Re: One More Win For Political Correctness

this-one-time-at-bandcamp · ‎14-09-2014

So where does it stop. Say a devout Muslim student wants to wear a traditional Muslim dress, or a devout Catholic a crucifix are they barred by the constitution from wearing these regions symbols inside state owned institutions because one may offend the other.

When members of the school participate in sanctioned events, that's when separation occurs. The school has no problem with personal religious items, even crucifix ear rings............and they would have no problem with students wearing religious garb in schools, I knew several girls in high school who wore traditional garb.

i-need-a-martini · ‎14-09-2014

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

So where does it stop. Say a devout Muslim student wants to wear a traditional Muslim dress, or a devout Catholic a crucifix are they barred by the constitution from wearing these regions symbols inside state owned institutions because one may offend the other.

A reminder is in order: Australian state run schools are secular and are guided by Federal laws regarding religious equality.

Within schools, students are allowed to express their own religion within the bounds of their school uniform.

watta*drama*queen · ‎14-09-2014

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And as for the other items, perhaps you could be so kind as supply proper links this time to support your claims as I felt that I have spent the last 30mins on a wild goose chase that yeiled [sic] nothing.

yielded

i-need-a-martini · ‎14-09-2014

@watta*drama*queen wrote:

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And as for the other items, perhaps you could be so kind as supply proper links this time to support your claims as I felt that I have spent the last 30mins on a wild goose chase that yeiled [sic] nothing.

yielded

I only mentioned the spelling because I was specifically trying to find links to the OPs statements. Incorrect spelling because of a slip of a key in a general sentence is neither here nor there. But incorrect spelling of a persons name when you need to search them is worth mentioning.

tall_bearded01 · ‎14-09-2014

Not yielded. The crabbing season has commenced, so I’ve been out there doing volunteer work with Fish Watch.

So let’s see

“I assume that you couldn't supply the links yourself for a reason?” Yep I could have, chose not too, because I expect people to do their own research instead of being spoon feed.

“Well, I have searched every combination that I can possibly find for all of those 'needle-in-a-haystack' hints and I am still no closer to finding anything at all that backs up your claims”. All I did was a Google search with the keywords, “Australia, Political Correctness” and came up with 100’s of hits. Maybe you need a better computer.

“So not sure why you mentioned the Rainbird paper.” Because unlike some true believers here, I arrive at my opinions on assessment of a diverse range of material, both for and against, instead of simply relying on that with which I agree and turning a blind eye to the rest.

Finally, as for “Again can't find any reference from The Drum archives about Christmas bans or SAH bans”. A classic case of selective hearing/interpretation. I clearly stated both were from person experience, with the list provided being to demonstrate the wide range of opinion and information available on the topic in general.

You see the difference between you and I is, I would never, when something was cited as being “from personal experience’ disputed the accuracy of the recollection without evidence in support, as to do so is to accuse the writer of lying. Oddly enough, I expect the same in return, and have little regard or respect for any person who is not like minded.

i-need-a-martini · ‎14-09-2014

So you couldn't find anything to back up your own statements either then huh?

tall_bearded01 · ‎14-09-2014

What is it about ”I clearly stated both were from person experience, with the list provided being to demonstrate the wide range of opinion and information available on the topic in general.’ and “You see the difference between you and I is, I would never, when something was cited as being “from personal experience’ disputed the accuracy of the recollection without evidence in support, as to do so is to accuse the writer of lying.”

Now as I understand it, you are saying, If someone says something you don’t agree with then have to provide evidence in support. I’ll keep that in mind the next time you post something.

Oh and as for finding it. Took 30 seconds. Must be the absence of blinkers

tall_bearded01 · ‎14-09-2014

So you are saying, if a person is wearing attire which identifies them as belong to a specific state funded instruction, say such as a school uniform, they are precluded from wearing, or doing anything which may be considered as having religious connotations.

But then, doesn’t that run contrary to the decision of the Dearborn School Board, which is a state funded school, and who recently decided that application of the Supreme Court decision is limited to Christen observance only. That is, whereby it was unconstitutional for children from Christen families to follow religious observance while on school grounds, children from the Islamic community were not so preclude...

Then let’s widen the debate. Was there not recently the case of a Fire Chief who banded firemen form wearing sticker representing the American flag on their helmets to commutate the 250 so firemen who lost their lives in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and then took disciplinary action against those firemen who refused to remove them, and then what about the recent reports of an Army Officer, who was refused entry to onto school property to visit/collect his child because he was wearing his inform (shades of the 1960) …..

tall_bearded01 · ‎14-09-2014

Blinkers - too blind to see

The Constitutional and Supreme Court decision referred to applies to is the US Constitution and US state funded schools. I would have though the preamble to my original post (from a friend in the US might have sufficiently alluded to that fact)

this-one-time-at-bandcamp · ‎15-09-2014

So you are saying, if a person is wearing attire which identifies them as belong to a specific state funded instruction, say such as a school uniform, they are precluded from wearing, or doing anything which may be considered as having religious connotations.

You know better than that........don't put words in my mouth. I said that if they are participating in an organized activity supported by a school, and representing that school they are only authorized to wear what the school and the regulating organization (be it the Sun Belt Conference or the NCAA). If, the field-goal kicker were to cross himself or bow to Allah before the kick.....he has that right.

But then, doesn’t that run contrary to the decision of the Dearborn School Board, which is a state funded school, and who recently decided that application of the Supreme Court decision is limited to Christen observance only. That is, whereby it was unconstitutional for children from Christen families to follow religious observance while on school grounds, children from the Islamic community were not so preclude...

That's where you're wrong. Every student has the right to follow his religious beliefs at school as long as it is a personal thing. Organized religious activities, whether it's marching down the hall singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" or sacrificing a goat to Baal during homeroom is prohibited.

Then let’s widen the debate. Was there not recently the case of a Fire Chief who banded firemen form wearing sticker representing the American flag on their helmets to commutate the 250 so firemen who lost their lives in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and then took disciplinary action against those firemen who refused to remove them, and then what about the recent reports of an Army Officer, who was refused entry to onto school property to visit/collect his child because he was wearing his inform (shades of the 1960) …..

Without supporting links to your allegations, this is nothing more than an op-ed piece. For the record, there are myriad entities, usually local or state (red state) governments that attempt to either obviate the separation, or work around it. Invariably they spend the taxpayer dollars in vain attempts to defend their revised laws or regulations in court, and just as invariably, they lose. The incident with the army officer wasn't policy, it was an over-zealous school official flexing his bureacratic muscle.........His boss statetd: "I learned at The Basic School that I’m responsible for everything my people do and don’t do, and I’m responsible for this and I’ll correct it,” said Robert Shafer, superintendent for Rochester Community Schools who left the Marine Corps as a first lieutenant and later made captain in the Reserve. “It’s not the kind of behavior that we’d endorse as a school district. It certainly isn’t a policy, and it’s regrettable and we’re going to fix it.”