Utter nonsense. We had this stuff over here too a while ago. 'Problem' is that a lot of muslim girls here who didn't wear a scarf at first started doing so over the last few years. Although at my elementary school almost all muslim girls wore one. Nowadays it's more something for girls who are apparently searching for their identity and find it in the Koran. I believe the girl in question (over here) wore a scarf and a veil in front of her face. That was disallowed. But just a scarf is allowed.
There aren't any that I'm aware of that require the wearing of a crucifix, but I believe Mennonites require women to wear a shawl or head covering of some kind, at least during worship (school may be another matter.) Certainly, there are Christian sects that do adhere to strict standards of dress. They're out there, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of really conservative Christian kids (who might live in a family or within a sect that requires some kind of dress code) were doing home schooling or going to a church-sponsored school. Really, to me, the interesting thing about this event isn't the Islamic angle, but rather another example of our public education system overreacting to a situation, suspending a child without first making an effort to deal with the issue. This type of knee-jerk reaction seems to have become so common in public schools. Some instances of children bringing weapons, etc... to school I can understand, but why didn't the school administrator simply speak with the child's parents, discover whether or not there was a religious purpose for her headscarf, and make an exception for her? That would have been the reasonable thing to do. In this case, again, this is a issue of separation of church and state, this time, the state is stepping in to restrict the free practice of religion (we're not talking a school-sponsored prayer vigil, but an individual choice of dress out of conscience). Again, education isn't solely about the subjects you really teach, but the underlying messages you give them. Instead of evaluating a situation on its own, thinking it through, communicating and understanding, the school commands the kid to step in line. And we wonder why our educational system is behind the rest of the developed world (well, let's not get into a funding debate...)
The similarity is that both instances are examples where public schools take a very strident view out of paternalistic, but I suppose genuinely held, concerns to promote safety and keep students unexposed to umm "influences," while trampling all over the First Amendment rights of individuals, specifically the right to the free exercise of religion. Common sense usually rules at the end of the day, but I find it laughable and ridiculous that a student wearing a head scarf is cause for suspension or a teacher wearing a cross is cause for dismissal. It's unbelievable, really, that a thinking school administrator could come to either conclusion.
Agreed. Now, for another example of what is shockingly wrong with our school system... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101569,00.html Unbelievable.
How is that unbelievable. That's the kind of *#*#*#*# I'm sure the Columbine kids were doing. I have to ask, is it your daily goal when you wake up in the morning to prove how stupid you are? I would really like to know who added the adjective "patriotic" to this story. The kid was drawing guns, and people dying while he was in school. That doesn't bother you? What if nobody put a stop to this and told the kid "killing" is wrong? When the kid is 16 he decides he's going to kill himself some Taliban ass becuase that's the cool thing to do, so he shows up at school one day starts gunning down Arab or Muslim students? What if, what if, what if, I know. But you have to have a 'premtive strike' to stop these kinds of things from happening.
Students aren't allowed to draw pictures representing gun violence in school. You'd have to be an idiot not to understand why.
As for the head scarf- school officials grant exemption from school policy all the time in respect to a student's religious beliefs, as long as it's not too extreme or disruptive. This principal and teacher are obviously anti-Islam.
While I agree with Alex (hypothetically) concerning a military drawing, I heard an interview with the school administrator who said that the NY Post story was inaccurate, that the suspended student drew other pictures of student-against-student violence and was suspended for those pictures, and that the full story didn't come out immediately because the school board was checking with their lawyers about what they could and could not say concerning the suspension.
In that case fine, but I hadn't heard that. Assuming, however, that all this kid did was draw pictures of Marines killing Taliban, what in the hell is wrong with that? I was in 1st grade during the first Gulf War and I sure as hell drew a lot of pictures of US troops gunning down Iraqi troops. I also grew up playing with GI Joes and those little metal Civil War guys and Medieval Legos and Pirate Legos, and I always had them killing each other, yet I didn't end up shooting up my high school. Neither did anyone else I know who played with the same things when they were little. There's a HUGE gap between drawing pictures of people killing each other and actually killing somebody--especially when every kid grows up playing with GI Joes when they're very little (please don't tell me little kids aren't allowed to play with GI Joes anymore...) and playing video games like GTA when they're older. Both of those are a lot more realistic than a drawing of a friggin' stick figure, yet they don't cause kids to be violent. The only slight cause for concern here is that the kid is 14, but even then... And Rich, killing isn't wrong when the people being killed are Islamofascist scumbags...
The fact that he's mimicking your past behavior should be reason enough to ban it. Or abortion doctors. Don't forget it's ok to kill abortion doctors.
While this is up for debate, the kid is 14 and may not yet be able to differentiate between "Islamofascist scumbags" and the Yemeni immigrant kid he sits next to in social studies class. Do you understand this problem? The kid's actions do nothing but congeal a possible future hate against all muslims. If we were at war in Liberia and he were drawing pictures of Marines hanging a black man from a tree what would you say? It's the same kind of hate. When I was a kid I hated Soviets, because I was taught to hate them and they were the "enemy". Did I draw pictures of people killing them? No, but then again you see how I turned out.
I was surfing and made the mistake of hiting the politcal part of this board. I was going to answer the question of the scarf, then i see this mutated into somerhing else. So just on the scarf, yes of cource she should be able to wear the scarf part of her religion isn't it?
The cross-wearing teacher's aide http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030507cross0507p2.asp Suspended teacher's aide sues employer over wearing cross on necklace Wednesday, May 07, 2003 By Torsten Ove, Post-Gazette Staff Writer A teacher's aide in Indiana County filed a federal civil rights lawsuit yesterday against her employer, saying she was unfairly suspended from her job for a year without pay for refusing to remove a small cross she wears on a necklace. Brenda Nichol tells reporters yesterday how much she misses her students. The teacher's aide from Indiana County was in Pittsburgh to file suit after her employer suspended her for a year for wearing a cross on her necklace. (John Beale, Post-Gazette) Brenda Nichol, 43, of Glen Campbell, said school officials violated her rights to freedom of speech and religion. Nichol, who works at Penns Manor Area Elementary School in Clymer, is asking to be reinstated by her employer, ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, which provides educational support to students in Armstrong and Indiana counties. According to the lawsuit, she was notified last month that she couldn't display her cross in class. ARIN officials said the cross violates their policy and the state's prohibition of religious garb under the Pennsylvania Public School Code. Nichol had been told of the ban in 1997 and was warned twice since March that wearing the necklace was cause for suspension. She said she refused, "after prayerful consideration," because the cross symbolizes her religion. "I knew I was not to deny my Lord, Jesus Christ," she said yesterday outside the Federal Courthouse, Downtown. She was referring to a Bible verse in which Jesus says, "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father in heaven." "As a Christian," wrote her lawyer, Vincent McCarthy, "Brenda Nichol desires to express her identity as a Christian (belonging and wed to Christ) through wearing a cross on her necklace, as a symbol of her faith, and believes to remove or hide that cross beneath her clothing is an act of denying Christ as her Lord and Savior, which she cannot do without violating her religious convictions." McCarthy is senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. Last month, the group said it planned to file the lawsuit. ARIN Executive Director Robert H. Coad Jr. said he couldn't discuss the specifics of the complaint or personnel matters, but he said the code is designed to protect students, a "captive audience." He said case law has shown that the state has an interest in preserving religious neutrality in schools. The problem with not enforcing the ban, he said, is that children see the symbol and ask questions about it. That's fine for most people in a case involving a cross in a predominantly Christian community, Coad said. But what if someone wears a symbol that offends Christians, such as a pendant related to witchcraft. The ban on religious garb in schools has been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania. In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf. The court ruled in 1990 that she couldn't. But McCarthy said in the lawsuit that religious symbols can't be banned unless there is evidence that they disrupt the operation of the school, and Nichol's cross, which is about an inch long, didn't cause any such disruption. Nichol said yesterday that being asked to remove her cross is like being asked to remove a wedding ring. She also complained that religion is "systematically being removed from society." The lawsuit names as defendants ARIN, Coad and several other supervisors and asks that a federal judge declare the school's policy and the state's ban to be unconstitutional. and the settlement: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10179065&BRD=1078&PAG=461&dept_id=151025&rfi=6 Final Settlement with Aide OK'd By ELAINE JACOBS, Gazette Staff Writer September 17, 2003 Armstrong-Indiana Intermediate Unit A settlement has officially been reached between Armstrong-Indiana Intermediate Unit 28 and a teacher's aide suspended in April for visibly wearing a cross necklace in the classroom. ARIN's board of directors at its regular meeting Tuesday approved a settlement agreement with Brenda Nichol, allowing her to keep her job as an aide in a classroom for special-needs students at Penns Manor Elementary School. Also in the settlement, ARIN agreed to remove any reference to Nichol's suspension from her job record, delete from its employee handbook rules prohibiting employees from wearing religious jewelry or clothing in the classroom and pay legal fees of $24,000 to the American Center for Law and Justice and $8,567.20 to Nichol's attorney, Joseph Luciana. ARIN made the agreement in exchange for Nichol's dropping of her federal court case, her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and her collective-bargaining grievance. ARIN also reached an agreement with its insurer, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association Insurance Trust/School Claims Service LLC, which will contribute $20,000 to the settlement and cover all legal fees of the law firm it retained to defend ARIN, in excess of a $5,000 deductible. The intermediate unit reached an agreement with Nichol in August, but the settlement was subject to approval by the ARIN board Tuesday. Nichol, 43, of Glen Campbell RD 1, filed her lawsuit against ARIN in May, claiming the educational agency had violated her constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom to exercise her religion when it suspended her. The part of the ARIN policy that had prohibited employees from visibly wearing religious clothing or jewelry was modeled after a long-standing provision of the Pennsylvania Public School Code, which states public school teachers cannot wear religious items in the classroom. As a result of the settlement, ARIN aides can now visibly wear religious jewelry or garments, while ARIN teachers cannot, because the provisions of the public school code are still in effect. Dr. Robert Coad, executive director of ARIN, addressed the inconsistency by telephone this morning. "The intermediate unit still believes that it is odd that a teacher can be prevented from wearing religious garb or insignia while a teacher's aide is now permitted to wear such objects," he said. Coad also reinforced that the injunction applies only to ARIN and its employee handbook and not to school districts or any other intermediate units in the state.
If he'd drawn a picture of Marines killing nondescript, unlabeled Arabs or AFghans then yeah. But he didn't, he drew a picture of Marines killing Taliban terrorists. The difference is the same as the difference would be between drawing nondescript white people shooting other nondescript white people, and drawing US troops shooting Nazis.
I'm a highly educated, politically astute, internationally interested, gun-wielding American patriot. And I don't have a fucking clue as to what artistically differentiates a nondescript Arab from a Taliban terrorist. I'm glad this 14-year-old does, though.
Horray for the ACLJ!!! They do the work that the ACLU won't! As for crosses in class, I was a teacher in the Metro Atlanta area before I came to Taiwan. I wore a cross as did a couple of other teachers (at least). There was no rule against it in the district that I taught in nor did it cause any disruption whatsoever in the classroom.
you're an idiot. Apparently you don't even read your own articles for comprehension. The kid just explained the drawing that way. The drawing wasn't labled or anything. Chances are the kid drew something inapporpriate (violent depicitions in school are nearly always inapporopriate) and then made up the justification for his drawing to draw attention or avoid punishment. Let us not forget that the kid is 14. He's not a cherubic 1st grader.
How do you know? Nothing in the link I posted said the drawing wasn't labeled. You're probably also part of the crowd that wants to pussify our schools by not letting kids play dodgeball, tag, etc. Glad to know the left still believes in "innocent until proven guilty" (unless you're Mumia Abu Jamal, in which case it's "innocent even after repeatedly proven guilty").