Does This Seem Right To You? by 6ixStringJack

It does seem that freedom of expression is being applied somewhat inequitably.

Quote:
Judge Supperstone ruled, however, that the ring could not be regarded as a proper Christian symbol, and therefore the school had not breached the Act.

The judge said: "The claimant was under no obligation, by reason of her belief, to wear the ring."

Ahh, that was very nice of the judge to clarify Miss Playfoot’s religious beliefs for her.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:28 AM

SRT (silver Ring Thing) is one of those American evangelical things. Since the only established Christian religion is the Church of England and the ring isn't their symbol, she's stuffed. If course she can wear a cross any time she feels like it.

Actually it's got less to do with her and more to do with Muslim kids. Right now policy is that you can wear stuff to school which is in strict accordance with your faith even if that contravenes school uniform policy. Which means if a Muslim girl comes to school wearing a headscarf the school has to accept it since the Koran says they must cover their heads. If she shows up in a Burkah they send her home since that is not required by her religion and is at best a cultural/personal choice.

This school doesnt allow jewelry, since this ring is at best a sect issue and certainly not a part of mainstream Christian thought (ie God doesnt call for it in the Bible) then it too is considered a cultural/personal choice and banned for the same reason as the Birka would be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:01 AM

I'm not sure they're equivalent. It seems there is the assumption that Christianity is being singled out, because she's a Christian and can't wear something she wants. There's no indication, that I can see, that believers of other religions are allowed to wear jewellery, maybe I missed it though?

It seems much like the Woman who took BA to court, not because she was treated differently to other employees, but because she wasn't. "Ok, no one's allowed to wear jewellery, regardless of religion or personal taste, but I'm a Christian, so I'm different."

Sometimes the 'Christian victim act' is just that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:08 AM

CHRISISALL

In my religion, girls must wear extremely low-cut pants with their thongs showing.
I bet the judge would not rule in my favour either.
Bastard.

Seriously, who expects sense these days? I'd be weirded out if things made sense, and people were left alone to dress and think how they saw fit.
Freedom, within reason.
But there are too many reasons IMO.

Libertarian-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:09 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Sometimes the 'Christian victim act' is just that.

There's that too...

Chrisisall, caring about REAL issues...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:41 AM

FREDGIBLET

Gonna cast my lot in with Cit, Fletch and Chris here. The ring is not required by her religion and is (apparently) against their dress code, this isn't discrimination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:49 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
this isn't discrimination.

But it is a non-issue.

which begs the question...why am I even addressing it...

Bored Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:49 AM

SERGEANTX

I know it's become my refrain, but I can't take these kinds of issues seriously anymore. It's a natural symptom of public education. If you rely on the government to educate your kids, you'll have to abide by silliness like this.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:30 AM

FREDGIBLET

I don't think this really has anything to do with public vs. private. A private school (provided that it isn't parochial) would likely end up with the same result, they have a policy of not wearing jewelry, the ring is jewelery, it is not required by her faith therefore she is not being discriminated against if they don't allow it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:02 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I don't think this really has anything to do with public vs. private...

It's not. It's institutionalized government education vs. letting parents see to their child's education how they see fit. As long as we see education as a public resource, to be controlled and doled out by government, there will be these kinds of issues.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Gonna cast my lot in with Cit, Fletch and Chris here. The ring is not required by her religion and is (apparently) against their dress code, this isn't discrimination.

How do you know it’s not required by her religion? What you mean is that it’s not required by the state religion. It’s an important distinction.

I’m not sure it is discrimination either, in the sense that the law is being applied unfairly, but I do cringe at the way religious opinion/custom is dismissed because it is not widely accepted or state sponsored.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're not making a whole lot of sense with that. There really doesn't seem to be that element in this instance. (Unless you're thinking that all children should be home-schooled.) Perhaps you'd care to explain further?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:14 AM

SERGEANTX

Yes, in any setting where you have decisions about your child's education being decided 'democratically', then you have to put up with the will of the majority. That's all I'm saying. In a private school, or homeschool environment it's up to the parents to make the call.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Gonna cast my lot in with Cit, Fletch and Chris here. The ring is not required by her religion and is (apparently) against their dress code, this isn't discrimination.
How do you know it’s not required by her religion? What you mean is that it’s not required by the state religion. It’s an important distinction.

Like Cit says this is a "look at me I'm a CHRISTIAN" play. Fact is that we have a state religion and we chose to tolerate the rest, that is not the same thing as saying that they are equal. She tested the limits of that tolerance in the same way as the girl that wanted to wear a Burkah did. It didn't work for either of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yes, in any setting where you have decisions about your child's education being decided 'democratically', then you have to put up with the will of the majority. That's all I'm saying. In a private school, or homeschool environment it's up to the parents to make the call.

SergeantX

In fact the only place a "parent" decides is if they home school, private schools tend to be far more restrictive in rules than state schools are since they dont HAVE to take your child. "Parents" plural may have a say in a private school (but then they also do in UK state schools) but fact remains that if the majority of parents didn't want this kid proslotising they wouldn't allow it either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Like Cit says this is a "look at me I'm a CHRISTIAN" play. Fact is that we have a state religion and we chose to tolerate the rest, that is not the same thing as saying that they are equal. She tested the limits of that tolerance in the same way as the girl that wanted to wear a Burkah did. It didn't work for either of them.

I’m not sure about Citizen’s characterization, but I’m not suggesting that the law is being applied unfairly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I think the whole issue's idiotic on both ends.

Never understood why folks focus on the props and mechanics of a belief instead of its values and philosophy - mercy, tolerance, forebearance, these are not things you wear, these are things you DO.

I wear my beliefs in my heart, not on my sleeve.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:10 PM

Well her parents run the Silver Ring Thing in the UK so this is essentially a publicity gimmic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I heard it another way but it seems the same thing - there are people who are focused on the religion about Christ - the power, the glory, the rituals and holidays; and there are people who are focused on the religion of Christ - love and faith.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think the whole issue's idiotic on both ends.

Never understood why folks focus on the props and mechanics of a belief instead of its values and philosophy - mercy, tolerance, forebearance, these are not things you wear, these are things you DO.

I wear my beliefs in my heart, not on my sleeve.

-F

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That's pathetic in so many different ways.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well her parents run the Silver Ring Thing in the UK so this is essentially a publicity gimmic.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:31 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sometimes the 'Christian victim act' is just that.

As with nearly every other "I'm a victim" act.

And for the record, I'm not sure it can be called religious discrimination if it's not a religious ordinance. And being that I'm a Christian myself, I can't say I'm aware of a Christian ordinance to wear chastity rings. I'm sure the school would have done the same to anyone wearing jewelry (not just the religious ones), which is what the policy prohibited.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How do you know it’s not required by her religion? What you mean is that it’s not required by the state religion. It’s an important distinction.

I’m not sure it is discrimination either, in the sense that the law is being applied unfairly, but I do cringe at the way religious opinion/custom is dismissed because it is not widely accepted or state sponsored.

So If I suddenly decided I wanted to walk around nude because it was my religion, no one should be allowed to stop me?

Furthermore, that is a massive mischaracterisation of the situation, no opinion is being dismissed, and I can't see much in away of a custom either, and certainly not because it isn't 'widely accepted'. I don't know what story you are looking at.

Also, the UK has no state religion, it's a secular country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
As with nearly every other "I'm a victim" act.

Indeed, but we were talking about christians at the time. I didn't mean to imply that some Christians are the only people guilty of this, just that they are guilty of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:41 PM

CAUSAL

Yeah--didn't mean that you were. Just thought it should be pointed out.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So If I suddenly decided I wanted to walk around nude because it was my religion, no one should be allowed to stop me?

I suppose that depends on the laws where you live. I would suggest checking first before you convert, if you intend to practice.

I guess you’re suggesting that because your weird religious beliefs aren't supported by the state, that they can't be religious beliefs. In other words, in order for a religious belief to exists, it must be approved by the state?

And as far as dismissing of opinion, according to the article above, the Judge stated, "The claimant was under no obligation, by reason of her belief, to wear the ring." In other words, according to the Judge, there was no religious basis or “reason of her belief” for her religious practice. Yet, the person in question stated, again according to the article, that her ring was “an expression of [[]her[]] Christian faith…” so clearly she believes that her obligation was by reason of her belief. Evidently, however, the judged dismissed that.

How is the Church of England not a state religion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As long as we're talking hypotheticals, there are also many people who claim to be victims who are indeed legitimate victims.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I guess you’re suggesting that because your weird religious beliefs aren't supported by the state, that they can't be religious beliefs. In other words, in order for a religious belief to exists, it must be approved by the state?

If that belief is used as a justification for special treatment under the law I would say yes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:09 PM

CAUSAL

Point well taken. I suppose what I object to is the taking of the victim mentality to absurd extremes (which is what I take this girl to be doing). Don't ask me to give examples; I'd get pilloried.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I guess you’re suggesting that because your weird religious beliefs aren't supported by the state, that they can't be religious beliefs. In other words, in order for a religious belief to exists, it must be approved by the state?

Not exactly, but thats a very authorative spin you put on my words, thanks

.

But no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that just because someone decides they should be able to do something because of their religion, doesn't mean they should be able to, and that preventing them from doing so, isn't necessarilly preventing them from self expression.

Do you have as big a problem with this:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_
id=2

I mean that kid was suspended from school for his religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Church of England.

Is a hang over from the days when we did have a state religion, but since our government is now (save for a few archaic traditions that have little real significance) secular, it is not a state religion. We've got a Queen too, but our government isn't a monarchy.

A state religion is one that exerts governmental control, like the far Christian right does with the Republican party...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If that belief is used as a justification for special treatment under the law I would say yes.

I would definitely agree with you that before a belief could be used as justification for special treatment it would require approval by the state, but I’m not sure that such approval is necessary for the belief itself. In other words, I think that it is completely reasonable to allow that Miss Playfoot does have religious reasons for her practice, and that the state can still require that the dress code stand. But I'm not very familiar with the case. I only know what I've read in this article.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Do you have as big a problem with this:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_
id=2

I mean that kid was suspended from school for his religion.

No, I don’t.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is a hang over from the days when we did have a state religion, but since our government is now (save for a few archaic traditions that have little real significance) secular, it is not a state religion. We've got a Queen too, but our government isn't a monarchy.

A state religion is one that exerts governmental control, like the far Christian right does with the Republican party...

The United Kingdom is a monarchy, and the Church of England is a state religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No, I don’t.

Why not? He was suspended from school for wearing the required affectations of his religion. Why don't you have a problem with it?

Quote:
It is a monarchy, and the Church of England is a state religion.

There was me thinking we had a democratically elected government, when really we're ruled by a hereditary Monarch.

I believe the cogent reply would be “No it isn't”, or maybe just “Nuhuh” for short.

Our government is not a Monarchy, and we have no state religion. A Monarchy is a form of government we don't have, a state religion is only possible in a non-secular country. You'll have to prove that the queen has ultimate executive power, and that the UK government is not secular before I accept your statement as anything but sophistry.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No, I don’t.
Why not? He was suspended from school for wearing the required affectations of his religion. Why don't you have a problem with it?

No one is dismissing his religious beliefs, at least in that article. Rather, again according to the article, it was that his “affectations” were disruptive to the class, and I can see how that would be the case.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Our government is not a Monarchy, and we have no state religion. A Monarchy is a form of government we don't have, a state religion is only possible in a non-secular country. You'll have to prove that the queen has ultimate executive power, and that the UK government is not secular before I accept your statement as anything but sophistry.

I’m not concerned how you see my argument, but I don’t think I need to prove either of those cases. First of all the UK is a monarchy by definition, right out of the dictionary, which does not require that the Queen have “ultimate executive power,” or any real power at all. And a state religion is a religion or church endorsed by the government, whether secular or not, which I think the Church of England is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:40 PM

JONGSSTRAW

I believe that Christianity has been ridiculed, spit on, and discriminated against in most Western "civilized" countries over the last 20 years; in other parts of the world Christians have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. Fortunately for the politically correct and wavy gravy liberal crowd there haven't been Christians, or Governments, or Militias, that have sworn to kill these newspaper, magazine and book writers who defile Christianity...a bizzaro-worldesque Rushdie in reverse...only he is villified and sentenced to death by maniacs AND mainstream CAIR-type Muslims alike...yet WHO speaks for Christianity under attack? Who is actually attacking?...quite a coalition of demented and single minded folks hell bent on destroying what's left of America...Muslims, Soros' vampire/pedophile money-fueled hatemongers, Aclu aka Nambla R Us, and of course the ever-predictable and naively gullable limosine liberal wannabees, the literatti/glitteratti wannabees, the very, very few actual literatti/glitterati, and the ever-present generational rebel youth. It really makes me sick that if Muslims sue the county or state or feds or corporations over veils, or foot washing buckets, or 37 prayers a day at work, or whatever else that cult promulgates..well it's a real serious issue, and we must all be drawn into the madness of debate, with the usual result of muslim kiss-ass pandering ( or fear?...yeah fear!)...but if Reverend Camden and the misses want to have a fucking bake sale in the school gym once in a while to raise money for their homeless programs or teen exchange program... well then the whole weight of that disgusting, thoughtless, anarchy-driven machine comes down on them like modern-day Romans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:46 PM

Quote:
Do you have as big a problem with this:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_
id=2

I mean that kid was suspended from school for his religion.

I don't have a problem with that Cit. You're intelligent enough to know that this isn't a real religion. It's a joke and pure malicious satire. It's a bunch of idiots getting together to try to prove a point. I don't think he should have been suspended, but come on now man... pirate garb, and not even on halloween? Of course this was disruptive. The only reason stuff like this is done is to ruin a legitimate argument to express one's religion and I won't allow myself to fall into that trap.

Everybody knows there was no flying spaghetti monster. Nobody believes in the flying spaghetti monster. If someone were to actually believe there was a flying spaghetti monster, they would likely be candidates to be locked up. How long until the flying spaghetti monster starts talking to them and giving them orders like the Son of Sam?

It's something that punk kids like my little brother wear on their shirt to express their disbelief in any god.

I'm fine with that though. I don't have a problem with Atheism. If he was suspended for wearing a flying spaghetti monster shirt, I WOULD have a problem with that, just as i would have a problem with somebody being suspended for wearing a shirt with Jesus's likeness on it.

Bottom line is, this government control in schools is getting far out of hand now. Individuality (not just religious expression), is being stifled. I guess I can see why a lot of schools don't allow a trenchcoat to be worn in school after Columbine (although I think that's bullshit too), but a ring? They will take away the rights of people of all religions more and more. That's what Big Gov does... it slowly pushes the envelope and takes more and more. Eventually, when they get their way, nobody will be allowed to express their religion, unless that religion is a love for Big Brother.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There was me thinking we had a democratically elected government, when really we're ruled by a hereditary Monarch.

To be strictly accurate we are a constitutional monarchy, the government is the Queen's government, after the election she asked the leader of the largest party to form a government for her. In theory she has the power but she forms a government to run the country for her. The Prime Minister as her principle representative keeps the ballence of her powers which means incidentally that the PM can just decide to go to war without consulting parliament, The US president has to beg permission from Congress (supposedly.)

Quote:

.... a state religion is only possible in a non-secular country.

ah... that's the problem. We don't have a state religion we have a state church. That means the government establishes and maintains a church in this case the CofE. However we have no official religion in that you dont have to be part of any one religion to be in the government or get a government job.

The government runs the church (kinda) the church doesnt run the government. So yes a secular government can support a christian church.... and does.

Oh and theoretically you're not a "citizen" you're a "subject."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh puhhleeese.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I believe that Christianity has been ridiculed, spit on, and discriminated against in most Western "civilized" countries over the last 20 years; in other parts of the world Christians have been persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered. Fortunately for the politically correct and wavy gravy liberal crowd there haven't been Christians, or Governments, or Militias, that have sworn to kill these newspaper, magazine and book writers who defile Christianity...a bizzaro-worldesque Rushdie in reverse...only he is villified and sentenced to death by maniacs AND mainstream CAIR-type Muslims alike...yet WHO speaks for Christianity under attack? Who is actually attacking?...quite a coalition of demented and single minded folks hell bent on destroying what's left of America...Muslims, Soros' vampire/pedophile money-fueled hatemongers, Aclu aka Nambla R Us, and of course the ever-predictable and naively gullable limosine liberal wannabees, the literatti/glitteratti wannabees, the very, very few actual literatti/glitterati, and the ever-present generational rebel youth. It really makes me sick that if Muslims sue the county or state or feds or corporations over veils, or foot washing buckets, or 37 prayers a day at work, or whatever else that cult promulgates..well it's a real serious issue, and we must all be drawn into the madness of debate, with the usual result of muslim kiss-ass pandering ( or fear?...yeah fear!)...but if Reverend Camden and the misses want to have a fucking bake sale in the school gym once in a while to raise money for their homeless programs or teen exchange program... well then the whole weight of that disgusting, thoughtless, anarchy-driven machine comes down on them like modern-day Romans.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Six

What's the difference between an individual belief in a 6 foot white rabbit named Harvey, a group of people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and people who talk to the lord ? When it comes to any belief in the existance and qualities of non-material things (though immaterial would also work here) how DO you prove one is more valid than the other ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:24 PM

Rue. I know you're too intelligent as well to be asking such a fool's question.

We both know that nobody believes in the spaghetti monster. These people may have a belief, which i think is to help the Government in destroying anybody practicing ANY religion in this country and the world, but they do not believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

They do what they do so people can do what you and Cit are doing now. It is to discredit and illegitimatize all religious belief and the expression of religion. Plain and simple.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Six

"We both know that nobody believes in the spaghetti monster." The problem is you can't prove it. Worse, in effect YOU are deciding which religions are allowable and which aren't, and your grotch seems to be the government disagrees with you.

I would rather any government treat all religious claims as valid ones rather than start deciding which ones are real and which ones are bogus.

And THEN decide which things to allow in school depending on how well or badly it affects school function. (For example, trench coats are not a good idea of you think your students may be hiding weapons underneath. Red or blue jackets, shirts and caps are not a good idea if you've got Crips and Bloods in the hood.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:08 PM

STARRBABY

"Grotch"
Good word. I tried to look it up, and couldn't find it . . .however, context was enough.

Mind if I steal it sometime?

Y'know this is slightly off topic, but I just thought it was worth mentioning.
Lots of "look at me" Christians in my HS (back in the day) signed purity pledges, wore rings and bracelets, etc.
If I remember correctly, I slept with 2 of the guys, 3 of the girls (that I know of) got knocked up, and one is now a stripper.

The only close girlfriend of mine who waited until marriage happened to be an extremely moral agnostic. She made this decision not because God would damn her to hell otherwise. She just thought it was unwise to have sex outside of marriage.

Just some food for thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:18 PM

Quote:
The problem is you can't prove it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about Rue. You are being deliberately obtuse, and this argument allows you to be. This is their intent, and it seems to be working rather well. I respect that you don't believe in God. Don't be a dick about it though. I'm sure some girl wearing a silver ring isn't putting you in any jeopardy of losing your absense of faith.

Quote:
I would rather any government treat all religious claims as valid ones rather than start deciding which ones are real and which ones are bogus.

I would too. But, the spaghetti monster is not real, and has never been said to have been created for any other reason to piss off religious people. You know this Rue, and it's very irritating trying to argue this point over and over again with the very small minority who takes these people seriously.

I've already said that if somebody wanted to wear a spaghetti monster shirt at school, they should go unpunished for it. You already know that I'm very against Government censorship of any kind. Calling it a religion, however, is bogus. Most Athiests are annoyed by Athiests like this that group together and do the "cool" thing and wear logos and shit. It's annoying to pretty much everybody. Like I said, it's what FTW teens wear because they think it's cool. I expect it from them. I don't expect it from mature and intelligent people like you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:27 PM

STARRBABY

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I've already said that if somebody wanted to wear a spaghetti monster shirt at school, they should go unpunished for it.

Even if it's against the school dress code?

I'm not attacking. (I'm still up in the air with my opinion on this matter) I just want to clarify.

I think that if a school has a dress code, such as school uniforms, any deviation from said code (even a yellow t-shirt) should be considered insubordination.
This news story has brought a point to my attention, and I'm still mulling it over to decide weather I agree with the school board or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Starrbaby:
Y'know this is slightly off topic, but I just thought it was worth mentioning.
Lots of "look at me" Christians in my HS (back in the day) signed purity pledges, wore rings and bracelets, etc.
If I remember correctly, I slept with 2 of the guys, 3 of the girls (that I know of) got knocked up, and one is now a stripper.

The only close girlfriend of mine who waited until marriage happened to be an extremely moral agnostic. She made this decision not because God would damn her to hell otherwise. She just thought it was unwise to have sex outside of marriage.

Not really too off topic here Starbaby.

Like I said, I'm no holy roller. I slept with 3 virgins in high school, all of them Catholic. It was all "no, no, no" for weeks and right afterwards it was always "anytime you want to do that again...". I've slept with Catholic girls in public bathrooms, closets at parties and behind pools in friends backyards, back when the hormones were raging and self control wasn't even a factor in most of the decisions I made.

Not bragging... that's just what kids do.

Even today when I see TV shows with kids signing purity plegdes (usually now for secular reasons, not religious) it scares me, religious or not. It reeks of the Orwellian "Anti-Sex Youth League", which was only one of the many means with which the Government controlled the people. I think that kids should be having sex all the time if they want, personally.

I might be in the minority on that thought... but if I wasn't in the minority opinion, would anybody believe that I thought it?

As for your friend, I don't mean to be rude, but if she really was a virgin until marriage, I suspect it had much less to do with her Agnosticism and more to do with the fact that she wasn't attractive enough looking for a guy to try hard enough to get her to change her mind. Especially if she had a bad attitude that would further serve to push anybody who would try to have sex with her.

Sex is just too great a temptation, and anybody gifted enough to have been born with the attributes which make us appealing to the other sex will have it (or the same sex if you swing that way). Especially if there is no God telling them not to, and no religious parents conditioning them since birth not to have sex before marriage.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:37 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Actually, as a part-time pastafarian, I have to dispute what the point is there, Jack. The point was not to say religion should be wiped out, but rather that the beliefs of a particular group of religions (those who believe in creationism as laid out in the bible) should not receive the special treatment of being taught as a legitimate theory in the public school system. The whole point is that there is no more evidence for that 'theory' than there is for the theory that all of creation was created by a Flying Spagetti Monster and the lack of pirates in the world is the cause of global warming.
Anyone can believe and practice whatever they want to in their home or their temple, but not in a government-run intitution. Our founding fathers here laid down a separation between church and state, and they were right to do so.

As for the original debate, the call was made on the basis of whether this girl's religious texts dictated anything particular that she had to wear or do. As the second commandment actually states explicitly "Thou shalt not take upon thee any graven images" she was actually quite possibly violating her own religious text and no exception should have been made for her because she claimed it was a symbol of her faith. Symbols, idols, graven images, statues, paintings, pictures... all strictly forbidden in the old testament, something many many people ignore for their own convenience. Because, let's face it, if you don't ignore the meaning of that particular commandment, you have to admit that everyone is going straight to hell for turning on the TV, taking a picture, worshiping a cross or statue... Sure glad it's not my hell to worry on

*edit* If you want to make sure your kids are smart about sex, don't teach them that it's forbidden and to be resisted until marriage, teach them that it's the most incredible and sacred act you can engage in and it's best when it's special. Worked for me. I wasn't married, but I was ready, I was far older and more mature than most kids are when they lose it, I was faithful and devoted, and I didn't catch anything or get knocked up. Oh, and it was really, really good, without exception. Maybe one didn't have anything to do with the other, but I don't think I would have been nearly as relaxed and pleased if I was thinking the whole time "This is bad this is bad, I'm sinning" or "What am I doing? I'm not ready for this!" I could be wrong, though.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
A troll's hair is still pointy, even when it's wearing a hat.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I've already said that if somebody wanted to wear a spaghetti monster shirt at school, they should go unpunished for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Starrbaby:
Even if it's against the school dress code?

I don't believe in a dress code. If we are to have them at a school, I suggest a very limited one keeping us from looking like it's halloween everyday. I'm adamently against a uniform code though. A Government funded school paid with our taxes should never have any dress code because they are forcing us to a) pay for the school and b) send our kids to the school, with penalties of fines, jail time, and even loss of children to the Government.

However, if they are paying for the school and they chose to go there, they knew about the dress code going in. There should be no spaghetti monster or Jesus shirts being worn if that's against the code.

Jewelry is rediculous here though. They'll allow a cross necklace that you could choke somebody with, but they won't allow a silver ring which could leave a welt if Nolan Ryan threw it at you? Recockulous! I say.

This is just the secular schoolboard throwing their weight around, and personally, I view it as another attack on Christianity.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Bottom line is, this government control in schools is getting far out of hand now. Individuality (not just religious expression), is being stifled. I guess I can see why a lot of schools don't allow a trenchcoat to be worn in school after Columbine (although I think that's bullshit too), but a ring? They will take away the rights of people of all religions more and more. That's what Big Gov does... it slowly pushes the envelope and takes more and more. Eventually, when they get their way, nobody will be allowed to express their religion, unless that religion is a love for Big Brother.

There have been nations where that has occurred, but Britain (along with being a Monarchy) is also a liberal democracy and I think it’s a jump to equate this to state oppression. As the point was made earlier, private schools are usually more demanding in terms of rules then public ones and that likely is part of the reason why they are often more successful. So I’m not really against things like dress codes or even uniforms, and I’m not sure that totally free expression really lends itself to a scholastic environment for young children.

That being said, restricting all jewelry does seem to be a little anal, and making a federal case out of a girl wearing a ring that symbolizes her desire for her own personal responsible sexuality, especially when teen pregnancy is such problem both in the US and the UK, comes across as pretty stupid to me, at least with what I know right now. And when I read the judge dismissing this girl’s opinion, I can’t help but feel like there are some unfortunate ulterior motives on the side of state in this case. At the very least it seems to be counterproductive to encouraging the type of behavior that the British would want in their teenage girls. It’s one thing to suspend a boy for repetitive disruptive behavior, this seem to be something else entirely. I don’t really understand what’s going on here, some have suggested that the father has his own motives, although his motives strike me as much more favorable and reasonable then the school’s, but then I don’t really know what the full story is.

I think it’s entirely possible that there is some political correctness here that is running amok somewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Anyone can believe and practice whatever they want to in their home or their temple, but not in a government-run intitution. The founding fathers laid down a separation between church and state, and they were right to do so.

That's fine PR. But I move that school is not mandatory, and neither is paying taxes for the public school system then.

Quote:
is going straight to hell for turning on the TV, taking a picture, worshiping a cross or statue... Sure glad it's not my hell to worry on

You'd be going to that "Special Hell" then.

Quote:
*edit* If you want to make sure your kids are smart about sex, don't teach them that it's forbidden and to be resisted until marriage, tech them that it's the most incredible and sacred act you can engage in and it's best when it's special. Worked for me. I wasn't married, but I was ready, I was far older and more mature than most kids are when they lose it, I was faithful and devoted, and I didn't catch anything or get knocked up. And it was really, really good.

I endorse this message.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:53 PM