| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Girl suspended in UK for wearing crucifix.; ...gotta love the name of the school! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 6 2005, 06:19 AM (229 Views) | |
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 06:19 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm |
![]() |
|
| Optimistic | Dec 6 2005, 06:47 AM Post #2 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"Sinfin"="without end, forever" en espanyol But yes, the gringo pronounciation would be more appropriate in this situation
|
|
PHOTOS I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week, sometimes, to make it up. - Mark Twain We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. -T. S. Eliot | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Dec 6 2005, 07:22 AM Post #3 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I found it interesting that the explanation given for her refusing to to take it off was because it had "sentimental" value to her, not because it was an expression of religious faith or belief. I have always disliked religious icons worn for decoration purposes as if they had no more meaning than a charm on a charm bracelet. No, an 11 year old should not be allowed to wear something that the school considers dangerous simply for an 11 yo's concept of sentimental reasons -- and something around the neck can be dangerous given the types of activities 11 yo's get into at recess and all. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 6 2005, 07:26 AM Post #4 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
That's kind of stretching it, Rick. That kind of rationale is why I can't bring toenail clippers on an airplane without a cavity search. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 6 2005, 07:36 AM Post #5 |
|
MAMIL
|
I think the reasoning given by the schoold is valid. From what I understand a Sikh is required to wear the Kara, whereas the crucifix is an optional expression of faith. FYI, in Britain Sikhs are permitted to ride motorcyles without a helmet, since their faith also requires them to wear the turban. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 07:38 AM Post #6 |
|
This is a slippery slope, I think though...could anything then be rationalized by faith? What if my faith said I women could NOT wear shirts? I'm sure most men would agree, but you know what I mean...would schools then allow certain girls to go around topless, just because their religion says it's ok? This is an honest question...I don't mean to make light of the situation. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 6 2005, 07:46 AM Post #7 |
|
MAMIL
|
What you'd find is that religion was made up completely of men, so it wouldn't be an issue. I think the application of common sense is most appropriate in these kind of situations, and extreme cases such as the booby religion don't really fall in line with common sense, particularly not in the British 'summer'. The Sikhs have a valid, documented reason for what they want to wear, and since the Sikh religion is a major world religion, they should be permitted to live accordingly, provided that it doesn't break any laws of the land. We all know the girl's just being bloody-minded, so she gets what she asked for. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 6 2005, 07:49 AM Post #8 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
That may be, John, but I think that we've also gone way overboard as a society with institutional standards. I say, look at intent and the risk factor, and judge accordingly. If the intent is honest enough, and there's little risk of injury/other problems, but the rules on the books say no, then we need to change the rules on the books. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 07:53 AM Post #9 |
|
John, common sense would say that yes going around topless is against the law, but common sense would also show that it doesn't really hurt anything. One could argue that wearing a bracelet is offensive, just as showing boobies are offensive to some. The rationale of using religion to justify something that goes against the rules (like wearing jewelry), just doesn't seem to be fair. If the girl claimed that her personal belief was that she had to wear the cross or she'd be sinning...would you allow it then? Or does it have to be a major/significant belief to justify it's validity? |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Dec 6 2005, 08:09 AM Post #10 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Didn't some guy in jail argue, seriously, that his religion required him to eat filet mignon daily? |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 08:19 AM Post #11 |
|
Smart man.
|
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 6 2005, 08:20 AM Post #12 |
|
MAMIL
|
No, the topless case isn't a common sense one, since no major religion is likely to require anything of that nature. Similarly for the filet mignon. The girl's personal beliefs aren't relevant. If a faith requires that certain rules are adhered to, we should respect that wherever possible. Everyone can come up with silly examples of what 'could' happen, but we should look at what 'is' happening. This isn't a theoretical issue, it's real and it affects thousands of Sikhs. Whether the jewelry should have been banned in the first place is a separate issue, and I kind of agree with the idea that the banning was a little over the top, but them's the rules, and the girl should abide by them. Bringing up the Sikh issue is a rather silly attempt by the girl's mother to side track the real issue. She should be telling her daughter to do what she's told at school. School isn't a democracy. If the girl doesn't want to play by the rules, then she doesn't play. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 08:32 AM Post #13 |
|
Ok, so you do think that the religion has to be a major one...that is, the "requirement" has to be something that affects a significant amount of people. I'm not sure what I think... |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 6 2005, 08:42 AM Post #14 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Well, it's not just the rights of the individual; their rights can't conflict with the rights of the student body as a whole. A girl running around topless in a classroom conflicts with the other students' rights not to have to deal with staring at boobies all day. Distracting to say the least. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Dec 6 2005, 08:49 AM Post #15 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I think in this case, though, the 'no jewelry' rule does make sense, and they were right to enforce it. Not from any danger, but due to loss and theft. I'm sure any school that has had to deal with a missing piece of jewelry, cell phone, any personal item, would rather not go there again. I'm assuming that's where the rule comes from, and I think that's valid. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 6 2005, 08:51 AM Post #16 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
That's a good point, sue. Matter o' fact, I'm all for school uniforms. It'd eliminate many more problems than I have fingers and toes. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 09:07 AM Post #17 |
|
I just think if the school has a rule, it has to enforce it, even if it makes a Sikh take of his bracelet. If it's a public school... Screw it, there are so many variables when it comes to public school that I'm getting a headache.
|
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 6 2005, 09:10 AM Post #18 |
|
MAMIL
|
FYI there's no restriction on teaching religion in British state schools since there's no separation between church and state. In fact the Head of State is also head of the Church of England. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| DLP | Dec 6 2005, 09:17 AM Post #19 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I'd be curious how everyone would view the question of polygamy while trying to sort the issue. It is illegal, but part of a religion, and simply overlooked in some regions. A general issue, I personally prefer a dose of common sense, but that can also make "Rules" more complicated to interpret and enforce. It is now the rule plus an individual's judgement. DP |
![]() |
|
| ***musical princess*** | Dec 6 2005, 10:02 AM Post #20 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't understand why she couldn't just wear it under her shirt? I mean, i go to a *very* strict Catholic school and similarly we have a no jewelry policy but i know lots of females *and* males, including myself, who wear crucifixes underneath their shirts so that they acnnot be seen. They don't wear it to be fashionable (on a side not i was in Newcastle in 'Topshop' the other day and i saw that they were selling imitation rosary beads as knecklaces - they have started to become a craze lately. And this is an reputable high street shop. I nearly blew a gastgate.). They don't wear it to be 'cool'. They wear it because it means something to them personally and don't show it to the whole world. It's a symbol for them of intamacy between themselves and God and if the girl was wearing it for her religion or for 'sentimental' matters then i honestly can't see why she can't just wear it under her shirt and why she feels she has to show it to everyone. x |
| x Caroline x | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 6 2005, 10:04 AM Post #21 |
|
MAMIL
|
I don't generally agree with relaxing a country's laws to cater to religious or social differences. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| DLP | Dec 6 2005, 10:11 AM Post #22 |
|
Advanced Member
|
John, do you find it curious that it is condoned, or at least overlooked? There is a community in TX that is trying to draw the line and enforce the law (small town west of San Angelo), but of course they only "think" they know what is going on, all the really happens is on the compound. So aside from a lot of editorials to the newspaper, it is isn't clear there is much to act on. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Dec 6 2005, 10:21 AM Post #23 |
|
MAMIL
|
What is polygamy, though? Are people having multiple 'legal' marriages, or just taking multiple sexual partners? You obviously can't stop the latter occurring. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Dec 6 2005, 10:21 AM Post #24 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I agree with you about being able to wear a religious icon if it has religious meaning to the individual. But the article specifically says that this girl was wearing it for sentimental reasons, not religious ones. Big difference. (BTW, I too have seen the rosaries sold as jewelry. Like you, I find it offensive. But then I find the selling of a Buddha for ornamental and decorative purposes to be offensive as well). |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







4:50 PM Jul 10