Thread Options
|
#934269 - 04/01/08 10:16 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Pale Rider
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,858
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
you can find crosses in many areas of the south today on the side of the road, some are 3 side by side to signify Calvary, while others are placed in memorial to loved ones who perished in the spot in a car accident.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934292 - 04/01/08 11:12 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
HappyGilmore
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,390
USA
|
Me thinks that a policy on haircuts and a policy on religion are quite different, and anyone with common sense could see why agreeing that a child should cut hair in a certain way as not to distract others is COMPLETELY different than a Highschooler not being able to show a cross and a phrase because it "infringed" oon others rights.
_________________________
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934301 - 04/02/08 12:01 AM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Blessed
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,395
Jersey Shore
|
Just to remind everyone of the positions staked out during the "Mohawk" thread..
HappyGilmore: i guess the question that comes up is who gets to determine what is "properly groomed." In this case, the answer is the school. And children should be taught that individualism has nothing to do with looks, clothes, or hairstyles, but with their demeanor and attitude. Bottom line is schools have rules, and everyone gets to follow them, even if you don't agree with them. but apparently they are too young to learn that there are also rules and that they must be followed...interesting concept you have.
BengalsFan: PS: Hey, Lady! They CAN and just did tell you how you can cut his hair. Well, actually they just told you how you can't cut his hair. And ANYTHING that disrupts the education of the kids should allow for a suspension, especially something so utterly unneccessary. You know what, as soon as they are old enough to start experimenting on their own, then they are old enough to face the consequences of their own actions. They'll learn hey, if I wear a mohawk, I'll have a harder time finding a job.
Oh wait, he is learning about the consequences of having such a haircut. He was suspended. And it isn't as if it was unknown. His mother was warned not once, but twice before action was taken.
Ofay This is outrageous. How do they expect us to boost our children's self-esteem and teach them that the world does indeed revolve around them if they keep trying to impose standards of behavior on them. Sheesh. Of course not. We must bow to little Johnny's need to express himself. That is of utmost importance. Umm, sure it is OK to question the rules and all that. But then you don't get to whine (hint, the fact that this is a news story means that they are whining) about the consequences. Get the rules changed or shut the flip up. And start looking around for good prisons for your kid. jk *** End re-cap ***
So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades.
Last edited by AML-Barbarian; 04/02/08 12:02 AM.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934330 - 04/02/08 01:25 AM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Hrothgar Geiger
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
|
Amendment 1 1/2: The right of children to wear mohawks to school shall not be infringed.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934411 - 04/02/08 12:46 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
pjs
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,985
FINALLY ABOVE the gnat line
|
"If the school art policy made specific requests regarding the art class than so be it. The kid signed it- to rip up the policy is so disrespectful. Our world is one gigantic mess. "
I agree, however, I also believe that the school has the duty to enforce their policy equitably and fairly for all students. If what the article and student were saying are true(others students doing religious or demonic drawings) then the school is not enforcing it's own policy and should not single this student out for retribution. He should have been punished for tearing up the policy and the picture should have been graded based on its own merit (or lack thereof).
_________________________
"Once you learn to read, you will be forever free." - Frederick Douglass
My Opinion Only.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934451 - 04/02/08 01:26 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Hrothgar Geiger
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,228
Cincinnati, OH
|
So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades.
The difference here is between the right to a mohawk, not covered in the constitution, and the right to freedom of religion, directly covered in the constitution. Had the same teacher not insisted on exposing the same class to Buddhism, the issue wouldn't be as grave.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934453 - 04/02/08 01:29 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Hrothgar Geiger
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,858
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades since you've already admitted you have comprehension issues, I'll spell it out. The school has a "no religion" policy which it is not enforcing fairly or across the board, which is the basis for the lawsuit.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934573 - 04/02/08 02:54 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
B_F
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades.
The difference here is between the right to a mohawk, not covered in the constitution, and the right to freedom of religion, directly covered in the constitution. Had the same teacher not insisted on exposing the same class to Buddhism, the issue wouldn't be as grave. Do you have the right to display any religious icon at work. Many employers restrict this and that is constitutional. Anyone with common sense can see that, as someone mentioned earlier. Some have hit it on the head. If others were allowed to have demonic images, then the school failed to enforce the policy uniformly and that is the issue. Once again, you see value in policies you agree with but no value in policies you disagree with, which is not really different than the "activist judges" you rail against. You focus on the outcome, rather than how to apply standards. I think both the haircut and this policy are silly, but I also don't think these issues are for courts to decide. Take it up with the school board if the school administration refuses to change; otherwise find another school, much like you suggested the mohawk kid's parents should have done.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934598 - 04/02/08 03:05 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Hrothgar Geiger
|
Power Poster
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
|
Just to remind everyone of the positions staked out during the "Mohawk" thread..
HappyGilmore: i guess the question that comes up is who gets to determine what is "properly groomed." In this case, the answer is the school. And children should be taught that individualism has nothing to do with looks, clothes, or hairstyles, but with their demeanor and attitude. Bottom line is schools have rules, and everyone gets to follow them, even if you don't agree with them. but apparently they are too young to learn that there are also rules and that they must be followed...interesting concept you have.
BengalsFan: PS: Hey, Lady! They CAN and just did tell you how you can cut his hair. Well, actually they just told you how you can't cut his hair. And ANYTHING that disrupts the education of the kids should allow for a suspension, especially something so utterly unneccessary. You know what, as soon as they are old enough to start experimenting on their own, then they are old enough to face the consequences of their own actions. They'll learn hey, if I wear a mohawk, I'll have a harder time finding a job.
Oh wait, he is learning about the consequences of having such a haircut. He was suspended. And it isn't as if it was unknown. His mother was warned not once, but twice before action was taken.
Ofay (Ofay is a racial slur, a slang term for a white person) This is outrageous. How do they expect us to boost our children's self-esteem and teach them that the world does indeed revolve around them if they keep trying to impose standards of behavior on them. Sheesh. Of course not. We must bow to little Johnny's need to express himself. That is of utmost importance. Umm, sure it is OK to question the rules and all that. But then you don't get to whine (hint, the fact that this is a news story means that they are whining) about the consequences. Get the rules changed or shut the flip up. And start looking around for good prisons for your kid. jk *** End re-cap ***
So, apparently while schools may write policies about student appearance, they may not write policies about student artwork submitted for grades. fixed
Last edited by Typ. White Persn; 04/02/08 03:06 PM.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934599 - 04/02/08 03:05 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,238
|
Straw, I'm not certain that this is really a first amendment issue, but . . . surely you can see the difference between a private employer (not subject to the First Amendment) banning religious icons and a state school (subject to the first amendment) prohibiting kids from referring to religion in their assignments.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934610 - 04/02/08 03:13 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
Pale Rider
|
Power Poster
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4,195
Basking in the Cool Weather
|
crosses can be part of a landscape, they were pretty common two millenia ago
and the reference could have been part of the student's sig line
nevertheless, I like that policy I actually dont beleive that they were that common... reserved for only cruel punishments... this form of punishment was in general use from the 7th century before the common era -- Alexander the Great is reported to have had this done to 2,000 survivors of the siege of Tyre It was the established mode of execution, even for wealthy and army generals in Carthage It is mentioned in the Quran, even in Japan in antiquity I stand informed and corrected...
_________________________
I'll be in the hospital bar. Uh, you know there isn't a hospital bar, Mother. Well, this is why people hate hospitals.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934639 - 04/02/08 03:36 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
B_F
|
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
|
Had the same teacher not insisted on exposing the same class to Buddhism, the issue wouldn't be as grave. I thought it was the Social Studies teacher who exposed the class to Buddhism, not the Art teacher -?
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934651 - 04/02/08 03:41 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,228
Cincinnati, OH
|
Some have hit it on the head. If others were allowed to have demonic images, then the school failed to enforce the policy uniformly and that is the issue.
This is exactly the issue at hand. When the school allows a teacher to preach Buddhism and allow demonic images, but allows a teacher to disallow Christian icons, there's a constitutional issue at hand.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934675 - 04/02/08 03:54 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,238
|
Actually, schools and employers are treated pretty similarly in this context. Sort of, but for very different reasons. Private employers are subject to employment discrimination laws, but not to the first amendment. Thus employers may not discriminate against someone on the basis of religion, but they can have religious-neutral rules such as no icons of any kind (religious or otherwise) and they have no general obligation to permit someone to exercise their religion in the workplace. Schools on the other hand are subject to the first amendment. Therefore, they cannot restrict someone from the free exercise of their religion.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934682 - 04/02/08 03:58 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
B_F
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Some have hit it on the head. If others were allowed to have demonic images, then the school failed to enforce the policy uniformly and that is the issue.
This is exactly the issue at hand. When the school allows a teacher to preach Buddhism and allow demonic images, but allows a teacher to disallow Christian icons, there's a constitutional issue at hand. Perhaps, but there is defintely a policy issue at hand.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934689 - 04/02/08 04:02 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
rainman
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
Actually, schools and employers are treated pretty similarly in this context. Sort of, but for very different reasons. Private employers are subject to employment discrimination laws, but not to the first amendment. Thus employers may not discriminate against someone on the basis of religion, but they can have religious-neutral rules such as no icons of any kind (religious or otherwise) and they have no general obligation to permit someone to exercise their religion in the workplace. Schools on the other hand are subject to the first amendment. Therefore, they cannot restrict someone from the free exercise of their religion. Actually, they can have religious neutral rules just like a business place can. Thus, the policy at hand is constitutional on its face. The applciation of that policy may not been neutral, as the article alludes to.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934764 - 04/02/08 05:05 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,238
|
A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934773 - 04/02/08 05:10 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
rainman
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
|
A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism. Then define a religiously neutral policy.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934776 - 04/02/08 05:11 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,228
Cincinnati, OH
|
A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism. Then define a religiously neutral policy. Allowing non-violent, non-disruptive expression of any religious faith. If it becomes violent or disruptive, it is disallowed.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934816 - 04/02/08 05:53 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
straw
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,238
|
A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism. Then define a religiously neutral policy. I would "define" it as one that doesn't discriminate among religions and doesn't discriminate in favor of non-religion over religion (or vice versa). An example would be what I already stated: No icons of any kind may be included in artwork. (You can argue that the term "icon" automatically implies religion, but: a) this is just an example, you get what I mean, and b) an example of a non-religious "icon" would be the Boston Red Sox logo.)
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934820 - 04/02/08 05:56 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
rainman
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
|
A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism. Then define a religiously neutral policy. I would "define" it as one that doesn't discriminate among religions and doesn't discriminate in favor of non-religion over religion (or vice versa). An example would be what I already stated: No icons of any kind may be included in artwork. (You can argue that the term "icon" automatically implies religion, but: a) this is just an example, you get what I mean, and b) an example of a non-religious "icon" would be the Boston Red Sox logo.) If the artwork had a Bosox Logo, and I was a student at this school, I'd feel highly offended and discriminated against
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#934821 - 04/02/08 05:56 PM
Re: A pretty sad day in America
B_F
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,858
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
A policy that says no religious icons is not "religious neutral" - it is anti-religion. It discriminates against any religion in favor of non-religion or atheism. Then define a religiously neutral policy. Allowing non-violent, non-disruptive expression of any religious faith. If it becomes violent or disruptive, it is disallowed. So would a picture of Christ being crucified be considered violent and therefore restricted? if you know anything about the crucifiction process, then it would be disallowed (for those who aren't aware, briefly, the way you were crucified was done so that you would slowly suffocate as your muscles gave out. You didn't die from loss of blood or the wounds of the nails - they were often just tied with rope - but your muscles would be stretched to the pain threshold and you could no llonger support yourself. very painful death). Who determines what is violent or disruptive? The school? You? me? X? (oh, wait, he left the board)
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|