right to wear hers.
Me too, she can wear it to the cows come home. She could of kept on wearing it too. Instead she felt it was better to advertise it, it's quite evident this wasn't about "Free excercise of religion"...
Besides, anyone who's threatened by my merely wearing a cross around my neck has some serious insecurity issues and if they feel the need to take it to extremes, they need help.
This reminds me more of "be tolerant of my beliefs, but so help you if you challenge them!"
I'm all for neutrality, and anything federally or state sponsored must remain neutral for the system to work properly. Any endorsement at all of any religion is no longer neutral, and thusly I will stand against it.
-SW
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
One example is that teachers MUST be a positive role model for children. If a teacher had a history of making pornographic films, belonged to a gang, had a drug history, or had a serious criminal history, would the public want them teaching?
Why did you lump making pornography and substance abuse history in with criminal activity ? You think recovered alcoholics and drug abusers shouldn't be able to be teachers ?
I'm not judeochristian and I think firing someone for wearing religous jewelry is unamerican. Even the US military isn't that backward .
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The same old anti-Christian agenda rhetoric isn't going to suffice.
You said that. The insinuation is clear, if I am using anti-Christian rhetoric I must be anti-Christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't freely throw this terrific catch phrase into your reply to me.
Fine, have it your way. If you use the rhetoric then you're a stooge of the anti-Christian movement. Be offended. Be very offended.
Lets review, In God We Trust is not a Christian phrase. Did I ever say it was? Indeed, I did not. I did say I did not want federal and state endorsements for any religion.
However, do take note: God is not the same as a god or god so you while this is an argument many of fond of, it doesn't fly. God is a direct reference to one God, many religions have many gods. If I'm not mistaken, however, the Christian God, Jewish God and Catholic God are all the same God.
I think you meant "Christian, Jewish and Muslim" although Mulsim's prefer to call God "Allah". It's not so generic. But your argument ends up flawed in either case. By your own admission you've just said that the Government does not endorse one single religion as a state religion. The most you can whine about now is that they don't endorse enough of them. You're gonna have to be more careful than that.
No one used the First Amendment on anyone other than Christians? Read through this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/05.html#1
I believe if you ask Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses if they were Christian the answer you get would be a univeral, "Yes." But if "anti-Christian" hurts your feelings then I'll substitute "Pro-Stupidity."
Yet, at the same time you expect people to be tolerant of some religious endorsements or statements on the public level (as opposed to private) at the same time you are completely intolerant of their desire for it to remain neutral.
What I'm intolerant of is people going to extremes and attempting to use the Constitution of the United States as a tool to enforce their own insecurities. That TS's cross wasn't a threat to the children in that class. Nor is the inscription on our currency a threat to the spender ... or the National Anthem a threat to the hearer. What it is ... is a bunch of whiney agenda types who have a compulsive disorder that involves having to make mountains out of molehills. Maybe they're bored .... not enough excitement in their lives. Maybe they really do feel threatened by religious symbols and transfer this fear upon their children. Their time is better spent on something that actually may be a threat to the civil liberties of this nation ... though it's getting harder to find such. Maybe that's it .... old habits are hard to break for some ... and others never had their shot at it so let's invent a boogeyman.
As for the First Amendment, you have yet to prove anyone's right to free excercise of religion has been stifled. What has been proven is that the endorsements of it are not allowed in public schools, nor is forcing people to take part in your free excercise of it.
It was stifled for the TA of that school system. In no way has it been proved that the school system would be endorsing Christianity as a state religion by allowing a TA to wear a cross. In no way has it been established that her wearing a cross in class was forcing the students to participate in Christianity in any form. That's the premise of the thread ... the heart of the argument and apparently the major differences in our points of view that cannot be overcome between us.
Your right to free excercise of religion ends where the next person's rights begin, in case you don't understand what that means- people who have children in public schools that do not want their children to be exposed to it have every right to assemble and have the school board change the rules and regulations of religious jewelry, attire, and practice of it while on the public's dime.
But .. of course ... that all depends on what side of the line you stand on when someone decides there's a battle to be fought, eh? You concern yourself with the rights of the non-Christians being trampled by a teachers assistant wearing a cross outside her blouse. I concern myself with the rights of the TA and people like her, whatever culture or religion involved, when the school board says "No you can't wear a necklace sporting a symbol of your religion" when the constitution says specifically that the school board is breaking the law if they do that - at least with taxpayer money. Again .. all you're doing is endlessly establishing your and my preference of who's actually getting their rights violated. It's time we move on to the true definition of the violation. And if you're going to stick with the argument that the school system had to or it would be, in effect, the same as a "state supported religion" ... don't bother - you know already that I don't buy that.
Your hypersenitivity is touching
Likewise.
As for the whole advertisement deal, you didn't get the point I was making. Advertisement for private companies is banned, atleast in MD, in public schools. A jewelry cross is nothing more than advertisement. If it isn't, then she would have had NO problem putting it behind her blouse/shirt when asked. She wanted to play the role of a martyr, she got it.
No .... I get what you're trying to use that to prove but it doesn't prove a thing. Drop the advertisement/subliminal brainwashing correlation already. Especially since that's not a federally mandated rule you are using as an example.
It infringed on her freedom to express her religious belief.
You are substituting expression with excercising, I think you should revisit the First Amendment.
Expression is part of the exercise. Freedom is freedom. As long as she doesn't make it a part of her time to explain to her students why she wears a cross, what it means to her and how they can benefit from doing the same, she/the school/the state is not endorsing squat. Fear and paranoia cause extreme measures. That was an extreme measure.
But I support that TA's right to wear hers.
Me too, she can wear it to the cows come home. She could of kept on wearing it too. Instead she felt it was better to advertise it, it's quite evident this wasn't about "Free excercise of religion"...
"Hindus wearing bindis must wear a hat that covers their forehead or cover the offending religious mark with makeup to be allowed to work in our public school district as to not offend or brainwash the non-Hindu students into accepting their faith." Does that sound just as reasonable to you? Bear in mind that the phrasing in the constitution does not deal with manditory or voluntary clothing, jewelry or adornment. Actually, I wouldn't put it beyond the "Pro-Stupidity movement" .... but I sure hope you wouldn't go that far. And in doing so, reassess your convictions that you're supporting something righteous. :D
-
OK Arlo, despite the walls of text you are throwing down, your entire argument boils down to this...
"...its just a cross on a necklace, it ain't no big thang!"
Why is this your entire reason? Because you and I both know that there is a point at which even you will agree, that the religious expression of a teacher has gone too far.
The gist of the matter is then boiled down to this - Who decides?
Do we create the ARLO commision to decide what is a big deal and what is not? Of course not. I doubt even you would want to be on that committee!
So leave religion out of the schools, and teachers are part of the school.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So leave religion out of the schools, and teachers are part of the school.
Leave discipline and respect for teachers out of the school and guess what, no teachers.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Leave discipline and respect for teachers out of the school and guess what, no teachers.
huh?
Everyone duck... incoming from left field!!
-
Left field? Oh, yeah, we were discussing something of great relevance and importance to our schools like whether a teacher can wear religious jewelry, my bad.
-
:)
One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other... but on to more important stuff.
How did you do that cool AK spinning avatar?
-
hehe, Truespace 2. Version 1 is available as a frre download somewhere. If yer interested I can try to find a link.
-
not necessary, thank you.
-
Looks like they have made version 3 free now. Can't vouch for the validity of this being non-pirated.
http://www.activeworlds.com/products/truespace.asp
It downloads from the caligari site, looks legit.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Arlo, despite the walls of text you are throwing down, your entire argument boils down to this...
"...its just a cross on a necklace, it ain't no big thang!"
Why is this your entire reason? Because you and I both know that there is a point at which even you will agree, that the religious expression of a teacher has gone too far.
The gist of the matter is then boiled down to this - Who decides?
Do we create the ARLO commision to decide what is a big deal and what is not? Of course not. I doubt even you would want to be on that committee!
So leave religion out of the schools, and teachers are part of the school.
Why is it that you insist that the wearing of a cross by a TA represents the state endorsing Christianity as a state religion? That in what is going too far. Crazy talk. And that's all you got. Yes there's a reasonable line. No she wasn't the one that crossed it. Common sense can dictate and no, it doesn't require the Arlo commission. :rolleyes:
Reminder:Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
You may rationalize that she was using the cross to subliminally gain converts to Christianity but I don't see anything rational about that. It's not a case Congress endorsing a state religion. It is a case of a school board infringing on her rights. It doesn't matter if it's something worn on a voluntary or manditory basis. It's no different than telling a Hindu they're fired because of the bindi.
Period. Clear cut. Thank you. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
---snip--- Yes there's a reasonable line. No she didn't cross it. Common sense can dictate and no, it doesn't require the Arlo commission. :rolleyes:---snip---
Forgive the snips...
I'm glad to see you agree with me. So who should decide Arlo? Who do you trust to make common sense decisions regarding your children?
Period. Clear cut. Thank you.
:D
-
Fine, have it your way. If you use the rhetoric then you're a stooge of the anti-Christian movement. Be offended. Be very offended.
I don't use any rhetoric, only because you don't like what I say do you resort to lumping me in with other people. If it makes it easier for you to label me something, or what I say, so be it. I'd label you something to, but I don't want to resort to your childish antics.
I think you meant "Christian, Jewish and Muslim" although Mulsim's prefer to call God "Allah".
Obviously you read nothing of what I said. I think, wait!, I did mean Christian, Catholic and Jewish. They all have the same God. Muslims do not have the God refered to in the pledge or on our money, they praise a seperate God which you properly named: Allah. Saying God does not equate to Allah, it's only a stretch by those who want to retain the "God" in the pledge and the money. Christian, Catholic and Jewish share the same God, that's where the ability to say that "God refers to any god" ends and a whole new can of worms opens: Muslims, Buddhists, etc do not worship the same god.
By your own admission you've just said that the Government does not endorse one single religion as a state religion.
No, by my own admission the government endorses religion. They should not in any way, shape or form. Period.
I believe if you ask Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses if they were Christian the answer you get would be a univeral, "Yes."
No, I do believe if you ask them if they are Catholics you will get a universal, "Yes"... Christians, not really.
If people are so insecure to not want mention of religious ideals by the government, state or federal, then what are you if you are so afraid to have it removed? Super insecure? Yes, yes you are.
It was stifled for the TA of that school system.
No, no it was not. The only thing stifled was her advertisement of it by wearing the cross outside of her blouse. Still aren't catching on I see. She's free to excercise her religious practice: She can pray when she is not teaching. She can worship her invisible buddy when she's not on the tax payers dollar. She is still free to worship. She is not allowed to do it while supervising/teaching children. Just the same as you aren't allowed to wear whatever you want to your workplace against your employer's code.
"No you can't wear a necklace sporting a symbol of your religion" when the constitution says specifically that the school board is breaking the law if they do that - at least with taxpayer money.
Okay, one more time since you seem to be a little slow. She was not told she could not wear a necklace sporting a symbol of her religion.
She was not told she could not wear a necklace sporting a symbol of her religion.
She was not told she could not wear a necklace sporting a symbol of her religion.
Three times, you should be able to grasp it now: She WAS TOLD SHE COULD NOT WEAR IT OUTSIDE HER BLOUSE/SHIRT.
As for the violation, I have repeatedly stated that the rules the public school systems run by are voted on by school boards. Those school boards are heavily influenced by the community. Apparently the community/communities do not want teachers/teacher's assistances exposing jewelry endorsing/advertising a religion.
Expression is part of the exercise. Freedom is freedom. As long as she doesn't make it a part of her time to explain to her students why she wears a cross, what it means to her and how they can benefit from doing the same, she/the school/the state is not endorsing squat. Fear and paranoia cause extreme measures. That was an extreme measure.
Public school teachers aren't allowed to express their ideals/prinicipals to students. Can, and will, get them fired. May wanna look up what public school teachers can and can not do before you continue to argue.
So one day, a kid sees it and asks. She explains it. Kid tells their parents. Whole toejamstorm brews. Has happened before, seems to me it makes a lot more sense to circumvent the issue now rather than wait for the tax dollars to be wasted on a lawsuit.
"Hindus wearing bindis must wear a hat that covers their forehead or cover the offending religious mark with makeup to be allowed to work in our public school district as to not offend or brainwash the non-Hindu students into accepting their faith." Does that sound just as reasonable to you? Bear in mind that the phrasing in the constitution does not deal with manditory or voluntary clothing, jewelry or adornment. Actually, I wouldn't put it beyond the "Pro-Stupidity movement" .... but I sure hope you wouldn't go that far. And in doing so, reassess your convictions that you're supporting something righteous.
Damn, I mean damn. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you catch on?
Certain religions REQUIRE certain things. Muslims REQUIRE full dress on their women, unless they are married. Hindiis(whatever plural is) REQUIRE bindis.
Christians DO NOT require ANYTHING other than to follow the ten commandments, worship God in church on sunday and live according to Jesus' teachings.
You can in no way compare things REQUIRED by certain religions to a necklace cross.
But lets face it, had the TA just put the damn thing behind her blouse in the first place NOTHING would of happened.
-SW
-
Let's stand this incident on its' head and look at it from another angle.
Pretend for a moment that the administrators of the school in question had called in a student for wearing a crucifix necklace. After patiently explaining to the student that the wearing of said necklace might be offensive to student's with different religious faiths the student is given one last chance to remove it...and the student refused to do so.
What would the administration do? Given that many administrators are gutless wonders who are scared spitless of students, their parents, and potential lawsuits...what do you THINK they would do?
Go to any typical large school and look at the types of clothing and jewelry that the kids there are wearing. Read some of the vulgar and pornographic statements on their caps and t-shirts. Note how the gang-bangers are wearing their pants down around their knees as they flaunt their studliness.
Then tell me again why it's a big deal for a teacher to wear a crucifix.
Save the arguments about the separation of church and state. The first amendment makes two statements about religion;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "
As a citizen, the teacher in question has a right to wear any clothing or jewely of a religious nature that she wishes to. Any school regulation that attempts to restrict her right to do so is unconstitutional.
If she were proselytizing well, that's another matter altogether.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Go to any typical large school and look at the types of clothing and jewelry that the kids there are wearing. Read some of the vulgar and pornographic statements on their caps and t-shirts.
[/b]
Any school worth a spit would require their students to remove it.
I'm not quite sure what school you are talking about, been to inner city and rural both... maybe you watch too much Boston Public?
Then tell me again why it's a big deal for a teacher to wear a crucifix.
She's in a position of authority, public school teacher's can be dismissed for offering their opinion about religion or beliefs to students on the public's dime.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "
The first part says "congress shall make no law..."
Congress didn't make the law for public schools, the local school districts do and this is at the hands of the public who pay for these schools.
As a citizen, the teacher in question has a right to wear any clothing or jewely of a religious nature that she wishes to. Any school regulation that attempts to restrict her right to do so is unconstitutional.
You have right to free speech, you say something out of line to your boss- bet yer bellybutton you're gettin' fired. Doesn't touch on unconstitutional either.
-SW
-
You're wrong AK...the rights listed in the first ten amendments were considered by the founding fathers to be absolutes...unless the exercise thereof endangered the lives of one's fellow citizens. That is not the case here.
How many of the students at that school do you think wear crucifixes openly? They're a pretty popular item. Or pentagrams? How much of an effort is made to keep the students from wearing such items that might be offensive to someone else?
By all means, we must make certain that our sensitive and naive children are never exposed to ANYTHING that might OFFEND them. A little diversity can be a scarey thing and they must be shield from it as much as possible. There is plent of time for them to develop a little tolerance AFTER they graduate into the "Adult" world.
Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
You're wrong AK...the rights listed in the first ten amendments were considered by the founding fathers to be absolutes...unless the exercise thereof endangered the lives of one's fellow citizens. That is not the case here.
They are absolutes.. there's a time and place for everything, public schools are run for the public and paid for by the public. It's up to the public to declare dress codes and what is and is not appropriate in public schools. I AM right about this. A cross, or profession of religion, is not something guaranteed by the constitution on someone else's money and time. Practicing your religion (ie: worshipping, going to church, celebrating Christ) on your own time is guaranteed by the constitution.
How many of the students at that school do you think wear crucifixes openly? They're a pretty popular item. Or pentagrams? How much of an effort is made to keep the students from wearing such items that might be offensive to someone else?
I try not to presume things without concrete evidence that they do or do not do those things. All of that is second hand conjecture with no grounds for being true.
By all means, we must make certain that our sensitive and naive children are never exposed to ANYTHING that might OFFEND them. A little diversity can be a scarey thing and they must be shield from it as much as possible. There is plent of time for them to develop a little tolerance AFTER they graduate into the "Adult" world.
Hmmmm, I actually think it's that the parents don't want their kids to be influenced so that they can be free to teach them how they want about faith or beliefs. If you want your kid exposed to Christianity, send them to a Christian school and/or take them to church, want them exposed to Judaism, send them to a Jewish school, and so on.
As for diversity and tolerance, you aren't very tolerant of those who do not want their kids to be exposed to religious ideals while they are supposed to be educated in things that will actually help them to succeed in life.
It's a two way street, you expect people to be tolerant of you and your advertisement of your faith... while you aren't tolerant at all of their wishes to not have their kids be exposed to it.
Anyway, the TA is on the public's dime. The public decides what is and is not appropriate dress and what is to be taught to their children. Same deal as freedom of speech, free to say what you want... right up to the point you get your pink slip.
-SW
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "
Allowing any particular religious symbol to adorn anything or anyone that represents the Government is a violation of the first part of that amendment. IMHO.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Allowing any particular religious symbol to adorn anything or anyone that represents the Government is a violation of the first part of that amendment. IMHO.
So next you'll be petitioning against chaplains in the military, who not only wear official religious symbols on their uniform but also carry out a religious function within it. It also would be ... interestingly enough ... infringing the rights of servicemen (and women) to freely exercise their religion. Your opinion just failed the litmus test imho.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
[
Obviously you read nothing of what I said. I think, wait!, I did mean Christian, Catholic and Jewish. They all have the same God. Muslims do not have the God refered to in the pledge or on our money, they praise a seperate God which you properly named: Allah. Saying God does not equate to Allah, it's only a stretch by those who want to retain the "God" in the pledge and the money. Christian, Catholic and Jewish share the same God, that's where the ability to say that "God refers to any god" ends and a whole new can of worms opens: Muslims, Buddhists, etc do not worship the same god.
No, I do believe if you ask (Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses) if they are Catholics you will get a universal, "Yes"... Christians, not really.
Ok .... I know I brought up the aside which started this off-track discussion about what religion is what but I think you need a lesson about it.
Religion 101
The three mainstream world religions that share the same God are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Judiasm (the oldest of the three) was unique as compared to most religions of it's day in that it had but one God and not a whole pantheon. It requires adherance to Judaic Law and has strict dietary requirements. Jews must go through elaborate rituals of sacrifice and ritual cleansing.
Christianity is an offspring of Judaism. It came from the belief that Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) fulfilled the prophesy of the return of the Messiah. Jews reject the validity of this. Christianity has many denominations. The oldest denomination that still has a wide following is Roman Catholicism. Other denominations arose from followers who didn't agree with (protested) some or all of the doctrines practiced by the Roman Catholic church - hence "Protestant." Some of the many Protestant denominations include: Mormans, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses. The many denominations share one main commonality and that is belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. However, most of the denominations vary greatly in their doctrine and some of them even claim to be the one true faith and that all other denominations are not true Christians.
Most religious historians view Islam as having been founded in 622 CE by Muhammad the Prophet . He lived from about 570 to 632 CE). The religion started in Mecca, when the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) read the first revelation to Muhammad. (Mohammed and Muhammed are alternate spellings for his name.) Islam is the youngest of the world's very large religions -- those with over 300 million members -- which include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Muslims traditionally acknowledge respect for Muhammad, Jesus and other prophets.
As mentioned, Mohammed, at the age of 40, (610 CE), claims he was visited in Mecca by the angel Gabriel. He developed the conviction that he had been ordained a Prophet and given the task of converting his countrymen from their pagan, polytheistic beliefs and what he regarded as moral decadence, idolatry, hedonism and materialism.
He met considerable opposition to his teachings. In 622 CE he moved north to Medina due to increasing persecution. The trek is known as the hegira . Here he was disappointed by the rejection of his message by the Jews. Through religious discussion, persuasion, military activity and political negotiation, Muhammad became the most powerful leader in Arabia, and Islam was firmly established throughout the area.
By 750 CE, Islam had expanded to China, India, along the Southern shore of the Mediterranean and into Spain. By 1550 they had reached Vienna. Wars resulted, expelling Muslims from Spain and Europe. Since their trading routes were mostly over land, they did not an develop extensive sea trade (as for example the English and Spaniards). As a result, the old world occupation of North America was left to Christians.
Believers are currently concentrated from the West coast of Africa to the Philippines. In Africa, in particular, they are increasing in numbers, largely at the expense of Christianity.
Many do not look upon Islam as a new religion. They feel that it is in reality the faith taught by the ancient Prophets, Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus. Muhammad's role as the last of the Prophets was to formalize and clarify the faith and to purify it by removing foreign ideas that had been added in error.
:D
-
Oh well, I was wrong about those religions having the same God.
Still can't account for the rest of the world religions that do have practising members in the US, which do not share the same god or have multiple gods.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Oh well, I was wrong about those religions having the same God.
Still can't account for the rest of the world religions that do have practising members in the US, which do not share the same god or have multiple gods.
-SW
I don't have to. It's already established that the slogan "In God We Trust" does not endorse or promote any single religion. Hence it's appearance on currency does not represent the establishment of a state religion. The case has no basis. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money. And, apparently, none of that matters to the person or persons involved in bringing the case to court.
Still .... as stated, that was an aside involving how far some people will go when they have an agenda controlling them and not visa versa.
The school system violated that TA's rights as stated in the first amendment of the portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. Their rule is unconstitutional hence illegal. If she attempted to lead the class in prayer that's something else. Even your example of a student being curious and asking what the cross means and the TA telling them doesn't apply. No more than the student being curious about a Hindu's Bindi and asking about it and in return recieving an honest reply without proselytizing.
Midnight asks time and again where the line is and who determines it. The line is the active institution of a specific religion by the state that requires participation by the citizens of it's nation. Prayer in public schools came close enough to cause concern behind the bench. It's not precident for the state to persecute anyone on their property or in their employ due to their religious beliefs or practices, voluntary or otherwise.
Going after one sets precident for going after them all, voluntary or involuntary practices being of no real concern. Even Atheism can be classified as a religious belief but since it has no actual symbology or practices (to my knowledge) then it can survive the actions taken on other religions. And if the end result is squelching everything except Atheism ... then guess what (you're bound to see it coming) .... that's the state endorsing one single religious belief - Atheism.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
So next you'll be petitioning against chaplains in the military, who not only wear official religious symbols on their uniform but also carry out a religious function within it. It also would be ... interestingly enough ... infringing the rights of servicemen (and women) to freely exercise their religion. Your opinion just failed the litmus test imho.
A Chaplain represents his religion and happens to be in the Armed Forces. A little different than a teacher in a school, but point taken. Descrimination in that case would exist if all religions were not represented for the soldiers.
Soldiers are adults Arlo, but you knew that.
The line is the active institution of a specific religion by the state that requires participation by the citizens of it's nation.
A perfect description of the Pledge of Allegience.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Soldiers are adults Arlo, but you knew that.
So, to you, it's all about the subliminal threat that glancing at a cross on a necklace on a daily basis presents to the young impressionable minds that get a greater daily dose of sex and violence on the TV after they finish their homework and not actually about the wearing of a cross by a person "representing the state" being unconstitutional.
:D
-
eskimo... I think we agree... I think the more you teach at a private school the more we will agree. The public schools are broken and they probly can't be fixed short of a revolution or hostile government takeover of our country. Certainly... throwing more money at the system is the worst thing we can do... it simply lets the unions and buerocrats mandate more worthless and counterproductive things for teachers to do.
No.. vouchers are the only way to get out of the quagmire that is the public school system... The foundation for a good life if both family and education... they are parellel... fixing education will fix the parenting in one generation... maybe this one and the previous are lost due to our pblic school mistake.. but.. we can fix it with a decent education... that means vouchers... it means getting the govenment out of our education system in anything more than a police/standard setting role.
when the government finally destroys the voucher system them we will discard it and try whatever non government alternative is available at that time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A Chaplain represents his religion and happens to be in the Armed Forces.
I have to differ on this. A chaplains role/job in the military is to meet the spiritual needs of the troops by representing his/her religion. I know you knew this but you almost make it sound coincidental.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have to differ on this. A chaplains role/job in the military is to meet the spiritual needs of the troops by representing his/her religion. I know you knew this but you almost make it sound coincidental.
Chaplains are there to promote the concept that "God is on our side!"
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I don't have to. It's already established that the slogan "In God We Trust" does not endorse or promote any single religion. Hence it's appearance on currency does not represent the establishment of a state religion. The case has no basis. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money. And, apparently, none of that matters to the person or persons involved in bringing the case to court.
*sigh* As I've stated many times before, the government is not supposed to endorse religion period. God implies endorsement of religion. Not any single religion, but religion nonethless and that should not be happening at all. The case has plenty of basis in the line I just stated, and have been stating, you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't support your idealogy of placing religious symbols throughout the nation.
The school system violated that TA's rights as stated in the first amendment of the portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. Their rule is unconstitutional hence illegal. If she attempted to lead the class in prayer that's something else.
Stated this before too. If the school has a dress code, then it has a dress code and if it clearly says no religious affiliated jewelry or religious affiliated items then that's that. She has the right to excercise her religion. No where in the Christian religion does it state you must express your faith through gold plated cross necklaces or through wearing crosses. There was no infringement on her faith in anyway, the only thing that happened was she was told she could not show her jewelry. That's not excercising your Christian religion in any way, shape or form- no matter how much you try to bend it. I may not about Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses or 7th day whatevers... I do know Christianity though, and I know excercising your faith does not involve wearing fancy cross jewelry, having a christ tattoo or slapping a bumper sticker on your car "Jesus Saves".
Going after one sets precident for going after them all, voluntary or involuntary practices being of no real concern. Even Atheism can be classified as a religious belief but since it has no actual symbology or practices (to my knowledge) then it can survive the actions taken on other religions. And if the end result is squelching everything except Atheism ... then guess what (you're bound to see it coming) .... that's the state endorsing one single religious belief - Atheism.
Guess what? That whole paragraph is completely false. In order to be religious you need to believe in something. Atheists don't believe in anything, therefore the absence of belief negates it being labelled a religion in any sensible fashion.
But I'm no atheist, be sure of that. I'm not religious either, wrap your noggin around that one.
-SW
-
But I'm no atheist, be sure of that. I'm not religious either, wrap your noggin around that one.
-SW [/B]
As for me, I'm an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac. I lie awake all night wondering if their's a Dog.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Chaplains are there to promote the concept that "God is on our side!"
No more than any other minister. Suspect you meant this sarcastically. If so then your a real dip sh*t. If not, my apologies.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No more than any other minister. Suspect you meant this sarcastically. If so then your a real dip sh*t. If not, my apologies.
Thank you for your response. I'll consider your well thought out point of view and meditate on it for a week or two.