Advertisement
Geebus this is really stupid.
Such an offensive loud religious imposition on the order and safety of the school
tinyurl.com/uvy4z
Health and safety risk my ass~!!
Fukin ass morons
From the same article:
"But her furious family yesterday pointed out the school - Robert Napier in Gillingham, Kent - allows Muslim pupils to wear headscarves and Sikh students to come to lessons with turbans and bangles"
And then there are these Fukin hard assed Ganstas
tinyurl.com/2ke99h
Yeah they have that gangster thing going on.
Such an offensive loud religious imposition on the order and safety of the school
tinyurl.com/uvy4z
Health and safety risk my ass~!!
Fukin ass morons
From the same article:
"But her furious family yesterday pointed out the school - Robert Napier in Gillingham, Kent - allows Muslim pupils to wear headscarves and Sikh students to come to lessons with turbans and bangles"
And then there are these Fukin hard assed Ganstas
tinyurl.com/2ke99h
Yeah they have that gangster thing going on.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 2:30 PM
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 2:31 PMIt sounds like a *Lynching* -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 2:48 PMYAh huh?
The itty bitty crosses are too much for the school Administrations but the turbans bangles and other islamic paraphernalia are just fukin fine.
The idea that it's OK to be a bigoted anti christian is sickening. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 2:52 PMActually, turbans and bangles are paraphernalia of the Sikhs, who are pretty bigoted in their views towards Muslims.
PS but considering their history, it's to be understood -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 7:12 PMYou gotta draw the line fast with these adherents to death cults. Sure, it's just a miniature replica of an ancient Roman torture/death device today, but they'll be buying full size strap ons tomorrow and begging everybody to whip them as they drag them through the hall ways.
The schools of America will not be allowed to resemble the Phillipines on Easter, after the fertility goddess Aostre, weekend. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 9:39 AMYou gotta draw the line fast with these adherents to death cults.>
i took a close up look at that so called piece of jewelry. it was GROSS. it was a sculpture of some dude NAILED to a piece of wood. what the HELL?
this is a school setting. there are BOUNDS. and graphic depictions of torture and mutilation SHOULD be well outside those bounds.
and i believe this happened in great britain.
-
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 7:30 PMCliff:
> The idea that it's OK to be a bigoted anti christian is sickening.
Cliff, you're just way off on this one. The school has rules. And they might be silly rules. But they seem to apply them without bias.
"The school, which has no religious ties, said it would allow Samantha to wear a cross as a lapel badge."
"The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion. We have no reason to believe this to be the case in this instance." -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 10:21 AM*************************Cliff, you're just way off on this one. The school has rules. And they might be silly rules. But they seem to apply them without bias.******************
Apparently they are biased. One religious symbol gets kids tossed and another doesn't?
***********"The school, which has no religious ties, said it would allow Samantha to wear a cross as a lapel badge."***********
A lapel badge. Oh mother of mercy and that is somehow more safety oriented than a thread fine little gold chain?
******************"The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion. We have no reason to believe this to be the case in this instance."************
Essential requirement pf a particular religion is a cheap cop out~!! It is nothing other than treading disperate persons differently based on nothing more than religion - - -and WORSE - -- the school administrations interpretation of those religions. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 10:31 AM*************************Cliff, you're just way off on this one. The school has rules. And they might be silly rules. But they seem to apply them without bias.******************
>> Apparently they are biased. One religious symbol gets kids tossed and another doesn't?
Because.
It.
Was.
On.
A.
Chain.
**********"The school, which has no religious ties, said it would allow Samantha to wear a cross as a lapel badge."***********
> A lapel badge. Oh mother of mercy and that is somehow more safety oriented than a thread fine little gold chain
It's hard to choke someone, even slightly, with a lapel badge.
I suppose you could remove it and force it down their *throat*, but ... that takes more time and is less obvious to the impulsive than twisting a neck chain. And was the gauge of the "fine little gold chain" discussed in the article, or are you fantasizing about schoolgirls again?
> It is nothing other than treading disperate persons differently based on nothing more than religion - - -and WORSE - -- the school administrations interpretation of those religions.
Show me where anyone else in that school was allowed to wear a necklace, and you may have something stronger than tissue paper to base *your* style of Manufactured Outrage upon.
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 2:07 PM**************Because.
It.
Was.
On.
A.
Chain.******************
Did you look at those chains? They are harmless tiny things.
**********"The school, which has no religious ties, said it would allow Samantha to wear a cross as a lapel badge."***********
> A lapel badge. Oh mother of mercy and that is somehow more safety oriented than a thread fine little gold chain******
************It's hard to choke someone, even slightly, with a lapel badge.*************
Not that those chains would choke a mouse but a lapel badge can ( depending on how it's made) have a huge assed pin that - - - ohh well I think Id prefer to file a sharp edge on mine.
*************. And was the gauge of the "fine little gold chain" discussed in the article**************
It was not substantial. Have you ever tried to use a little tiny chain as a choking device ? It ain't happening. They aren't designed to be strong.
, **************or are you fantasizing about schoolgirls again?********
If they are 23 year old Japanese Sailor Suit models - - - - You Bet chya~!!
*************Show me where anyone else in that school was allowed to wear a necklace, and you may have something stronger than tissue paper to base *your* style of Manufactured Outrage upon. **************
I dunno know nuthin about that What I can tell you is that it is that the traditional way to wear a crucifix is on a chain round the neck.
So as to traditional religious or cultural expressions they are biased.
Manufactured out rage? Does it come with instructions?
Where do you get it?
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 11:44 AM*************************Cliff, you're just way off on this one. The school has rules. And they might be silly rules. But they seem to apply them without bias.******************
> Apparently they are biased. One religious symbol gets kids tossed and another doesn't?
Read the article again.
She didn't get "tossed"; she's *worried* about getting "tossed".
She and her parents are whiners, holding out for special privileges.
Why is this suddenly Not Germane to you?
Let's look at your title again:
1. She wasn't suspended.
2. She can wear her religious symbol, just not as a pendant on a chain around her neck.
Not exactly that ideal Religious Persecution cause celebre you're hoping for.
"Snitty little Christian girl slightly inconvenienced by widespread school policy she knew all about; decides to make a big deal about it"
I know damned well what you'd say if her name was Fatma and she wanted to wear her headscarf to a school that didn't allow students to wear headgear.
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 11:54 AM***********know damned well what you'd say if her name was Fatma and she wanted to wear her headscarf to a school that didn't allow students to wear headgear. ***********
You do? Really? How do you know ?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 7:53 PMOh Cliffie, I see you haven't changed at all - still the sleazy little bigoted liar. So concerend with pushing your hate that you have zero regard for honesty - though in this case you certainly had help from some sensation-seeking tabloid editors.
Ooh, Muslims and Sikhs can wear what they want but not Christians! What a load of regurgitated bullshit vomited out by the Clifftard.
The ban is against JEWELRY of any kind. It doesn't discriminate. In fact, this is the opposite: a Christian girl wants to have special treatment because of her religion. You can agree with dress codes or not, but it's not about religious discrimination, it's about a 13 year old girl who wants a special dispensation to not follow rules.
From the article:
"The vast majority of schools ban jewellery as part of their uniform policies and head teachers' leaders remained defiant last night, declaring all neck chains - regardless of whether they are religious - must stay banned for health and safety reasons."
"The school, which has no religious ties, said it would allow Samantha to wear a cross as a lapel badge."
Paul Jackson, the school's deputy headteacher, said: 'The school has a policy of no jewellery to be worn by any students in years seven to ten. All parents and students are aware of this.
'In this particular instance, the student and parent were informed that wearing the chain was a health and safety hazard, but that we would allow a lapel badge to be worn.
'The only exception to our uniform rule we would consider making is if the jewellery were an essential requirement of a particular religion.
'We have no reason to believe this to be the case in this instance.' "
Oh, and she wasn't suspended either"
"Her mother, Rosemary, 38, has two other children, Christopher, 16, and Louise, 14, neither of whom attend the school. She said: 'Although no one has actually said she will be suspended or disciplined for wearing the crucifix, Samantha is very worried and concerned about the repercussion of her decision.' "
Same old nazi-style propagandist as always, Cliffie. Take a tiny kernel of fact and distort the hell out of it to fit into your own bigoted, hate-filled agenda. Goebbles would be proud of you.
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 7:56 PM"Oh Cliffie, I see you haven't changed at all - still the sleazy little bigoted liar. "
Thats pretty uncalled for, Kelly -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 8:18 PM>> "Oh Cliffie, I see you haven't changed at all - still the sleazy little bigoted liar. "
> Thats pretty uncalled for, Kelly
Really? Did he deliberately misrepresent this story?
Sounds like.
God, poor poor Christians. So put-upon.
Their forebears in faith faced *lions* in the arena for what they believed.
But *these* effete pansies get their widdle nosies out of joint when they don't get special treatment, and when they only call *some* of society's shots, not all of them.
WAAAAH!
Jesus would puke on this crew.
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Wed, February 27, 2008 - 11:39 PM<Thats pretty uncalled for, Kelly>
Why so? Cliffie is a complete liar, he's shown himself to be so time and time again. Are you saying he didn't lie about the content of this article he linked to - you know, the one where NO ONE was suspended?
Bigoted? Come on, anyone who's bothered to read his posts can see he's totally prejudiced against Islam and Muslims, among others. That's a no-brainer.
Sleazy is more subjective, but I certainly think he qualifies. Someone with his nihilistic lack of ethics and utter disrespect for truth qualifies as sleazy in my book. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 12:48 AMI agree with Cliff. . .this is pretty fucked up.
England is slowly but surely becoming a screwed up authoritarian state. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 5:12 AM> I agree with Cliff. . .this is pretty fucked up.
What's fucked up? That the Christians didn't get to flout the rule against neck jewelry that everyone else had to obey?
Explain. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 6:18 AMI think it is messed up that students are not allowed free expression. This would seem to include jewelry. In the U.S. a number of years ago a Supreme Court decision stated that "the Bill of Rights should not stop at the school house door." That decision protected the rights of students to have a black armband to protest the Vietnam war.
Cliff, I hope your outrage about students being denied the right to have jewelry also extends to the right of students to have political buttons.
This should incude McCain, Clinton or Obama buttons or those that say "bring the troops home now!" Free speech shpold apply to each of those. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 9:05 AMMiniature butt plugs, dildoes, drug related paraphenalia as jewelry?
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 9:29 AM> I think it is messed up that students are not allowed free expression. This would seem to include jewelry
Did all y'all *miss* that part where she was given permission to wear a *crucifix lapel pin*?
I know of other schools with a "no necklaces" rule. They don't want chains around the necks of kids that age, because of the way they fight sometimes, grabbing a necklace and twisting, in a way that can actually damage the wearer's windpipe.
Yes, some of these safety rules are pretty silly. This one, not so much.
And a silly rule, fairly applied, can be lived with for awhile, and is *obviously* not a case of "religious persecution."
And, BTW, the *Bush* Supreme Court *does* think that the Bill of Rights stops at the schoolhouse door. Remember that kid losing his "Bongs 4 Jesus" case? -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 9:59 AMI forgot about that court rulling on "bong hits 4 Jebus", although it was a reactionary decision I am encouraged that students (and others) are persisting in excerising their Constitutional rights. For example there have been a number of antiwar protests that involve high schools students as well as the thousands of students who joined the immigrant rights walk-out and work stoppage in 2006 and 2007.
I think it was developments like the civil rights, peace and women's movements that neutralized the McCarthyite atmosphere of the 50s.
I thnk the fact that citizens feel free to speak in opposition to Bush and the war and march against that war will neutralize the neocons.
The atmoshpere of fear and intimidation they tried to impose after 9/11 is a dead duck.
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 10:27 AM************Cliff, I hope your outrage about students being denied the right to have jewelry also extends to the right of students to have political buttons.
This should incude McCain, Clinton or Obama buttons or those that say "bring the troops home now!" Free speech shpold apply to each of those.***************
Absolutely. If the school is banning one button or religious item it should ban 'em all.
Some schools prohibit messages of any kind on clothing so those Tees with any verbiage including Nike's "Just do it" are also banned. .
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 11:53 AM**********What's fucked up? That the Christians didn't get to flout the rule against neck jewelry that everyone else had to obey?**********
What "safety and order" interest is served by banning things like this?
Either ban all of it or not.
When my girls were in high school one of the requirements to graduate was that you had to have X number of credits in "Gym."
There was a strong ethnic population that was highly insular and xenophobic. This population held to the idea that the local US population was somehow inferior to them and that the idea that their children should have to suffer physical contact with the infidels and, god forbid, have to undress and share shower facilities among them was intolerable.
And the school caved letting them graduate without the required Gym credits.
This sort od double standard crap is at the heart of my complaint. It is the howling lie of multiculturalism and the psycho leftist mindset that all things left are automatically good and all things not left are bad. It's fascism.
-
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 12:04 PM> When my girls were in high school one of the requirements to graduate was that you had to have X number of credits in "Gym." There was a strong ethnic population that was highly insular and xenophobic. This population held to the idea that the local US population was somehow inferior to them and that the idea that their children should have to suffer physical contact with the infidels and, god forbid, have to undress and share shower facilities among them was intolerable.
And the school caved letting them graduate without the required Gym credits.
And you didn't like that.
So why do you like it when this little Christian girl insists on wearing jewelry the rest of the class doesn't get to wear? They've even offered her an alternative by which she can wear her symbol of faith, where it's less apt to get broken or snatched off her neck, causing injury or damage or theft. The other symbols of faith *she's* bitching about aren't worn round the neck.
It's so strange that you mention a "double standard" when you clearly also have one. -
-
Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes (little tiny crucifixes)
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 2:17 PM*************And you didn't like that.**********
I didn't like the double standard, correct. I didn't like that the school caved to one group and for those reasons it was demanded it was doubly offensive. I'm a fucking infidel and contact with me is revolting.
*************So why do you like it when this little Christian girl insists on wearing jewelry the rest of the class doesn't get to wear?********
I think the rule is biased on it's face. It fails to distinguish between real hazards and harmless trinkets.
************They've even offered her an alternative by which she can wear her symbol of faith, where it's less apt to get broken or snatched off her neck, causing injury or damage or theft. The other symbols of faith *she's* bitching about aren't worn round the neck.*********
Who'd steal that tiny thing. How could it possibly cause harm it'd break. You know that.
*************It's so strange that you mention a "double standard" when you clearly also have one.************
Clearly? OK I'll bite, what is it?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
not again
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 10:47 AM
<<Oh Cliffie, I see you haven't changed at all - still the sleazy little bigoted liar.>>
Kelly, it looks like you haven't changed at all either - still the compulsive flamer with a "Cliff fixation".
dude, really, WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO GET THIS?? - criticize Cliff's VIEWS all you want, attack his positions, points and politics - but stop PERSONAL attacks, direct insults, name calling and attempts to "psychoanalyze him".
<<What a load of regurgitated bullshit>> --> perfectly fine.
<< the sleazy little bigoted liar >>, << Same old nazi-style propagandist as always, Cliffie.>> --> personal attack and flaming, NOT COOL.
it's getting ridiculous, really. you just got re-admitted, and the first thing you do is engage in the same behavior you were booted for.
-
-
Re: not again
Thu, February 28, 2008 - 1:45 PMSorry, I find Cliff's dishonesty highly, highly offensive. He lied, blatantly, about this article, trying to porttray this as a "Muslims are favored over Christians" issue, in order to create a pseudo-justification for his dislike of Muslims and his ridiculous point of view that non-Muslims are unfairly discriminated against by some "politcally correct" liberal establishment.
I'll put to you the same points I put to Dustfish: Cliff lies, all the time. This is just one example - anyone who bothered to actually read his post should be able to see this clearly. Cliff is also a total bigot - you know it, I know it. We're talking about the guy who said that the war on terrorism would never end as long as there was a single person left who believed in Islam. And sleazy may be subjective, but I certainly think it's applicable:
www.thefreedictionary.com/sleazy
a. Shabby, dirty, and vulgar; tawdry: "sleazy storefronts with torn industrial carpeting and dirt on the walls" Seattle Weekly.
b. Dishonest or corrupt; disreputable: Some sleazy characters hang around casinos.
And you think the "Nazi-style propaganda" is too harsh? Why, what would you call blatant distortions of fact in the service of a racist political agenda?
So tell me, what did I say that's so objectionable, aside from accurately describe some really lame behaviour in an impolite tone?
-
-
