Does This Seem Right To You?
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 03:39
VIEWED: 9437
PAGE 1 of 2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/16/nring1
16.xml
I will say right off, I don't believe in not having sex until marriage. Hell... I'm probably the RWEDer who's the least likely to ever get married. Not that having had sex before marriage has done me a world of good, in the long run, but who's to say that life would be better now had I not? Maybe I would be happily married now at 27 years old, if the only way i could have sex was being married first. Then again, maybe I'd already be divorced and paying child support for three kids I barely ever get to see anymore....
This is all besides the point though. This girl and her friends at a school in the UK has been denied their right to express their religion, by being banned from wearing nothing more than a silver ring at school. A school, I might add, that allows practicioners of other faiths wear their religious garbs every day, even though they are against dress code.
This is the type of attack on Christianity, which is only focused on Christianity, that really gets under my skin. Just another example of how our leaders would love for us to live in a Godless society.
Again, who's to say if we'd be better or worse off in a Goddless society? This is not my call to make. In the mean time, I see no reason why this court case went the way that it did. I hope she appeals and gets a judge with half a brain and a enough respect for the individual to allow them their right to practice their faith in a way they see fit.
As long as she wasn't using the ring as a weapon against non-Christians, or insulting people of other religions in a way which directly involved her wearing the ring, I don't see the problem here. Neither of these were the case, at least they weren't brought up in the article at all....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It does seem that freedom of expression is being applied somewhat inequitably.
Quote:Ahh, that was very nice of the judge to clarify Miss Playfoot’s religious beliefs for her.
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."
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There's that too...
Originally posted by citizen:
Sometimes the 'Christian victim act' is just that.
Chrisisall, caring about REAL issues...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But it is a non-issue.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
this isn't discrimination.
which begs the question...why am I even addressing it...
Bored Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not sure about Citizen’s characterization, but I’m not suggesting that the law is being applied unfairly.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well her parents run the Silver Ring Thing in the UK so this is essentially a publicity gimmic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So If I suddenly decided I wanted to walk around nude because it was my religion, no one should be allowed to stop me?
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Causal:
As with nearly every other "I'm a victim" act.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I suppose that depends on the laws where you live. I would suggest checking first before you convert, if you intend to practice.
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 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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not exactly, but thats a very authorative spin you put on my words, thanks
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?
.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: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.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Church of England.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If that belief is used as a justification for special treatment under the law I would say yes.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I don’t.
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.
Quote:The United Kingdom is a monarchy, and the Church of England is a state religion.
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...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why not? He was suspended from school for wearing the required affectations of his religion. Why don't you have a problem with it?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No, I don’t.
Quote:There was me thinking we had a democratically elected government, when really we're ruled by a hereditary Monarch.
It is a monarchy, and the Church of England is a state religion.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Why not? He was suspended from school for wearing the required affectations of his religion. Why don't you have a problem with it?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No, I don’t.
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.
That's a very good point Finn.
If this were an "Anti-Sex Youth League" ring that had nothing to do with any religion, or a bracelet, or even a ribbon or sash over her uniform, I'll bet we never would have read about this court case because there never would have been one.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
...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.
But you're missing the key difference. With private schools, the parents decide which one gets their money. In general, public school schemes don't offer that kind of choice , and thus parents have much less say. Private schools have incentive to please as many parents as possible while public schools are only accountable to the majority.
Sure, even at a private school there will be a gravity toward the mainstream desires (depending on the school), but parents can still decide. They can look for schools that cater to their fringe interests if that's what they want. It's the same old story. Government programs will always favor one-size-fits-all solutions. It's part of the price we pay when we make something a government service. In some situations, that's exactly what's called for. I think it's a mistake when it comes to education.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" 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."
It was said better elsewhere ... BUT ... I don't want to be making judgements on the validity of one person's religion as compared another's, or the depth or direction of an individual's beliefs. You just might get the odd pastafarian who really does believe. And who's to day one belief is more valid than the other ? (As you know, AFAIC one is not 'truer' than another.)
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It was said better elsewhere ... BUT ... I don't want to be making judgements on the validity of other people's religions or the depth or direction of an individual's beliefs. You just might get the odd pastafarian who really does believe. And who's to day one belief is more valid than the other ?
And as I said before, how long until that nut-job starts talking to the spaghetti monster and goes on a killing spree a'la Son of Sam?
If somebody seriously believe in the spaghetti monster, then worries of a combined church and state is very low on their list of problems.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And as I said before, how long until that nut-job starts talking to the spaghetti monster and goes on a killing spree a'la Son of Sam?"
UUHHMmmmm ... I think the same thing about Jesus, Allah, Mithra, Zeus ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
UUHHMmmmm ... I think the same thing about Jesus, Allah, Mithra ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
And I respect that Rue, but we have thousands of years of belief and Billions of followers when you combine them, and actual accounts in history that give creedence to some of their claims.
The spaghetti monster was born by a creative artist who has a hardon for discrediting people of any religion. I don't even see what there is to believe in.
If we're going to ban all religious expression from schools, so be it, but then paying taxes for the schools and enrollment to said schools should not be mandatory.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a firm believer in education as the only hope for a world heading terrifyingly fast towards a time when Earth-that-is can no longer support our numbers, I think the government should fund it above all else. Can you imagine how many of the ignorant could be educated for the price of one smart bomb? Can you imagine how much better off the planet would be if everyone knew the dangers of overpopulation and the option of birth control? If everyone knew how to care for and farm the land, and that your rival neighbors have pretty near the same genome as you and aren't worth killing? No, I think some form of school should definitely be mandatory. You wanna home school? Fine and good. You want a specialized private school? Also fine and good (and you shouldn't have to pay school tax if this is the case, I don't think, but this is really a whole different subject so I'll stop now)
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: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.
Ah, if only I had a dollar for every time someone told me I was going to hell...
Being a complete cam-companion is the least of my worries!
*edit*
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
The spaghetti monster was born by a creative artist who has a hardon for discrediting people of any religion.
Dammit, I already explained how that is so not the case.
I don't believe all of creation was made by a Flying Spagetti Monster, but I do believe in what it stands for, which is taking a rational look at the demands of dogma to be taken as absolute truth. I think the spirit is truth and dogma is just a lot of tough gristle around the tender meat of it. Dogma should not be taught outside a religious school or a place of worship, and I think the world would be a better place if it was done away with altogether.
I've often said if schools start posting the Ten Commandments, I'll rally to have the Three Poisons and the Four Noble Truths posted as well, and any other quick and easy Dogma from any other religion that's practiced anywhere.
Even pastafarianism
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not about banning religious expression. I think you do need to ban dangerous and disruptive things, which will vary with time and place - for example gang colors and clothes in certain places.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not about banning religious expression. I think you do need to ban dangerous and disruptive things, which will vary with time and place - for example gang colors and clothes in certain places.
So, in your opinion Rue, is a silver ring, no matter the message, a bannable offence?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No.
BUT - as long as the rule is applied to everyone equally - and it appears it is - you can't make a claim of special religious discrimination against you. Which is what her parents were claiming.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Dammit, I already explained how that is so not the case.
I don't believe all of creation was made by a Flying Spagetti Monster, but I do believe in what it stands for, which is taking a rational look at the demands of dogma to be taken as absolute truth. I think the spirit is truth and dogma is just a lot of tough gristle around the tender meat of it. Dogma should not be taught outside a religious school or a place of worship, and I think the world would be a better place if it was done away with altogether.
I've often said if schools start posting the Ten Commandments, I'll rally to have the Three Poisons and the Four Noble Truths posted as well, and any other quick and easy Dogma from any other religion that's practiced anywhere.
Even pastafarianism
I heard what you said before PR, but so long as school is mandatory and forced on people who would live their life a different way otherwise, I view it as an attack on religion.
I feel it's more important for people to follow the life they believe in rather than be forced to be with other asshole kids from 9AM - 3PM everyday who share none of their beliefs. The end result, usually, is that they become like each other, and more often than not, that leads to secularism. It's a system that has stacked itself against the wishes of the individual and creates a hivelike mentality. If people are not free to express their beliefs at school, then school should be mandatory.
Besides, I didn't learn anything in school that made me a single dime outside in the real world. By Kindergarten I already could tell time without a digital clock/watch, add subtract multiply and divide, knew my ABC's, could read at a 5th grade level and I was spending most of my time in grade school helping the half-wits. I didn't learn anything there except how to behave like a good little puppet.
EDIT: I am in no way saying that public schools should endorse or affiliate themselves with a particular religion. I am, however, demanding that public schools allow people to express their religious beliefs without interferance, so long as they're not harming others while doing it.
That being said, though the spaghetti monster is a train of thought some people have, it is NOT a religion. Expression of it should not be prohibited in a public school nonetheless, so long as they abide the rules of not harming others.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No.
BUT - as long as the rule is applied to everyone equally - and it appears it is - you can't make a claim of special religious discrimination against you. Which is what her parents were claiming.
In that context, I can give you the win here. Perhaps they're fighting the wrong battle.
It does seem like Christianity is getting a majority of the brunt of this wrath though. Muslims seem to get whatever they want, whenever they ask for it. I suspect it's because they're not white, as well, so they have that going for them too.... This PC shit really needs to stop.
Christians are likely the next group to start hearing God and going Son of Sam otherwise.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"it's more important for people to follow the life they believe in rather than be forced to be with other asshole kids from 9AM - 3PM everyday who share none of their beliefs"
I'd agree with this except that it's usually the parents who are dictating the 'personal' beliefs of their children.
And I can see how some parents might fear losing control - but you lose more control over your kids due to advertizing than you do to the schools.
CAPITALISM - it's the NEW religion.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'd agree with this except that it's usually the parents who are dictating the 'personal' beliefs of their children. I can see how some parents might fear this - but you lose more control over your kids due to advertizing than you do the the schools.
I don't see a problem with parents raising their kids with their particular religion. Especially in a world where choices aren't laid out before them. Any child would choose video games and cartoon network over church any day. Any teenager would choose sex and drugs over church any day, without having been taught differently growing up. I don't believe that children should be confirmed in any religion until they're old enough to make that choice for themselves.
You're right about advertising being potent, but that doesn't discredit the problem or diminish the problem I have with public schools at all. There are many outside forces, mostly originating from secular government, that are working every angle to make sure as many kids grow up with no system of beliefs as possible. Shouldn't be but another 200 years or so before we're all saying "in the year of our Ford".
If you don't get that reference, I'd be happy to tell you where it was from.
EDIT: "CAPITALISM - it's the NEW religion."
Heh.... seems you get the jist anyways.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Most schools are simply daycare for teenagers. Many people would benefit from apprenticeships. However, parents like to know that their kids are being institutionalized and not out causing trouble.
IMO, these institutions have the right to have any rule they want, and if the parents don't like it they can move their spawn to a different institution.
I tend to lean towards Big Brother leaving us the hell alone, but I think that private entities can have any rule they want and if you don't like it, go elsewhere.
I *am* correct in assuming that this school is private, right? Otherwise my whole thought process was for naught.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not going to say there's nothing wrong with the education system, I think there's a lot wrong with it. However, I don't think one of the things that's wrong is demand for a certain amount of non-yelling about what book you believe in. And I think ANY religion - Christianity or otherwise - being in government-mandated evidence in schools would be one of the things that's wrong if that were the case. If you're going to include one, you have to include them all, and the fact is it's easier to just keep the two things away from each other. And that is the point being made by the obviously ridiculous Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster. If everyone gets entry into the curriculum, so do they. Would you prefer that there be a school for every possible religious practice in every town or city so they were able to cover the material needed? Or would you prefer that teachers, administration, and the government just STFU about religion and leave it as an individual choice? Me, I think it should be an individual choice, not something shoved down our throats by an institution of learning. If you want to learn about all the religions of the world, you can specialize in it in college. If you don't, you shouldn't have to. And if they did that in the public schools, there wouldn't be time for English class, or math class, or PE, or anything except "This is what the bible says, this is what the Koran says, this is what the teachings of Buddha say..." How boring, how ridiculous. No. No one should yell about or shove their beliefs down anyone's throat, least of all Big Brother. The only way to avoid a theocracy, as far as I'm concerned, is to keep the government separate from the church. Any church. And to do that they need to actively distance themselves from it, because it wants to consume them for its own benifit. And in that active distancing, I'm afraid, we still have a long way to go.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But you're missing the key difference. With private schools, the parents decide which one gets their money. In general, public school schemes don't offer that kind of choice , and thus parents have much less say. Private schools have incentive to please as many parents as possible while public schools are only accountable to the majority.
I'm wondering what the difference is between "pleasing as many parents as possible" and "the majority."
Sounds to me like you just hate public education.
As for private schools. The ones that just take your money and do a piss poor job educating kids may let parents push them around like you say. The ones that have any reputation have waiting lists and chose parents not the other way around. As someone who has been responsable for a child in an exclusive school (my sister as it happens) I can assure you that standards of dress and behavior tend to be treated far more strictly there than in any government school.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Starrbaby:
Most schools are simply daycare for teenagers. Many people would benefit from apprenticeships. However, parents like to know that their kids are being institutionalized and not out causing trouble.
IMO, these institutions have the right to have any rule they want, and if the parents don't like it they can move their spawn to a different institution.
I tend to lean towards Big Brother leaving us the hell alone, but I think that private entities can have any rule they want and if you don't like it, go elsewhere.
I *am* correct in assuming that this school is private, right? Otherwise my whole thought process was for naught.
Nope, government school... well kinda.... these days schools are independent entities paid for with government money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Entire post
Can't say I disagree with a single word of that PR. I don't believe that religion should be tought in school for the very reason you provide, although, I wouldn't object if it were provided as a sort of elective, if you desired learning about your and other religions, in leiu of wasting a period in "study" hall. Might even help our relations with Muslims?
At the same time though. They have no right stifling someone from expressing their religious beliefs. If I want to wear an upside-down cross or ring signifying my worship of Satan, STFU, so long as I'm not killing kids or sacraficing goats on school property. They've over stepped their boundaries, as far as I'm concerned, and parents should not have to pay for Government school or be forced to make their kids go until they shape the f
k up. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So, in your opinion Rue, is a silver ring, no matter the message, a bannable offence?
We wear school uniforms in the UK (you have seen Harry Potter right?) The idea is that kid A doesn't have an advantage over kid B because Kid A has nicer clothes. Outside you make be well off or dirt poor but inside you are all the same.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Starrbaby:
Most schools are simply daycare for teenagers. Many people would benefit from apprenticeships. However, parents like to know that their kids are being institutionalized and not out causing trouble.
You're right. There needs to be alternatives for those who care enough about their children that they don't want another dummy yes-man puppet for the Government. I've said for years that I could be a Master tradesman now if I had spent the 12 years I wasted in school learning how to create or fix something. Now I'm just another schlock typing on a keyboard and babysitting machines 1000 times as smart as I am, just waiting for the day they become sentient and turn on me.
"And the monkey pushes the button"
Quote:
IMO, these institutions have the right to have any rule they want, and if the parents don't like it they can move their spawn to a different institution.
I agree, if we're talking Private institutions. If we're talking a Government funded institution, they need to learn their role and sit the f
k down and let the people be. PR is also right. If you pay for your kids to go to private school, you should be exempt from paying any taxes which go to the public school in your district. You should only be paying school taxes if you are currently sending your kids to Government school. This would free up more money for parents who would send their kids to private organizations, but can't afford to because they can't afford the tuition on top of the tax.Quote:
I tend to lean towards Big Brother leaving us the hell alone, but I think that private entities can have any rule they want and if you don't like it, go elsewhere.
Completely agreed. You don't love Big Bro either, huh?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The idea is that kid A doesn't have an advantage over kid B because Kid A has nicer clothes. Outside you make be well off or dirt poor but inside you are all the same.
All of that rhetoric is just the nice edge of the double bladed sword. Surely you don't believe that the US's "Patriot Act" is as benevolent as the name might have one believe?
EDIT: And even if that were the only intent. It playes right into my "hivemind" argument. It kills individuality. It's wrong, plain and simple.
EDIT2: Yes, I've actually read the first 5 Harry Potter books, after making fun of my friend for reading kids books. I didn't have book 6 ruined for me until yesterday, about 5 minutes after I had book 7 ruined for me. If you don't want spoilers, don't ever go to Digg.com. I love that site, but I can't believe I had both the last two books ruined for me in 5 minutes after I've gone like 2 years without having 6 ruined for me. Nothing I could help. It was right in the title of the article. I didn't even have to click on it.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.
We don't want muslim kids sent to schools in Burkah's is what it comes down to. You can tolerate headscarves, crosses and stars of David because they are legitimate religious symbols. However, this girl's ring and the Hijab/Burkah can at best be termed "religious lifestyle symbols" not something demanded by the religion so much as a choice someone makes to advertise that they are devout. As such they should be treated equally and they have been.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
We don't want muslim kids sent to schools in Burkah's is what it comes down to. You can tolerate headscarves, crosses and stars of David because they are legitimate religious symbols. However, this girl's ring and the Hijab/Burkah can at best be termed "religious lifestyle symbols" not something demanded by the religion so much as a choice someone makes to advertise that they are devout. As such they should be treated equally and they have been.
"We" in the case of you and I means "you". I have no problem with burkahs in school. The Government shouldn't be allowed to ban them if they're forced to go to school, period. The kids are going to be brutal on them though. Plus, they will be the only girls not getting hit on, and that would be a shame because a lot of them are very beautiful.
Not all white people are the racist and intolerant assholes we've been painted as being for years.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
have one believe?
EDIT: And even if that were the only intent. It playes right into my "hivemind" argument. It kills individuality. It's wrong, plain and simple.
Really? So how you dress is the only form of individuality you have? You define your individuality based on the buying power of your parents? Yes you are an American, you really do think individuality comes from a store in the Mall.
In fact in real life the opposite happens, you are forced to assert and demonstrate your difference in none materialistic and none superficial ways. Every kid in my school was a character, each one was magnificent, even the complete bastards. Think on this, John Lennon wore a uniform to school, so did Keith Richards, my God what down trodden little mice they grew up to be
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
"We" in the case of you and I means "you". I have no problem with burkahs in school. The Government shouldn't be allowed to ban them if they're forced to go to school, period. The kids are going to be brutal on them though. Plus, they will be the only girls not getting hit on, and that would be a shame because a lot of them are very beautiful.
Not your country, not your problem. When you guys have made it through 300 years without a civil war call us and we'll talk. Until then, this is the way we do things.
OK?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Completely agreed. You don't love Big Bro either, huh?
I'm the bane of fascists everywhere. I'm socially liberal and financially conservative. I don't give a crap what other people do, but I don't want to have to pay for their stupidity.
I *hate* that the government thinks it can tell me to make my kids wear a seat belt, what genitalia my spouse can have, or even make me wear a helmet while riding a motorbike.
However, I despise even more paying out of my hard earned money for the health care of the dumb asses who don't wear their helmets and funding the nutrition of children made by people who can't afford it.
To top it off . . .it creeps me out to think that some yahoo in DC thinks he knows whats best for the elementary school 2 blocks from my house.
LOL . . . I'm sure that's more than ANYONE wanted to know . . .plus it was a bit irrelevant. Sorry
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Entire post
Can't say I disagree with a single word of that PR. I don't believe that religion should be tought in school for the very reason you provide, although, I wouldn't object if it were provided as a sort of elective, if you desired learning about your and other religions, in leiu of wasting a period in "study" hall. Might even help our relations with Muslims?
Yes, fair points. Early elective choice of several things would be an improvement in the overall system, and as long as it wasn't a mandatory class, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
Quote:
At the same time though. They have no right stifling someone from expressing their religious beliefs. If I want to wear an upside-down cross or ring signifying my worship of Satan, STFU, so long as I'm not killing kids or sacraficing goats on school property...
Or kicking up a fuss about it. Before you get defensive, I do agree. If you want to wear something symbolic, that should be okay. BUT! If you were to talk about it all the time, or say "Hail Satan!" before every test, or any number of other things, they would have reason to resitrict that. NOW, not to say this girl was constantly saying "This ring means this and I'm a good little Christian and I wear this ring to prove it." but somehow I wouldn't have trouble doubting it. I knew girls like that in school. They were bubbly, loud, and spouting off about Jesus all the time. I was consistently relieved when teachers would tell them to keep it down and not shove their bibles in everyone's face. Maybe this girl was being quiet about it. Maybe it was just something against the school policy and she refused to comply the first time they asked her not to wear jewelry. I had a similar experience in school when I wore a hat. Not a gang color hat or anything offensive, just stars and planets, but hats were banned at my school for gang reasons. I was told not to wear it, and when I put it back on later it was whipped off my head and I didn't get it back until the end of the day. They made no exceptions. I could have tried to say, I don't know, that it was scientifically interesting or an important symbol in my belief of the connection of the cosmos, but really, it was just a hat. A thing. I didn't need it to prove anything with. So. It's just a ring. It doesn't prove anything. She can be chaste without wearing it, and more power to her. It's against school policy, and if they make exceptions for her, they'll have to start making them for others. Is jewelry so bad? No. But neither are hats.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Really? So how you dress is the only form of individuality you have? You define your individuality based on the buying power of your parents? Yes you are an American, you really do think individuality comes from a store in the Mall.
In fact in real life the opposite happens, you are forced to assert and demonstrate your difference in none materialistic and none superficial ways. Every kid in my school was a character, each one was magnificent, even the complete bastards. Think on this, John Lennon wore a uniform to school, so did Keith Richards, my God what down trodden little mice they were...
LOL.... plenty of people that I knew in highschool wore clothes they picked up 2 for a buck at the thrift store man. I never wore Tommy Jeans. I always had the cheaper Levi's. If you're jealous of people who wear nicer clothes than you, that's your problem. I don't need to be told what to wear to feel better about myself. I'll dress myself, thanks... don't need Big Bro picking out my clothes.
And I'm sure Lennon and Richards said what they've said and given the proles all of the great music they did out of a deep inner sence of "FUCK BIG BROTHER". That's probably why they're famous and you're not. Maybe they just got lucky though. Go back to kissing Big Bro's ass now. Sorry to keep you from your job.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Starrbaby:
I'm the bane of fascists everywhere. I'm socially liberal and financially conservative. I don't give a crap what other people do, but I don't want to have to pay for their stupidity.
I *hate* that the government thinks it can tell me to make my kids wear a seat belt, what genitalia my spouse can have, or even make me wear a helmet while riding a motorbike.
However, I despise even more paying out of my hard earned money for the health care of the dumb asses who don't wear their helmets and funding the nutrition of children made by people who can't afford it.
To top it off . . .it creeps me out to think that some yahoo in DC thinks he knows whats best for the elementary school 2 blocks from my house.
LOL . . . I'm sure that's more than ANYONE wanted to know . . .plus it was a bit irrelevant. Sorry
I also endorse this message....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And I'm sure Lennon and Richards said what they've said and given the proles all of the great music they did out of a deep inner sence of "FUCK BIG BROTHER". That's probably why they're famous and you're not.
I'm sure they did. So what's your excuse for not being famous then since you obviously had no problem with that free expression thing? Lack of talent maybe? Talent doesn't come from a designer label or from being "right on" enough to wear thrift store. It does tend to come from being challenged and my guess is they were.
I think part of your problem is that you think "the man" is holding you back. It's the only way to make sense of the world since you think you're cool but you never really amounted to anything. That's why you have this angry anarchist thing going on. If you ever let that slip and really thought about it you'd just realise that you're not as great as you think you are.
I have the opposite problem. I ended up making a set of choices that have left me comfortable and happy but in the process I've given up on the creative part of my life completely. I can't say for sure that the choices that were made were bad ones because the outcome was good, just can't help thinking I missed an opertunity or two along the way.
That, by the way, is how you know you are free, when the only regrets you have are the results of your own choices.
Anyway, I'm through with this topic. Have fun.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hear ya Phoenix. I wouldn't want Jehova's witnesses telling me every morning in homeroom that they wanted to talk to me about Jesus either. But, I wouldn't mind if somebody prayed before a test, if that's what they wanted. I don't want to hear it, but if they did it silently at their desk and whispered it to themselves, I don't see how it's any of my business or Big Bro's.
No sacraficing of goats before a test though, no matter how quiet they were.
Your hat shouldn't be banned and the ring shouldn't be banned, for any reason. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Never said that I was as talented or as cool as Richards or Lennon. I just happen to understand that they weren't happy with the status quo, and I suppose we both have Big Brother to thank for the wonderful music they've given us.
That being said, I do have a lot of natural talent that I've squandered. I do blame my parents and Government for a lot of it, but I know that I could have done a lot of other things besides play Nintendo in my off time. That's why I picked up the guitar 3 years ago. 24 years old is better than 50, I say. Probably missed my rock star window, but I'm getting good. I hope to be bandworthy by the time I'm 30. Thanks for caring!!!!
My crappy covers can be heard at www.myspace.com/b49teen84 , if anyone was curious enought to give a listen. I'm always trying to improve them and add more to the rotation.
I do think that I'm great though. You got me there. I know I'm smarter than 90% of the people around me at least at any given time. That's why I like it here. Although I disagree with a lot of you most of the time, I don't consider you to be stupid. Mislead and confused... yes. But stupid, no.
Hope you're happy with your life. Sounds like you're relatively happy with the status quo and you don't have too much to worry about. Can't fault you there. I'm just not wired that way. My advice would be take up that hobby you wished you always did when you were younger. Sure I wish I started playing at 12 years old, but I'm still happy that I started at 24 years old.
Quote:
That, by the way, is how you know you are free, when the only regrets you have are the results of your own choices.
That's a nice thought. I wish it were Utopia and this was just the case for everyone. Maybe UK is utopia, but it's far from it here. Not everybody has that luxury.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Starrbaby, you rocked it there - happy to hear some voices of straight talk honesty around here instead of orwellian doublespeak.
Thing is, IF they let said kid wear a ring, that had damned well better be an universal policy.
Around here, you can wear a cross, but NOT a pentacle - and yet the fekkin christians whine so hard about persecution.
Yeah right - ask Tempest Smith about THAT one.
(Forgive me my rage for this, but as long as such outrages are continued, ignored, and even *encouraged* by the Michigan Public School System, I will be, and remain, angry and maliciously hostile about it.)
I never saw an issue about anything that wasn't blatantly disruptive, and like Six, the idea of uniforms drives me up the wall bonkers.
In addition to the obvious issues mentioned by Six, the destruction of individuality and creativity, something it seems public school is rather designed to do these days...
You're also creating a legally-mandated monopoly, and can expect those outfits worth maybe $30 to shoot up to triple digits under the barely polite fiction of quality control while the manufacturers laugh up their sleeve and pay a kickback to the school board.
Something i've also mentioned, which has been dismissed instantly, utterly, and out of hand by any school official i've ever spoken with, is that the kids wind up with no say in it, it's the state invading their lives in a very personal way against their very personhood, you see ?
Now if the school had the kids participate, come up with and vote on a design, and made it an issue of school pride, where students felt like participants and wanted to "fly the colors" of their own CHOICE, then it would not only be less of an issue, but would remedy many points of the adversarial relationship (see also: poisonous parenting) issues related to school uniforms.
But that would only work if the stated reasons held up as a polite fig leaf were actually true, which they are not, and this is why such suggestions are dismissed out of hand - it's about CONTROL, and breaking them to the will of the state to be it's obedient little servants.
Look carefully at the introduction of a student to a school with such policies, and then go watch a convict introduced to a prison and tell me there's not a chilling similarity there, which is even worse when you add in the uniform and the reasons for it's application.
It's about as extreme an act of disrespect as you can possibly force upon a person to choose what THEY wear, and the act of a dominance/submission relationship rather than a healthier mentor/learner relationship.
Look past the fictions they use to excuse and justify it, and call it what it really is, treating them as property instead of people.
And folks, they ARE people, adults in training, and if we had the sense to treat them so, they might not rightfully despise us and our whole generation, which most of em do, and I cannot blame em.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Useful Addendum to Last Post:
===================================
SUMPTUARY LAWS ARE UN-AMERICAN
By Jordan Riak, March 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In England, under King Henry VIII, who reigned from 1509 to 1547, an elaborate set of regulations were introduced governing how everyone dressed down to the smallest details. These were called "Sumptuary Laws." The color, style and fabric content of a person's clothing signaled that person's rank in society. People who lived in England during the 16th century knew at a glance where everyone stood in the social pecking order.
Today in the United States some people want to bring back sumptuary laws--not for themselves, of course--but for students at school. They have some theories about the value of making all young people conform to clothing styles not of their own choosing. They think that if students are required to wear clothes that are a constant reminder of their subordinate status, they will be more submissive to authority. That theory doesn't hold up in practice. Dress codes are more likely to provoke resentment than promote cooperation. The only reason they worked in King Henry VIII's day is because anyone who bucked authority risked a date with the hangman. This is not the 16th century. And sumptuary laws are not the American way.
Some school administrators claim that concern about clothing is a distraction to students, and that the use of school uniforms will eliminate that distraction. Actually, concern about students' clothing is a distraction to teachers. Good teachers are too busy dealing with what goes on in students' minds to have any time or energy to waste worrying about what they are wearing. Furthermore, teachers who really know their craft are careful not to offend students' sense of justice and fair play by interfering with their right to exercise their own judgment in matters that are purely personal.
Some educators feel threatened or challenged by students who attempt to establish their personal identity by means of symbolic clothing styles, e.g., "gang colors," and they try to thwart those expressions by edict and force. But feelings and expressions of rebellion are more likely to be intensified and solidified by official opposition to them. The best way, and probably the only way, to protect young people from the lure of negative, destructive influences is by presenting positive, constructive ones attractively and in ways that clearly demonstrate their value. This takes more time, thought and skill than force, but it works. Force only works temporarily if it works at all.
Professional educators understand the cardinal rule of good management: you get respect by giving respect. Teachers who can't teach and school administrators who can't administrate tend to fall back on obedience training--something more suited to the preparation of circus animals for the ring than young people for citizenship. By keeping themselves busy monitoring other people's clothing styles and meting out punishments to dress code violators, they fool themselves into thinking they are doing something useful. They're not. They're only stirring up resentment and making school life unpleasant for all concerned.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You're also creating a legally-mandated monopoly, and can expect those outfits worth maybe $30 to shoot up to triple digits under the barely polite fiction of quality control while the manufacturers laugh up their sleeve and pay a kickback to the school board.
I didn't even think about this Frem. I wonder if Halliburton has a "textiles divison".
Quote:
you get respect by giving respect
Well..... those 6 words are really what it's all about, aren't they Frem?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed - in fact almost every single discipline related problem comes down to those six words.
If you earn a childs respect, and keep it, but setting the example yourself, being honest and open with them, even about your own flaws and failures - truly become their mentor and actually LISTEN to them, address their concerns and treat them like a person...
You won't have a discipline problem, because your disapproval is more meaningful to them than any coercive or physical punishment you could possibly deliver.
I've never in my life uttered "because i said so" to a child, the closest is "i don't have time to explain, trust me and i'll explain later", and they DO trust me, cause I WILL explain later.
Alternatively, one could use force.
Sure, it works, WHEN you are there, WHEN you are looking, and only then - and it also teaches them to hate you, all you represent, to lie, and to treat others in the same fashion when they have power over them, and at the very first moment they are able to do so, they'll remove themselves from that hostile, soul-crushing influance, and in the end will be mentally running from it all their lives.
Children are people, not pets, not property, and to treat them so is a total disrespect of all that makes us human.
Those six words encompass an entire worlds worth of meaning.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh.... Frem, my man, wish I knew you when I was growing up. The alternative of force you speak of is like reading my life like a book. Never any abuse, but loads of manipulation using emotions and feeligs, and jealousy and guilt. I don't like the way I treat people that get close to me because I treat them the same way I was treated, which isn't at all different from what you said.
I'm can be cold and manipulative as they come, just like my guardian was. I can't blame her too much though. She was raised the same way herself and she had a lot of hard knocks throughout her life. I think the reason that I hate Government so much and I see how they mislead the people into doing what they want them to do, where many others just can't, is because, I'm afraid....
I'm afraid that if I had the power to do it, I'd probably do the EXACT same thing that they are doing....
and I'm not proud of it...
Trying to patch things up with her these last couple of months, via a Mother's day card and emails we've sent back and forth. Couldn't tell you how well it's going because after my last email to her over a month ago, she hasn't responded to me. That can be a good thing though. I haven't gotten a hate-mail back, telling me how I'm wrong about everything. And I'm sure she's read it 20 times by now. I told her not to reply right away and that hate mail wouldn't solve any of our issues. I told her to read it over, several times, get to know the situation the way I've seen it for years, and hopefully get back with an understanding reply and even point out to me in a non-condesending way where I might be wrong.
That was the main stipulation of any relaltionship we have from here on out. I will never let her or my stepdad treat me like a stupid kid ever again. Haven't spoken a word to either of them in five years except at my grandpa's funeral last year. I really don't think that I'll ever get my head on straight if I don't at least try to forgive her and patch it up, now that I'm mature enough to understand why she was the way she was. And I recognise just how much of her there is inside of me...
I had to make the first move. She'd go to her grave mad at me. We're both just stubborn like that. She's got MS and she smokes like a chimney. (More than me, even) I don't know how much time I've got left.
Being like her isn't all bad though. She never taught me how to play, in fact she never played it once when I was growing up, but my old man tells me that she played a mean guitar when she was young. I never knew... It's in my blood. I probably started playing around the age she quit playing.
Have a good one man. I hope you influence a lot of kids in your life. You're real good people and it's nice to know that there are kids in your life that you can actually make a difference for, even if it's just by being the only adult they know that doesn't treat them like an idiot or a second-class citizen for being unfortunate enough to not be 18 yet.
(Sorry everyone for hijacking my own thread and making it my own personal diary) "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You might if Al Qaeda had established a head quarters in your capital city. Muslim extremists can be very demanding on a free society. Today Burkahs – tomorrow AK-47s, some won’t stop until your schools are teaching the Koran and the virtues of female circumcision. If you’re going to put a foot down on the intrusion of potentially destructive attitudes into your schools, it may be necessary to paint a broad brush to avoid the appearance of discrimination.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
"We" in the case of you and I means "you". I have no problem with burkahs in school.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You might if Al Qaeda had established a head quarters in your capital city. Muslim extremists can be very demanding on a free society. Today Burkahs – tomorrow AK-47s, some won’t stop until your schools are teaching the Koran and the virtues of female circumcision. If you’re going to put a foot down on the intrusion of potentially destructive attitudes into your schools, it may be necessary to paint a broad brush to avoid the appearance of discrimination.
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
For all I know, the man was one of the original planners and he's laughing at us right now....
I'm not completley disagreeing with you Finn. Part of me would even like to go along with that.... but once started, that's a ball that will never stop rolling. In fact, it's already in motion. It's time for the proles to throw themselves before it and stop it.
This is why I have a problem with busing kids from different school distrects to other schools around people who are nothing like them, based soley on demographic. For years, America has been a natural "melting-pot" as our Social Studies books would describe it. I alone, have 8 different types of white blood in my veins. My ancestors came over the boat 100% of their own nationality and now I am what I affectionately call a "European Mutt". None of dissidents' families were happy about it any time it was going on either. My Grandmother's family cut her off completley when a well off Irish girl fell in love with a poor Polock...
She lost out on partial ownership of a lovely house with a tennis court in an upper-class suburb in IL... where Mr. T once lived and retired Chicago Bull, and current GM, John Paxon's family currently live.
This love happened, not because of a government forced enviornment, but because, outside of school, a poor Polock who worked at a grocery store stuck his neck out and gave extra rations to a pretty well off Irish girl during the war. A led to B and C and she ended up leaving her easy life to be with the poor Polock she fell in love with. They were married 57 years when my Grandpa died last year.....
I say, let us live in our own areas. Clean them up if they're dirty if you're going to spend my tax dollars on something worthwhile. Let those who will integrate, do so. One day, the integrated ones will be the majority. I believe it's only natural, and to force it the way it's ben forced by government only leads to resentment and distrust.
Our hatered and distrust of each other has never gotten better over time. It only gets worse, especially in times of fear and/or uncertainty. Government and media only serve to keep us always distrustful of others we never take the time to learn about or understand.
But why should we take the time to get to know people of a certain color? We've already told us everything there is to know and think about them, haven't we?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
female circumcision
*twitch*
And that's all I have to say...
*twitch twitch twitch* Gaaaaaaaaaah!
Okay, I think I'm done now...
*twitch!*
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Six - for that one, I favor the Bulworth methodology, everybody hump everybody till we're all the same color and it don't matter anymore.
So get to humpin for racial harmony!
-F
P.S. *twitch* seconded!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Six - for that one, I favor the Bulworth methodology, everybody hump everybody till we're all the same color and it don't matter anymore.
So get to humpin for racial harmony!
-F
P.S. *twitch* seconded!
I've thought about that before Frem, and as much as I agreed with it when I saw that movie, I don't agree with it today.
I'm all down for people doing what they want to do, and I'm perfectly okay with integration. And regardless of what Shirley Jackon's "The Lottery" has taught us, I do belive that there is also a lot of good that can be said of tradition.
I don't condone racial hatered, and personally I find the fact that one can't say the word "nigger", if they're white, when it's not meant in the least as a derogatory term offensive to African Americans, offensive. Particulary when i can be called "Cracker" and "Blue eyed White Devil" by anyone who want's to talk shit to me without knowing me. But, we've come to a time where that Nigger can be added to George Carlin's 7 dirty words..... Make that 8.
But I completley agree with the sentiment. The will of the people shall prevail. It will happen on its own. Maybe not 100% of the people, and that's their perogative. When the tables have turned on the rest is where my reservations come....
You know how Big Brother is Frem. Imagine a world, for a moment, where 60% percent of the people are a mix of black, white, chinese and middle eastern, ect. and the other 40% are still black, white, chinese and middle eastern, ect., in color....
Now, would you wish them to be at the will of "Democracy" and be forced to have sex with each other to conform?
(That's a rhetorical question, of course Frem)
Bullworth is a great flick by the way.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
** twitch cringe barf **
religious freedom
During the stoning, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, 17 year old Du’a Khalil Aswad can be seen in the video attempting to sit up and calling for help as the crowd (estimated between 1000 and 2000 men) taunts her and repeatedly throws a large chunk of rock or concrete on her head. Finally an unidentified man steps up and finishes her off with a rock to the face.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/2007/0
7/18/nothing_but_red/
"Her face was nothing but red"
Remember Buffy creator Joss Whedon's take-no-prisoners response to the public stoning, captured on cellphone, of Dua Khalil Aswad? Posted at the venerable fan site Whedonesque, it was both an exploration of misogyny -- the continuum Whedon sees between an Iraqi village and our very own Hollywood -- and a call to action. "Because it's no longer enough to be a decent person. It's no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I've always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I'm beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face," he wrote, referring to the video images of the girl's murder, "was nothing but red."
As it turns out, a handful of activists have decided to do more than make concerned grimaces at blog posts. They've announced their intention to publish an arts anthology titled "Nothing but Red," with proceeds to benefit Equality Now, an international human rights organization that Whedon supports. They'll be accepting submissions beginning Aug. 1; the release is scheduled for April 7, 2008, the anniversary of Khalil's death. More information here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%E2%80%99a_Khalil_Aswad
Du'a Khalil Aswad (c. 1989/1990 – c. April 7, 2007) was a 17 year old Iraqi Yazidi girl who was stoned to death in an honor killing.[1] It is believed that she was killed around April 7, 2007, but the incident did not come to light until video of the stoning, apparently recorded on a mobile phone, appeared on the Internet.[2]
The girl was apparently stripped of her clothing down to her undergarments. Allegedly this symbolized that she had dishonored her family and her Yazidi religion.[2] During the stoning, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, Du’a Khalil Aswad can be seen in the video attempting to sit up and calling for help as the crowd taunts her and repeatedly throws a large chunk of rock or concrete on her head.[2] Armed Iraqi police can be seen to be present during the stoning. However they do nothing to stop the killing.[2][7] Finally an unidentified man steps up and finishes her off with a rock to the face. After her death her body was apparently taken to the edge of the town and burned. Then it was buried with the remains of a dog, allegedly to symbolize that she was worthless.[8] An autopsy revealed that Du’a Khalil Aswad died of a fractured skull and spine.[9]
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And the silver ring thing is just a bunch of idiots selling silver rings. If you can dismiss one religion because you've said its made up, you can dismiss any religion on the same grounds.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
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.
Quote:This sentence makes as much sense with 'flying spaghetti monster' replaced with 'god', 'Brian', or 'incredibly pernicious magic ostrich'.
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?
The point is, that Finn is all up on his high horse about the judge saying "it's not part of her belief”, and how the state has no right to tell people what they're beliefs entail, then you both see no problem with doing the exact same thing with a belief you don't recognise.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THANK YOU Citizen for saying so well what I'd been stumbling through this entire thread.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And her "affectations" were against school uniform code. I fail to see a fundamental difference, save for which religion.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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:Monarchy from the Greek Mono (prefix of one) and Archon (to rule), Literally, one ruler. It's a form of government, where a single monarch sits in power.
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.
Look, I don't dispute that have what is called a Monarchy, but I do dispute that it is a Monarchy. A Monarchy is a form of government, not a royal familly. In those terms, we have a Royal Family, but they are a Monarchy in name only. I prefer to think of things as what they are, not what they used to be.
Quote:A state Religion is one that cannot be separated from 'the state'. If the government is not intrinsically CoE I can't see how you can say CoE is a state religion.
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.
Quote:The Romans were Christians.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
comes down on them like modern-day Romans.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL....
If you look up the word "Strawman" in the dictionary, you will see a picture of the Spaghetti Monster. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Much as such things pain me Rue - one can't come in from outside and force such changes upon a people unwilling to make them... that leads to the messes we're in now.
That bein said, I'm all for educating and arming the women of such a culture so that THEY can make the case, with AK-47s if needs be, thing is, enough of em have to WANT to do it, for it to be done.
In the end you can only live your own life, attempting to run others for them is the very essence of tyranny, which is what we are (hopefully) trying to prevent.
Individually, well, imma dumbass - I woulda stepped in front of her and refused to move, not that it likely woulda done any good (prolly just get me stoned too, no doubt) but I got enough ghosts on my conscience as it is, and adding any more would be unbearable.
Hell, look what it got Rachel Corrie...
No easy answers, I'm afraid.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Technically the FSM can't be a Strawman, because it is neither an argument, nor being attributed to one's opponent. You could probably make a case for satire or parody, but the point is, who are you to say that people don't believe in it?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
If you look up the word "Strawman" in the dictionary, you will see a picture of the Spaghetti Monster.
And if you can say that, why can't I say "the Silver ring thing is just a way to sell silver rings, no one actually believes in 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The main difference between Pastafarianism and Christianity is about 3000 years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME