11-05-2003 02:45									#31
	Suffering from ads?

I say we flog the school board. Then we can nail them to a cross.

	11-05-2003 04:32									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You can (fortunately) draw a line between wearing a cross and wearing a swastika this way: A cross is not a symbol of open support for mass murder.

	11-05-2003 04:37									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior You can (fortunately) draw a line between wearing a cross and wearing a swastika this way: A cross is not a symbol of open support for mass murder.

To some, perhaps it is (there were those Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.).

The swastika doesn't have to symbolize Nazism, as it is an ancient symbol used in both Greek and Indian cultures.

Even now, some Neo-Nazi orgs who use the swastika as a symbol also reject the genocidal aspect of Hitler's regime. So it's not so clear-cut.

	11-05-2003 06:14									#34
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The swastika doesn't have to symbolize Nazism, as it is an ancient symbol used in both Greek and Indian cultures.

As well as it was used by the Celts, the ancient germans, in Buddhism and Hinduism and in mucn other countries and Religions.
Most of the times it is used as a holy Symbol, a symbol for the Sun, deities and a symbol which brings Luck.

It is a shame that Hitler brought such a Symbol which was in most Cultures regarded as a beneficial one into such a disrepute.
(Probably he chose it, because it symbolized "Thors Hammer" for the ancient Germans)

	11-05-2003 06:41									#35
	Got spare money?

Sava, perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps its because I get my news from Fox, but I have found no mention of preaching going on. I am looking at the article right now. No mention by anyone.

It was a case of dress code, apparantly. No relgious symbols allowed. In another unrelated case, a Muslim women was also suspended for wearing a burkha, which is even more silly!

IMHO, that is ridiculous. Suspending a teacher because she wears a cross?!? It's like suspending someone for wearing a bloody wedding ring! "Oh, you must belong to one of those 'non-pagan' religions. For shame, for shame. We wouldn't want the children to get the impression that marriage is moral!"

Good God.

	11-05-2003 06:50									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov To some, perhaps it is (there were those Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.). The swastika doesn't have to symbolize Nazism, as it is an ancient symbol used in both Greek and Indian cultures. Even now, some Neo-Nazi orgs who use the swastika as a symbol also reject the genocidal aspect of Hitler's regime. So it's not so clear-cut.

You're reaching back 500 years to find violence associated with the cross. The swastika is still used as a symbol of violence today. It's not black and white, but you have to draw the line through the gray, and the swastika and cross are clearly on opposite sides of the line.

	11-05-2003 06:58									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

On a related note, whatever became of the Muslim woman in Florida who refused to remove her head covering so her face would be visible on her driver's license photo?

Gatekeeper

	11-05-2003 09:53									#38
	Remove this text

Then she doesn't get a driver's licience. It should be that simple.

	11-05-2003 09:55									#39
	Tired of ads?

Actually she did get her license, with the head covering intact.

	11-05-2003 10:01									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior You're reaching back 500 years to find violence associated with the cross. The swastika is still used as a symbol of violence today. It's not black and white, but you have to draw the line through the gray, and the swastika and cross are clearly on opposite sides of the line.

Last I looked, the KKK was still in the habit of the occasional cross burning. If you think religious violence by Christians stopped 500 years ago, you're delusional.

The overall point was that there is no clear delineation between symbols like this. To some, they are harmless, to others, they're offensive. Just look at the flap over the Confederate flag, which some revere as a symbol of honor, and others abhor as a symbol of oppressive inhumanity. It's not so easy to dismiss those who take offense, IMO.

	11-05-2003 10:12									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Last I looked, the KKK was still in the habit of the occasional cross burning. If you think religious violence by Christians stopped 500 years ago, you're delusional.

I thought you'd point out the KKK. May I remind you that the cross the woman wore was not burning.

But really. I could list hundreds of reasons the swastika is offensive. The number of reasons the cross is offensive are pretty few. There's no way they are comparable. And you have to draw a line somewhere.

	11-05-2003 10:28									#42
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think the line was drawn at a reasonable place - no religious symbols on display in the classroom.

	11-05-2003 10:38									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You believe swastikas should be banned, too, right?

	11-05-2003 10:38									#44
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Actually she did get her license, with the head covering intact.

I find that extrodinarially spineless of the state of Florida. So now they've issued a state id to someone who has effectly no picture. What is the point of that ID?

	11-05-2003 10:40									#45
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior You believe swastikas should be banned, too, right?

Except for history class purposes, yes.

	11-05-2003 10:48									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Except for history class purposes, yes.

Ok, so you agree with me on where they are in the shades of gray, you just draw the line differently.

I suppose our debate is going to boil down to this: Is it more oppressive for an authority figure to wear a religious symbol, or is it more oppressive to not allow religious symbols. I believe the latter. You believe the former.

I don't think this debate is going anywhere.

	11-05-2003 11:06									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

It's not about wearing a religious symbol, it's about displaying one with an alterior motive. The teacher in question was perfectly free to wear the symbol, she just had to keep it tucked under her shirt. She refused. Why did she refuse? Because she wants people to see it. Why does she want people to see it? Because she wants it to influence those who look on it.

If it was a simple matter of her wanting to wear a symbol she thought personally important, she should have no objection to just keeping it tucked under her shirt. Her refusal to do so indicates she wanted to wear it for other reasons, and the implied reason is a no-no: prostylizing.

	11-05-2003 11:10									#48
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I don't think the should have mandated that she keep it inside her shirt. That was wrong. Jews should be allowed to wear yarmulke's. Muslims should be able to wear skull caps or head coverings. Just because prostylizing is not ok, doesn't give the school the right to mandate how a person wears a relgious symbol.

Not at all. If she wants the cross outside of her shirt, that's her right.

quote: Her refusal to do so indicates she wanted to wear it for other reasons

Yeah, because she didn't want it to be dictated how she could wear her cross. When people get told to do something, they get very defensive about things. What if someone said you couldn't wear a pin of a rainbow symbol, which, say, you normally wear to show your support for gay rights. Would your refusal to follow that order mean you want to convert straight kids into gays? Come on.

	11-05-2003 11:36									#49
	Remove this text

Boris:

	11-05-2003 11:41									#50
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov It's not about wearing a religious symbol, it's about displaying one with an alterior motive. The teacher in question was perfectly free to wear the symbol, she just had to keep it tucked under her shirt. She refused. Why did she refuse? Because she wants people to see it. Why does she want people to see it? Because she wants it to influence those who look on it. If it was a simple matter of her wanting to wear a symbol she thought personally important, she should have no objection to just keeping it tucked under her shirt. Her refusal to do so indicates she wanted to wear it for other reasons, and the implied reason is a no-no: prostylizing.

How many school buses do you think go past churches each day? Should they change their paths to shelter the students' eyes from crosses?

	11-05-2003 12:16									#51
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

some of you lefties are too paranoid.

Just because she is wearing a symbol outside her clothing she is automatically pushing it on others? Yes in this case she may be if that earlier complaint about her preaching is true.

But you guys say that in every case a woman cannot wear a religious symbol outside her clothing.

I had a teacher wear bow ties in class. Yet he never influenced me to wear bow ties when I grew up.

And Boris is saying she can't wear it because she has an alterior motive. How is the goverment to decide which teachers have an alterior motive? Here we go again punishing people for what goes on inside their heads, and not their actions.

	13-05-2003 05:56									#52
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Last I looked, the KKK was still in the habit of the occasional cross burning. If you think religious violence by Christians stopped 500 years ago, you're delusional.

Boris:

You were already treading on shaky grounds but this? Are you serious by labelling the KKK as an example of mainstream Christianity?

As for the woman, I agree with MtG. If she wants to wear her cross, she should be allowed to do so, the same for headscarves and for yarmulkes. No difference between the different forms of expression.

As for the preaching, this woman needs to understand that there is a time and place for everything.

	13-05-2003 06:11									#53
	Got spare money?

you know how you tell a kid to stop talking and it starts likw whispering really quietly just to get on your nerves? sounds like this ***** started wearing crosses and presenting them out in the classroom like a kid showing off AFTER shes been told not to preach.

At least thats how sava's original post describes it as.

So good for them. fire the *****.

	13-05-2003 06:15									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 KKK as an example of mainstream Christianity?

Nah mainstream is even worse = a giant moneymaking tax free corporate scheme

in all seriousness, there's very few population of genuine christians so defending mainstream isnt a wise idea IMO.

	13-05-2003 06:18									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Teachers can't evangelize in schools. If Christianity was the state religion, it would be fine, but its not. The woman should lose her job.

I'll bet plenty of teachers have worn such things in the past without incident. Its obvious this woman had an agenda beyond a desire to wear the cross and now she's ruined it for every teacher who cares to display their faith.

	13-05-2003 06:23									#56
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I would like to see the aide sue the school district. Article I of the Bill of Rights begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." These two clauses set up a tension between each other. I see an aide--or any other government official--who wears a small religious symbol as a person who is exercising her freedom of religion. It is only when that aide/govt official attempts to induce others into wearing that religious symbol that the line is crossed. The same goes for school prayer. Anyone who wishes to pray is school is free to do so. What may not happen is that officials cannot use their governmental powers to attempt to induce others to pray.

I feel the same way even though I dropped my membeship some years ago.

	13-05-2003 06:24									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Calc:

quote: you know how you tell a kid to stop talking and it starts like whispering really quietly just to get on your nerves? sounds like this ***** started wearing crosses and presenting them out in the classroom like a kid showing off AFTER shes been told not to preach.

True. She should be punished, but not for wearing the cross, but for insubordination.

quote: in all seriousness, there's very few population of genuine christians so defending mainstream isnt a wise idea IMO

quote: Nah mainstream is even worse = a giant moneymaking tax free corporate scheme

Your cynicism causes you to make the first conclusion. There are many faithful Christians out there. I admit, I had no idea until I started going to church. Funny what you see when you are not trying to ignore them.

	13-05-2003 06:45									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well, as usual, I'm going to suggest that it is just another attempt by the politically correct crowd to make themselves look incredibly stupid, and justifiably so.

	13-05-2003 06:59									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Calc: True. She should be punished, but not for wearing the cross, but for insubordination.

I didnt say she should be punished for wearing a cross. If you understood why I brought out an example about how kids like to still piss you off by doing something you told them not to do but technically its alright... you should understand that I saw her all of sudden wearing the cross AFTER the event as still trying for insubordination.


Why, I went to church last week.. for mother's day (my mum's a psysbyterian or however you spell that )

	13-05-2003 07:13									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

This goes back to some people have a completely irrational take on the 1st amendment where they think it means freedom from religion. These people tend to get their panties in a bunch every time they see anyone make even the most innocent expression of religious faith.