Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Silver Ring High Court Thing

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,07:17    Enjoy the Persecuto-bollocks! Louis P.S. But seriously: religious symbol wearing in schools: where do people stand? Me: I say ban them all equally or allow them all equally. I'm in favour of the latter because, for a laugh, I will be paying students to attend school naked but for a loincloth, sheen of goat blood and a dead black cockerel to celebrate their satanist faith. Oh ok, comedy aside, ban the bloody lot of them, someone's personal faith should be just that, personal. We need less symbols of division in society, not more. -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,07:51    And this? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,08:26    Ditto on the allow them all or ban them all.     Personally, I come down on the side of allowing them all.   It's silly to ban a piece of jewelry because it has religious imagery.      This case is a little different - she attends a school with a uniform code,  and if you accept a uniform code (by choosing to attend said school, as this family did), you have to abide by it. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,08:40    Allow them as long as it isn't illegal. I got taken out of classes when I was 15 for not shaving, I wish it had occured to me then that sueing was an option. It's worth pointing out that in the UK the schools enforce strict uniform regulations, so I suspect that in this case the school will have a 'no rings' policy. I know that apparently muslims in the school are allowed to wear bracelets, but as far as I can remember in my school the policy was bracelets are ok rings are not. A good example of the state of the situation over here is that in one of my cousins schools ony students 'of afro-carribean descent' are allowed braided hair. Quote She told BBC Breakfast: "In the Bible it says you should remain sexually pure and I think this is a way I want to express my faith." I don't know why she's complaining, she'll be off to sixth form in a few months and then she can wear a T-shirt that says 'I am sexually pure' and then everyone will know.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,09:07    Quote (Chris Hyland @ June 22 2007,15:40) I don't know why she's complaining, she'll be off to sixth form in a few months and then she can wear a T-shirt that says 'I am sexually pure' and then everyone will know. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Louis -------------- Bye.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,11:41    Why ban the rings, or anything else? They don't mean anything, anyway! Quote Students who participated in abstinence-only sexual education programs were just as likely to have sex later as those who did not, according to a federally mandated study. The results of this study could have serious implications because Congress is considering renewing the block grant program for abstinence education -- known as Title V -- this summer. The federal government has authorized up to $50 million annually for the program, according to MSNBC. Critics of the program have repeatedly said that abstinence-until-marriage programs do not work. The study, conducted by the nonpartisan Mathematica Policy Research, found that students who attended one of four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. Also, the students in the abstinence-only classes first had sex at about the same age as those in the control group -- 14.9 years. Actually, nix what I said. Considering that the "True Love Waits - purity ring" crowd is less likely to use contraception while having the illicit sex that their ringy-dingies say they don't have, the rings obviously mean "Self-righteous, hypocritical, anti-choice skank who'll stick you with fatherhood!" and are therefore useful. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,11:51    Quote (Louis @ June 22 2007,07:17) Enjoy the Persecuto-bollocks! Louis P.S. But seriously: religious symbol wearing in schools: where do people stand? Me: I say ban them all equally or allow them all equally. I'm in favour of the latter because, for a laugh, I will be paying students to attend school naked but for a loincloth, sheen of goat blood and a dead black cockerel to celebrate their satanist faith. Oh ok, comedy aside, ban the bloody lot of them, someone's personal faith should be just that, personal. We need less symbols of division in society, not more. It is pretty damn sad that courts deal with this sort of silliness. You would think that there might be more important stuff to deal with. I am beginning to think that nearly all special considerations should be shredded. Perhaps making religious paraphernalia ilegal in state education facilities until a person is legaly an adult.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,13:33    well, related to the issue of religious paraphernalia in school is the issue of gang paraphernalia in school. wearing symbols of certain gangs in many CA schools is a sure way to start a brawl, or worse. hence, many schools have banned the wearing of certain items of clothing. I find the example instructive.  personally, I would say wear whatever the fuck you want, until it becomes clear by evidence that the reason you are wearing it is to foment violence or cause other demonstrable disturbances. IOW, I would always go on a case by case basis, and that would apply to anything worn with a clear intention other than as a fashion accessory, religious or otherwise. schools, while often considered "public", really aren't.  Each person there is in a closed environment, with no opportunity to escape personally offensive demonstrations by other students. Imagine if a racist student decided to come to school dressed in a white robe and hood. I would find that of course offensive in a truly public environment where observers could simply leave the area, but in a school, I would find it actionable. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,13:56    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 22 2007,13:33) well, related to the issue of religious paraphernalia in school is the issue of gang paraphernalia in school. wearing symbols of certain gangs in many CA schools is a sure way to start a brawl, or worse. hence, many schools have banned the wearing of certain items of clothing. I find the example instructive.  personally, I would say wear whatever the fuck you want, until it becomes clear by evidence that the reason you are wearing it is to foment violence or cause other demonstrable disturbances. IOW, I would always go on a case by case basis, and that would apply to anything worn with a clear intention other than as a fashion accessory, religious or otherwise. schools, while often considered "public", really aren't.  Each person there is in a closed environment, with no opportunity to escape personally offensive demonstrations by other students. Imagine if a racist student decided to come to school dressed in a white robe and hood. I would find that of course offensive in a truly public environment where observers could simply leave the area, but in a school, I would find it actionable. Well yeah, Isn't that kinda the point. People are finding just about anything offensive. What once would have been sorted out by communication is now heading to court. Perhaps all state schools should have a uniform that everyone has to comply to?

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,13:56    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 22 2007,13:33) well, related to the issue of religious paraphernalia in school is the issue of gang paraphernalia in school. wearing symbols of certain gangs in many CA schools is a sure way to start a brawl, or worse. hence, many schools have banned the wearing of certain items of clothing. I recall getting in trouble at a HS I attended over the dress code.   There was a blurb banning "bandanas, scarves, or other gang related clothing",  which I failed to interpret as dis-allowing the hot-pink polka dotted scarf I wore tied into a big floppy bow in my hair.   The principle confiscated the scarf  (in lieu of detention, since it was an honest mistake).  Pissed me off to no end, since I never got the thing back,  and back then the 18 bucks of baby sitting money I had spent on it seemed like quite a chunk of change to me. *chuckles* The problem with blanket bans on things is that they're often ineffective, and always end up with unintendedly broad consequences. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,14:47    Quote Isn't that kinda the point. People are finding just about anything offensive. ah the wonders of diversity. but it wasn't my point at all. my point was, if you discover that wearing an item of clothing or accessory is directly offensive to someone, and you wear it specifically and demonstrably in order to offend, that is the actionable thing.  In a truly public venue, at least in this country, I would hope that wearing items in order to make a statement is still covered under free speech (though there are laws in many states regarding "inciting to violence" issues). However, in a school, your right to free speech is countered by the fact that your putative audience is essentially sequestered. so my point was that the only truly effective method is to look at each case as to what the motivations are.  Much harder, but less idiotic than a blanket ban, to be sure. hence, Penny's example of wearing a pink scarf is a perfect example of NOT looking at the motivation for wearing an item of clothing or accessory. btw: Quote It is pretty damn sad that courts deal with this sort of silliness. You would think that there might be more important stuff to deal with. It just dawned on me that an answer as to why this stuff ends up in court is exactly the fact that blanket rules in schools shift the responsibility for making specific determinations away from school administrators and onto the courts. You either have to push for school administrators to spend more time in accepting the burden of responsibility for dealing with issues like this on a case by case basis, or you have to accept that the courts will end up dealing with it. actually, we should push the burden of responsibility mostly onto the shoulders of the students, too, and the parents who should be teaching them about tolerance, sensitivity, and how to play nice with others. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,15:15    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 22 2007,14:47) Quote Isn't that kinda the point. People are finding just about anything offensive. ah the wonders of diversity. but it wasn't my point at all. my point was, if you discover that wearing an item of clothing or accessory is directly offensive to someone, and you wear it specifically and demonstrably in order to offend, that is the actionable thing.  In a truly public venue, at least in this country, I would hope that wearing items in order to make a statement is still covered under free speech (though there are laws in many states regarding "inciting to violence" issues). However, in a school, your right to free speech is countered by the fact that your putative audience is essentially sequestered. so my point was that the only truly effective method is to look at each case as to what the motivations are.  Much harder, but less idiotic than a blanket ban, to be sure. hence, Penny's example of wearing a pink scarf is a perfect example of NOT looking at the motivation for wearing an item of clothing or accessory. btw:   Quote It is pretty damn sad that courts deal with this sort of silliness. You would think that there might be more important stuff to deal with. It just dawned on me that an answer as to why this stuff ends up in court is exactly the fact that blanket rules in schools shift the responsibility for making specific determinations away from school administrators and onto the courts. You either have to push for school administrators to spend more time in accepting the burden of responsibility for dealing with issues like this on a case by case basis, or you have to accept that the courts will end up dealing with it. actually, we should push the burden of responsibility mostly onto the shoulders of the students, too, and the parents who should be teaching them about tolerance, sensitivity, and how to play nice with others. And so we continue to spiral into a situation where more and more things need to be decided by courts of law? The whole situation that we find ourselves in is getting ridiculous. Anyone can find anything offensive. Should school administrators be spending more and more time worrying about what is offensive rather than improving education? I guess that I think that a litigatious society is a bleedin waste of time and resources that could be used better.

PennyBright Posts: 78 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,16:24    Grr.  The whole giving, taking offense topic. There are two faces to civil behaviour - first, to make a reasonable attempt not to give offense.  Second, to make a reasonable attempt not to be offended. Our culture is too hung up on penalizing people who fail at the former, and doesn't bother to try and teach people the latter.  And don't even talk about trying to get people to understand the difference between offended and injured. -------------- Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 22 2007,17:23    I wear my Thor's Hammer and Midgard Serpent amulets proudly. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,13:12    Just in case anyone still cares, it looks like the school banned the rings when it became pretty obvious that this girl was kicking up a fuss going about the school as a virgins-for-god recruiting sergent for her parents company (ie UK silver-ring-thing). On a side note, the companies 'media consultant' says:   Quote Increasingly, girls in particular are not looked on as human beings with value, and worth who have the right to say no to sex, or to keep sex for a loving, long-term relationship in marriage. It causes me great sadness to think that girls are often looked on as just sexual objects and others expect them to want sex and agree to sex, whatever the level of relationship. This is her: Not quite pornstar Adam but funny all the same.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 26 2007,14:04    Quote Just in case anyone still cares, it looks like the school banned the rings when it became pretty obvious that this girl was kicking up a fuss going about the school as a virgins-for-god recruiting sergent for her parents company (ie UK silver-ring-thing). gives whole new meaning to bling-bling -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard