Yep, the ACLU is an equal opportunity supporter of hate groups.

In Albany they're concerned about the school suspending suspected gang members wearing crucifixes.

http://www.kval.com/news/local/15958287.html

By Tom Adams/KVAL-TV Eugene, OR

Is a crucifix a religious symbol or a gang insignia?

An Albany high school principal made up his mind and suspended two students for wearing them. The school suggests the crucifix could signal gang behavior.

District 8J school officials say they are trying to be proactive and keep gangs from getting a foothold. The kids say they are not gang members and feel they are being singled out. . ."

Not exactly the same, but kind of reminded me of this case from Canada.

I sure hope that some common sense finds the All American City!*

Picking on Latino youngsters for wearing Catholic trinkets is wrong on so many levels. This case seems ripe for an ACLU lawsuit. After all, whether the folks in charge will cop to it or not, this campus edict is based on race and religion. Albany is not exactly known for being a hotbed of crime, and stigmatizing students is not prevention.

Creating disciplinary policy based on rash hearsay is a foolish way of administrating an educational institution. You can look pretty stupid when the answers to your questions walk the halls every day. Suck it up, be strong and ask around because it is your job. Know your students and you will know your problems, your challenges and your successes. IMHO, of course.

Interesting case, Edselehr. As an educator, how does this sit with you?

*in 1985

As someone who works in a school...this is a tough one.

Public schools are charged with maintaining a safe environment, and reducing gang activity on school grounds is a key part of achieving this. Our school banned the wearing of hats (with allowable religious exceptions) to combat gang activity. The report from the security office is that it has helped reduced gang presence, along with intruders in general.

If gang members are smart enough to choose constitutionally protected symbols as gang identification attire, you have to give them a degree of credit. If it is true that crucifixes are being used in this way, I wish the principal had been farsighted enough to realize that this could not be an enduring identifier - as you point out LS, it is an important part of Roman Catholicism, and how can it be used in this manner if so many people wear them already? A shortsighted decision by the district.

That's what I found interesting. Use of the protected symbol.

IMHO, you can't hide a gang behind protected symbols any more than you can hide a cult inside a religion with strong copyright protection on it's sacred documents.

Intent matters.

If the intent is to form and strengthen a gang, then the school is doing the right thing. If not, then the school isn't.

We don't support gangs in the schools.

Ed: Why not an enduring one? There are racist gangs, and they feed off the tension. To me, this is just another brand of divisive behavior a gang can feed off of.

The same thing was said of red and blue clothing too.

Kids now will seriously consider those clothing choices today, because of the strong gang implications. Should this take off, the same could easily happen with the religious symbol.

What we need to see is their support for intent. That's gonna decide the merits of their actions, IMHO.


Oh, you can't hide profanity this way either!

A group of us played a similar game as kids. Profanity was not permitted. So, we took a common word, "ship" for example, and used it instead. Got nailed. Intent was the core of all of it, and they were right to do that then, even though we were just saying a word, the intent was to devalue others --in particular staff at the school.

I fought that one hard too, for an 8th grader. For my efforts, I learned a nice lesson back then, and cleaned up a fair number of bathrooms too!

"Ed: Why not an enduring one?"

It's already a "gang symbol" for Christians (I say in jest - calm down Herb) so it would ultimately create confusion amongst the gangs. Younger generations often come up with "cool" ideas like this and think they are pioneering a new and innovative way of exploiting the cross. Maybe they should be shown some pictures of a KKK rally to see how other "gangs" have tried to make this Christian symbol their own.

"It's already a "gang symbol" for Christians..."

Do you have ANY idea how bigoted and Christophobic that sounds?

It's open season on believers. Que the lions. We indeed live in a post-modern age where the only acceptable politically correct bashing is against people of faith.

Herb

At one time the swastika had religious meanings, it was even the shoulder insignia for Oklahoma's Thunderbird division, prior to WWII.

Herb, you seem to have no problem with bashing those that don't believe as you do, so cry us a river when your kind gets rightly bashed!

Ok, I see that Ed.

Depends on the strength and appeal of the gang doesn't it? If it's compelling and it's core members succeed in growing it, their use of the cross may well endure, and that's the problem.

What the symbol is, does not matter. Could be anything, and I think that's true.

If those kids make a big mess of this, then we've got the school in the ugly position of having to regulate the cross. That really sucks because nobody is gonna be happy going down that road, and really nobody should have to go down that road.

It's a simple power struggle, with these bozos dragging believers into it, trying to leverage them and make what would be a simple regulation messy and harmful.

If it were me, I would hold an assembly and make that damn clear, then regulate very strongly and move on, hoping a lesson would be learned. Maybe that strong regulation would be understood better, having communicated that to families.

After a time, then relax that regulation and things would go back to the same old same old, where wearing a cross is just a healthy form of self-expression about faith.

And that's the rub too. Taking a stand like that will just be ugly, no matter what. Somehow, we need to get to a place where it isn't, and I don't have any idea how to get there.

The solution is easy: No jewelry and school uniforms. Problem solved.

I have an old post card from the '20s that celebrates the heritage of the swastika as a symbol of good luck.

As for Herb, I'm sorry to hear about his departure from rational discourse, though I know we have all seen it coming for some time. Been good to know you, Herb. You'll be missed.

Welcome, Knee-Jerk Paranoid Herb. I warn you to be cautious on this board - some people use words that would make God plotz.

Agreed Vitalogy.

If we can't have some tolerance, then what is left is the lowest common denominator.

"As for Herb, I'm sorry to hear about his departure from rational discourse..."

No. You're the irrational one and here's why:

With all the talk about wearing school uniforms and no jewelry, consider a boy scout wearing a brass neck kerchief holder.

He would be in violation of such preposterous rules. As would a Quaker or Muslim girl wearing a head scarf.

You guys are fine with bashing people of faith. Wait until someone comes up with something YOU disagree with. Tolerance is fine around here only as defined by leftists. That means it's fine to bash people of faith...and if you can't see that, no one can help you except the Almighty Himself.

Herb

NOBODY BASHED PEOPLE OF FAITH ON THIS THREAD.

To say otherwise is irrational.

It's not considered bashing if it's not your ox being gored.

Removing one's ability to wear a religious icon is certainly heading into the direction of censorship.

Even the dastardly aclu is right by being cautious on this one. After all, like a broken clock, they can be right twice a day.

"...However, civil libertarians say this is the kind of policy that can backfire. Director Dave Fidanque of the A-C-L-U of Oregon explains, "The critical thing is keeping the kids in school. I worry about any enforcement action by school officials if they don't know what they're doing."

http://www.kval.com/news/15958287.html

Herb, I don't want to get in an argument with you, and it was not my intention to offend you, Christians or Christianity - I was just making a little joke (hence the DISCLAIMER IN PARENTHESES IN THE ORIGINAL POST that you seem blind to). But it is amazing how, more and more lately, you interpret the most innocuous post as being vehemently anti-Christian. Since Christians are still the largest denomination in the world, and are solidly the majority in America, your concern about the persecution of Christians seems irrational.

One last word about irrationality. How can you call yourself a man of faith, and also call yourself rational? Please don't take this as a criticism - I truly don't see the connection. I thought that faith was the bridge that connected people to God when rationality fell short. Isn't faith by nature irrational?

Having a school determine intent, is unrealistic.
If a person is wearing a cross for religious reasons or to signify gang membership is way beyond what should be asked of a school administrator.

Its like in the military, you can wear religious objects in uniform, but they must not be visible.

So if someone wants to wear a cross, or star of david, or whatever a wicin uses for symbolism, thats ok, as long as its not visible.

"How can you call yourself a man of faith, and also call yourself rational?"

Fair enough. Because the Bible is continually being shown to be true. Whether it's historical corroboration, as in the case of the Hittite civilization indeed existing...contrary to 'scholars' who called that culture a fairy tale, or prophetic corroboration, as in the foretelling of the birth of Christ, or the archaeological evidence, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than a Creator.

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/
http://www.bible-history.com/
http://100prophecies.org/

Herbert Milhous

Why is it not enough for you to be happy with your faith?

Why must others be governed by your faith too?

I see nothing wrong with a little jewelry. Maybe they should be more worried abut the kids wearing those multi-colored sex bracelets than those who believe in God.

"it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than a Creator."

No. It takes more faith to believe in a creator since there is ZERO scientific evidence that one exists, nor are their any eyewitness accounts of one. Evolution has been tested and is accepted because the scientific evidence proves the theory to be most plausible. Believing in a creator without any evidence takes much more faith. Which brings up the point, IT'S WHY THEY CALL IT FAITH. If it was fact, there'd be no debate! Citing the bible as evidence is like citing a comic book of the existence of Spider Man.

"Why is it not enough for you to be happy with your faith?"

Because those of Herb's ilk aren't happy with themselves unless they can convince others that their beliefs are the right beliefs.

"Why must others be governed by your faith too?"

Because they are insecure in their own beliefs and feel better when the law forces their beliefs as the only beliefs. This way, people like myself would be unable to question it. Forced acceptance if you will...

What's the difference? You have faith in creationism without the proverbial missing link to back that up. We are all free to believe in whatever God we choose or choose not to. Neither Herb or You are gonna change my beliefs. My beliefes are mine and I will never force them on you or even my children. I want them to make their own choices and so far have done pretty good.

"Why must others be governed by your faith too?"

It's called the Great Commission and a commandment directly from Jesus:

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-great-commission.htm

I don't believe in the great commission. It's a farce. Again, quoting from the bible is worthless.

Herb LOVES to BASH the living crap out of NON-believers but it's not okay for them to do it to Christians?

YOUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY huh Herb!

Vitalogy, One of us (you or me) is going to be surprised when we pass.

I'd rather have my surprise than the other way around.

Herb writes:

Wait until someone comes up with something YOU disagree with.

For six years while the conservatives ruled the country. I disagreed with a lot and I got told to go screw myself. Guess where this is going.

"I'd rather have my surprise than the other way around."

Absolutely. Pascal's Wager is for the highest stakes imaginable.

Herb

Pascal's Wager is a false dilemma because it assumes there are only two options and two outcomes. For example, what if you are an ardent believer in God, but it is the wrong God? Or the True God is a god that frowns on blind faith and blesses critical analysis of Her existence?

Simple faith keeps one in the kiddie pool of rigorous analytical thought. Try coming out in the deep end, Herb.

Thanks to Edselehr for highlighting the false dilemma. We have absolutely no idea about these things! It's all conjecture and hearsay.

[which is why we call it faith people!]

Getting somewhat back on topic, for a bit!

The uniforms are a quick and effective solution. I don't like them because I value personal expression. However, I value a safe and effective learning environment more.

If it's proven we just can't get along, then I'm totally and completely behind the uniforms. That way, everybody is equal and the learning is then the primary focus.

Given the number of times this crap comes up, and my own experiences with my kids, I would do very strict dress and conduct codes in a second. Wouldn't hurt them one bit.

Would also cut down on this growing problem of young people feeling they've got claim to some entitlements they really have yet to even come close to earning.

This is one of my biggest parenting problems right now. Young people, who think they somehow just get to go and do stuff, own things, and act as they please, without having first paid their dues to themselves, their peers and society in general.

Parenting Safety tip digression: If you need somebody, then you are accountable to them, period, end of story. I should have made this an object lesson far earlier than I currently am doing right now. From my experience, it seems missing this means having to deal with rough starts into early adult-hood.

My oldest is back home for a bit, after experiencing a very rough transition. She groks it now and we are having a good time talking about where her younger siblings are. (damn, she's quick too! Getting at 20, what I really didn't figure out until later on.)

It's gonna be another rough one with my oldest son, who thinks he's set free at 18, able to do what he wants, when he wants and how he wants.

[passes popcorn bowl to other parents, as indicated!]

The current pro-treat-kids-as-adults environment is harmful in this way, and it's just now coming to light for me why.

After thinking this over some, I agree with you Edselehr. This decision was short sighted. Not for the anti-faith reasons cited here, but for simple power struggle reasons. By making it an issue early, it's throwing a lot of gas on what might have just been a small and annoying spark.

There was time to wait on it, do some research and employ other disciplinary options. It's highly likely to have just fizzled out, or never passed beyond marginal impact.

Now, for better or worse, it's a scene and that's just the kind of attention getting those kids don't need.

[got the candy ready for those who like to follow these interesting law / society stories]

Back off topic for a bit:

Thought about this great commission thing. Thought about it some more, still thinking...

Here's the deal --and it's kind of ugly. Herb, I'm sorry for what I'm about to write. Like you man, I really do. Know that before you go nuts, please?

It's not known true! If it were true, we would call it a fact and we would have a chain of facts leading back to it, and that would convey the authority necessary to dominate others today.

We don't have that chain of facts; therefore, there is no authority! We all get to make our own choices, period, end of story.

That means the domination of others then is self-serving, and that's just wrong on so many levels, I'll just leave it right there, but for the fact that doing whatever it takes to get those choices made for other people, without their personal buy-in, sucks ass huge. It's a cheat and a lie.

At a core level this is all a manifestation of ignorance or inability to differentiate truth and conviction. With that handicap, comes some sense of entitlement over others choices, "because God said so".

If that's the case, then I'm inclined to see that for what it is and deal as nicely as I can, while not being dominated in that fashion.

In short, don't hate the person for this, but also don't let them do the harm either. Play nice, but firm. Think of it as the same kind of boundary you grant the retarded person. It's a similar thing, a compassionate thing. It may not be an easy thing, but it is the right thing to do. Just is.


If it's not that, then it's some self-serving thing, and that's really something to put on the person. Why? Because we've got a capable person, refusing to pull their weight!

I don't like that, hate having to even say it, but also am really struggling to find a reason not to say it. Don't have one, sorry! It's just gonna get said this evening and that's that.

The self-serving bit then comes down to a character issue. There really are no other options.

Here are a coupla possible scenarios, just to underscore what I'm trying to get at.

Might be greed, as in wanting power or money, for example. I suspect many televangelists are in this mode. They leverage religion for their own gain, like a business leverages things. They are selling the false entitlement. Now, if that isn't just cold, you tell me what is.


Might be intolerance. In this case, religion is a crutch for some target that cannot be tolerated. Groups of people, other ideologies (particularly threatening ones), things, acts, all sorts of stuff that might make one uneasy personally.

In this case, it's easier to apply the crutch, essentially hide behind the bible, rather than to do the work to get mentally healthy and just deal.


Could be ego too. This is a kind of gratification where the person gets some gratification out of teaching others a lesson, or maybe just from being in a position of power.

There are others, but that's enough to easily clarify where the lines are for me.

I'm not so inclined to play nice with the self-serving types. Deep down, I know they know better, but don't have the strength of character to step up and be adults about it.

I really hate that. Really, really do. To be clear, I don't hate them for it, but it's close! I do however hate having to deal with their ongoing need to self serve in this world.

I hate it for my own self-serving reasons, not unlike what I'm articulating here! Everybody is human, so here's a little bit of my humanity put right here, and even put here so I'll feel a bit better about it, continue to face it, and eventually deal with it.

(nobody is perfect)

Continued...

I hate this crap because I spent a nice chunk of my life doing the work to deal with it. Could have done other things, lazy and self-serving things and could have been totally happy about all of it too.

Didn't because it wasn't right and I knew it and that just all kind of sucked enough to force the issue. I kind of like having the high ground when I can get it. When I know I can get it, and don't, I don't sleep well.

So, I hate it when I see others doing those things, being lazy and making my world and life more difficult than it would otherwise be. Leaches I call them, because that's exactly what they are. Drains on all of us, energy wasted, needless conflict started, issues raised, all because they've got some low level, basic problem and not enough motivation to just fix the damn thing and join the rest of us adults.

Finally, I hate it because I know absolutely that I'm not done yet! Still have work to do. Seems at times that working through one thing bumps another, almost as if the work is not quite right, so more work than necessary has to be done.

So, dealing with others consumes time that I would have to deal with me, and that's even more work than would otherwise be the case. A double-dipping for sure!

There, it's out. Sorry if that offends --well, not really! That's a lie. Just sorry I even have to go here.

Make no mistake though --I do absolutely have to go here. It's not real if I don't, and I like it real.

"Pascal's Wager is a false dilemma because it assumes there are only two options and two outcomes."

You're going to have to try harder.

Plenty of things involve two options.

Life or death: We all ultimately will die. No one gets out alive.

Good or evil: If we follow the leftist penchant for blurring the lines, Mother Teresa is really not that different than Adolf Hitler. Truth-seekers know this is ridiculous.

Try to make it grey all you want.
Sophistry doesn't change reality.

Even those who defy the truth already know what their conscience tells them. We all will someday die and be held accountable for our lives.

Herb

You do know that life or death bit is only one option right?

We all die. There. Only one option.

Let's say it another way, just to hammer it home totally and completely:

We live for a time, then we die. That's how it goes for all of us. One size fits all.

That's reality.

"Plenty of things involve two options."

And even more - many, many more - have multiple options.

"Mother Teresa is really not that different than Adolf Hitler."

Oh man, I could take this quote out of context, as I have done above and as you do so often Herb, and have so much fun with it...! But I won't. I have more respect for you than that. But, it is so tempting...

"Even those who defy the truth already know what their conscience tells them."

I am seeking the truth; so are you. Each of us have a pretty good idea we have found it, though I'm quite sure it is not the same truth. The difference between you and I is that I am willing to have my truth challenged, for that is the only way to be sure my truth is solid. If it is not, no problem - it will be replaced with a better truth.

You however defend your truth with defensiveness, egotism and vanity. Your truth, if it truly be truth, should not be so fragile as to require so much buttressing on your part. And it surely should shine brightly, even if enveloped in that dastardly liberal "gray" that scares you so.

A wise man will hear, and will increase learning.~ Prov. 1:5

Try to make it grey all you want.

That's your problem Herb. YOU CAN'T see any grey in anything EVER!
Your a SAD, SAD human.

"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning.~ Prov. 1:5"

That's a great verse, Edselehr. Point well taken.

Herb

A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from others mistakes.

I have no idea who originally said that, but its true.

Which are you?

If that is true Nwokie then we should NEVER, EVER elect someone that run America like Bush did.
It doesn't look good for my guy.....