Conquer Club

-------------I wrote before about The bullshit of The U.S. Government stance on the separation of Church and State. In Public Schools kids can't pray. So Catholic schools to counter no longer say The Star Spangled Banner at their events. They say THE OUR FATHER.
-------------I seen a Arabic girl wearing a Scarf/Hijab. In the Sunday paper Honoring kids from downriver public schools. Back in December my niece who is 11 years old. Has a Mexican/American(I don't believe in government labels) friend who is 10. Her name is America. An Arabic Woman was subbing their class for the day. The Arabic Women was wearing a scarf on hear head. America had Christmas Tree ear rings and a sweater with MERRY CHRISTMAS on it. The Arabic Woman made America take her ear rings off and remove hear sweater. The Arabic used The Church and State rule. The principal backed the sub's action. Yet there are a couple of Arabic girls in younger grades at my niece's school who wear scarfs on their heads.
-------------Are you "F-ing" kidding me. This is why Trump is becoming more and more popular. As he fights the P.C. Police. "Everyone should be able to wear what they want." Screw`the Government...But if one is going to protest Christmas in a Public School. Then they shouldn't be allowed to wear scarfs on their heads. JUST MORE P.C...Church and State CRAP...
-------------My other niece/her sister. In the middle school. Said. I don't know if it is the same sub. An Arabic Woman was subbing. Kids put towels on their heads. They received a weeks detention. I personally find it. Great and funny. GREAT JOB KIDS...Stand UP TO THE MAN... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

Based on my understanding of the First Amendment, it protects the government support of one religion over another (e.g. Christianity over Judaism). It does not protect the government supporting religion generally versus no religion.

The religion clause of the Constitution is one of the most abused and misunderstood lines of law. It is important to understand that the incorporation doctrine is a later development. Thus the clause only applies to the Federal government, at the time it was written. This was a statement of Federalism, Some states still had state religions at the signing of the constitution. It was only over time that they were shamed into dropping them.

Jefferson's "wall" which is clearly not in the Constitution is also misunderstood. He hated the King of England who was both the head of the church and the state. Jefferson argued that the Constitution (which included the limited powers of the congress) created a "wall" that prevented the state from making religious laws (when to worship, what to worship, how to worship).

Neither has anything to do with religious "expression" in the public sphere.

tzor wrote:The religion clause of the Constitution is one of the most abused and misunderstood lines of law. It is important to understand that the incorporation doctrine is a later development. Thus the clause only applies to the Federal government, at the time it was written. This was a statement of Federalism, Some states still had state religions at the signing of the constitution. It was only over time that they were shamed into dropping them.

Jefferson's "wall" which is clearly not in the Constitution is also misunderstood. He hated the King of England who was both the head of the church and the state. Jefferson argued that the Constitution (which included the limited powers of the congress) created a "wall" that prevented the state from making religious laws (when to worship, what to worship, how to worship).

Neither has anything to do with religious "expression" in the public sphere.

What is the "incorporation doctrine"? Are you referring to the establishment clause?

If a public school (i.e. a government actor) is limiting an individual's freedom of religious expression, that school is violating the First Amendment. Similarly, if a public school is requiring people to pray to the Christian god, the public school is also violating the First Amendment.

To put it another way, kids are allowed to pray in school if they want, but they aren't forced to pray to a particular god or gods.

--------I know all about Church and State....People should be able to wear what ever they want. I just found it funny that The Arabic Women....would pick on a Mexican girl. Next to Mother Mary...Christmas is huge to Mexicans. It's funny. Because, a Mexican is not going to fight. They don't want to wake up the eyes of the government. If it had been a white kid. The kid's parents would of went bat shit crazy on the Arabic. The word of the incident spread like wild fire through the play grounds. The kids are taking to the Arabic subs...One kid even asked a sub. "Are you from Dearborn?" The sub said,"Yes"...All the kids laughed...Because they know that's where all the Arabics live(most outside of the Middle East).
---------But what really gets me. Is People come here. Want us to respect their ways. Like wearing a Scarf on their head. Which is Kool I guess. But then will not respect others wishes. If you don't like something. Don't look at it. Plain and simple. They wear the scarf all the time. In another month. You would of never even seen a Merry Christmas sweater. Time would of taken care of it. You don't have to call out a 10 year old. Make her look like a fool. In front of the class. Like she did something wrong. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion). ...But if that's the way it is going to be...Then The Arabic Women are going to. Have to start removing their scarfs in public places,funded by the government...What's good for the goose,is good for the gander...

You know you can't wear a shirt with a Star Trooper on it holding a gun. Or make a gun with your finger on it. Or eat a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun. Don't forget you can't wear an American flag shirt to school either. I think when you drop your child off at the school your basically relinquishing your parental rights to the school. If you don't like the school policy and brainwashing leave. The whole idea of a Federally run educational system is bullshit.

ConfederateSS wrote:--------I know all about Church and State....People should be able to wear what ever they want. I just found it funny that The Arabic Women....would pick on a Mexican girl. Next to Mother Mary...Christmas is huge to Mexicans. It's funny. Because, a Mexican is not going to fight. They don't want to wake up the eyes of the government. If it had been a white kid. The kid's parents would of went bat shit crazy on the Arabic. The word of the incident spread like wild fire through the play grounds. The kids are taking to the Arabic subs...One kid even asked a sub. "Are you from Dearborn?" The sub said,"Yes"...All the kids laughed...Because they know that's where all the Arabics live(most outside of the Middle East).
---------But what really gets me. Is People come here. Want us to respect their ways. Like wearing a Scarf on their head. Which is Kool I guess. But then will not respect others wishes. If you don't like something. Don't look at it. Plain and simple. They wear the scarf all the time. In another month. You would of never even seen a Merry Christmas sweater. Time would of taken care of it. You don't have to call out a 10 year old. Make her look like a fool. In front of the class. Like she did something wrong. ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion). ...But if that's the way it is going to be...Then The Arabic Women are going to. Have to start removing their scarfs in public places,funded by the government...What's good for the goose,is good for the gander...

Obviously I don't know the circumstances, but I suspect that the substitute teacher was enforcing school policy. And the reason she is enforcing school policy is that she wants to keep her job.

warmonger1981 wrote:You know you can't wear a shirt with a Star Trooper on it holding a gun. Or make a gun with your finger on it. Or eat a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun. Don't forget you can't wear an American flag shirt to school either. I think when you drop your child off at the school your basically relinquishing your parental rights to the school. If you don't like the school policy and brainwashing leave. The whole idea of a Federally run educational system is bullshit.

Yes, it's quite frustrating that apparently people think there is a correlation between a stormtrooper t-shirt and committing violent acts; and even more frustrating that the government also believes it such that they will enforce these types of policies.

To be perfectly honest, I don't give a flying f*ck what schools do or do not allow. It doesn't affect me or my children in the slightest. I am intelligent and adult enough (and it's not hard to get there) to be able to tell my kids what is right and what is wrong without the help and despite the hindrance of our school systems and government.

You do know that school is not teaching but for molding children into social structures. If you thinking hat kids don't pick up habits at school that you may find disturbing you're fooling yourself. Any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon. Is this not sexualizing children? May I suggest a book its an easy read. " Dumbing Us Down" by John Taylor Grotto.

warmonger1981 wrote:You do know that school is not teaching but for molding children into social structures. If you thinking hat kids don't pick up habits at school that you may find disturbing you're fooling yourself. Any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon. Is this not sexualizing children? May I suggest a book its an easy read. " Dumbing Us Down" by John Taylor Grotto.

Do you know that I am actually a parent to my kids and that schools have less of an influence over my kids than I do? Do you know that I want to public school and somehow didn't develop the ideologies that you probably deem problematic? Will kids pick up habits at school from the education system or teachers that I will find disturbing? Probably not; and if they do, I have the wherewithal to counteract those habits. That is my primary point. Based upon anecdotal evidence, kids are going to be influenced by some combination of media (or culture if you like), religion (or lack thereof), parents, peers, and organizations (like schools, scouts, sports teams, etc.). If parents want to avoid a situation where one of these factors has an influence, the parent has the ability to do that. If my kids' school starts to teach that free speech is a fallacy, I will ensure that my kids do not believe that (or that they will at least be skeptical). If I can't do that, I'm a failure as a parent. Further, not allowing children to experience any ideas or organization that are antithetical to their world view (or their parents' world view) is largely harmful. Good parenting is letting your kids be exposed and help them understand how to deal with it.

Just a point of clarification... there won't be transgender bathrooms. There will be the ability for transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice, not a separate bathroom for just transgender folks. In any event, does that bother me relative to my children? No, for a few different reasons. First, the concern that transgenders using whatever bathroom they like will lead to child abuse, rape, etc. is completely misguided and wrong. There is no evidence, at all, that this will occur or that these types of abuses will be any worse (or better). This is purely fiction used to justify discrimination; kind of like saying "if you let black men use the same bathroom is white men, bad things will happen." Second, and perhaps you don't realize this, bathroom usage is the least concerning item affecting the sexualization of kids. When I was in school, we didn't have transgender bathrooms and most of my friends had sex by the time they were in seventh grade. Again, this is a completely ridiculous assertion with no basis in fact.

Do you have any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon?

Also, I don't read nonfiction books, but thanks for the recommendation in any event.

warmonger1981 wrote:You know you can't wear a shirt with a Star Trooper on it holding a gun. Or make a gun with your finger on it. Or eat a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun. Don't forget you can't wear an American flag shirt to school either. I think when you drop your child off at the school your basically relinquishing your parental rights to the school. If you don't like the school policy and brainwashing leave. The whole idea of a Federally run educational system is bullshit.

--------The NRA is not a religion....A gun shirt is mute....I've seen kids with a shirt with the Union Jack and the Rising Sun of Japan....also mute....
--------You guys wont call out a Muslim who wants things her way. While she wears a towel on her head. THAT'S a violation of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in a public funded building. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. SO TO TRY AND STAMP OUT THE WORD CHRISTMAS. Because it conflicts with her religion is very clear in this case. The school had no problem with Christmas before. HAD NO PROBLEM with the other Arabic girls wearing their scarfs. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO ENFORCE US GOVERNMENT POLICY. THEN THE SUB...THE ARABIC GIRLS MUST ALSO REMOVE THEIR SCARFS. IF THEY ARE GOING TO USE RELIGION AS AN ISSUE....That's what makes me crazy when I see a girl at another downriver school also wearing a scarf. EITHER RELIGION IS FORBIDDEN IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS/PUBLIC FUNDED BUILDINGS OR IT IS NOT. YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOSE. TO SUIT ONE TYPE OF PEOPLE...
--------THE FACT THAT NO ONE HERE WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A MUSLIM WOMEN WEARING SCARFS OR EVEN A JEWISH BOY WEARING A YAMAKA....BUT A CATHOLIC/CHRISTIAN WEARING A CATHOLIC OR CHRISTMAS SYMBOL..IS ATTACKED..IS LIKE THE DEMOCRATS REFUSING TO SAY THE WORD ISLAMIC TERRORIST. WHEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. ATTACKING THE WORLD. ....ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion).

ConfederateSS wrote:. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

ConfederateSS wrote:. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

--Andy

To be fair (i.e. ignoring the language issues) he has a valid point. The school, through its agent, is prohibiting religious expression (the earrings) while tolerating religious expression (the "head scarf"). And the differentiation seems to be with respect to the religion.

Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else in this thread but it should be said that the alleged instruction to the girl to remove her earrings (in OP) was only sanctioned by the teacher and the principal, and does not necessarily reflect state or district policy. The principal and teacher in question may well have overstepped their authority.

And also, a hijab is not in and of itself a religious garment. It is worn because a lot of Muslim women believe they should cover their hair, but the garment itself has no religious significance. It could be switched out for a hat or the hood of a hooded jacket if the woman in question chose to do so, but in most cases it isn't because a hijab is the traditional clothing worn for this purpose in Muslim societies while a beanie hat is not. Wearing a hijab (not a religious symbol) is different to wearing clothing or jewelry which depicts a religious symbol or celebrates a religious holiday/ritual.

mrswdk wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else in this thread but it should be said that the alleged instruction to the girl to remove her earrings (in OP) was only sanctioned by the teacher and the principal, and does not necessarily reflect state or district policy. The principal and teacher in question may well have overstepped their authority.

For my part, I have assumed in all of my points that what the teacher was doing was sanctioned by the government.

thegreekdog wrote:What is the "incorporation doctrine"? Are you referring to the establishment clause?

The incorporation doctrine "is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."

So prior to 1925 a state (or a city) could impose a "state religion." It could impose its own gun laws. It could suppress speech. All of which invoking the "Bill of Rights" would have had no effect, since the Constitution applied to the Federal Government only.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What is the "incorporation doctrine"? Are you referring to the establishment clause?

The incorporation doctrine "is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."

So prior to 1925 a state (or a city) could impose a "state religion." It could impose its own gun laws. It could suppress speech. All of which invoking the "Bill of Rights" would have had no effect, since the Constitution applied to the Federal Government only.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

Okay... so irrelevant for purposes of this discussion.

thegreekdog wrote: When I was in school, we didn't have transgender bathrooms and most of my friends had sex by the time they were in seventh grade.

damn, tgd went to school at Playa Academy

mrswdk wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else in this thread but it should be said that the alleged instruction to the girl to remove her earrings (in OP) was only sanctioned by the teacher and the principal, and does not necessarily reflect state or district policy. The principal and teacher in question may well have overstepped their authority.

And also, a hijab is not in and of itself a religious garment. It is worn because a lot of Muslim women believe they should cover their hair, but the garment itself has no religious significance. It could be switched out for a hat or the hood of a hooded jacket if the woman in question chose to do so, but in most cases it isn't because a hijab is the traditional clothing worn for this purpose in Muslim societies while a beanie hat is not. Wearing a hijab (not a religious symbol) is different to wearing clothing or jewelry which depicts a religious symbol or celebrates a religious holiday/ritual.

So they don't even have to wear the stupid towel and they are just doing it to troll us? What's wrong with fascinators? This is why I support bombing brown people. They are asking for it.

@TGD

So basically your actually a parent intimately involved in your child's life. I actually a applaud that. Literally. Most parents ship their children out to the factory to become indoctrinated by social/political activisists disguised as teachers/professors. It also seems your a realistic person in the fact that your aware that natural elements are healthy for a child's development. Over protection is the reason our Republic is becoming a police State or Totalitarian. People believe they always know better. Wether it be your parents or government. Freedom develops growth. The bathrooms are not so much a discussion about crime as it is a change in the way society's view sexuality. A good place to start would be the school. Get them young. The crime issue is weak and obsurd. Why does such a low percentage of the population all of a sudden become a driving force in society? Having sex and being transgender having bathrooms are irrelevant. Those have no relation.

thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon?

Yes. Some years back, during the whole molestation problem that quietly echoed through school administrations under the cover of the priest scandals, many public schools at the elementary and high school level removed the doors from the stalls of the children's bathrooms.

So the situation is not the same between that of children and that of adults.

warmonger1981 wrote:@TGD

So basically your actually a parent intimately involved in your child's life. I actually a applaud that. Literally. Most parents ship their children out to the factory to become indoctrinated by social/political activisists disguised as teachers/professors. It also seems your a realistic person in the fact that your aware that natural elements are healthy for a child's development. Over protection is the reason our Republic is becoming a police State or Totalitarian. People believe they always know better. Wether it be your parents or government. Freedom develops growth. The bathrooms are not so much a discussion about crime as it is a change in the way society's view sexuality. A good place to start would be the school. Get them young. The crime issue is weak and obsurd. Why does such a low percentage of the population all of a sudden become a driving force in society? Having sex and being transgender having bathrooms are irrelevant. Those have no relation.

For what it's worth, I'm fairly confident that children receive more instruction (or brainwashing) from television, movies, music, etc., than they ever will receive at school. And the government doesn't have that much control over those cultural items.

That being said, my primary concern, like your primary concern I think, is the overprotection of the people in our society. Whether it is extending parents' healthcare to "children" between the ages of 18 and 25 (I think it's 25) or parents calling universities or graduate schools to get little Jimmy's grade changed, the lack of personal responsibility that seems to be prevalent in the younger generations is problematic.

However... THAT being said... I could just be an old man, "get off my lawn" type.

I don't care about the transgender bathroom issue; I just don't like the arguments either side is making.

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon?

Yes. Some years back, during the whole molestation problem that quietly echoed through school administrations under the cover of the priest scandals, many public schools at the elementary and high school level removed the doors from the stalls of the children's bathrooms.

So the situation is not the same between that of children and that of adults.

You didn't actually answer the question I posed. You answered a different question, namely "How are school restrooms different from non-school public restrooms?" Since you didn't answer my question, I'll disregard your answer.

Further, like it makes a difference, I wasn't asking you.

thegreekdog wrote:Further, like it makes a difference, I wasn't asking you.

Further, and this too makes no difference, I don't give a shit to whom the question was addressed. Welcome to public forums.

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon?

Yes. Some years back, during the whole molestation problem that quietly echoed through school administrations under the cover of the priest scandals, many public schools at the elementary and high school level removed the doors from the stalls of the children's bathrooms.

So the situation is not the same between that of children and that of adults.

You didn't actually answer the question I posed. You answered a different question, namely "How are school restrooms different from non-school public restrooms?" Since you didn't answer my question, I'll disregard your answer.

Further, like it makes a difference, I wasn't asking you.

Is it just me, or have you gotten kinda bitchy since you got back? What happened? Is it some kind of 4-year cycle where Libertarians find out just how useless they are outside of internet discussion boards?

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Do you have any thoughts on transgender bathrooms in schools soon?

Yes. Some years back, during the whole molestation problem that quietly echoed through school administrations under the cover of the priest scandals, many public schools at the elementary and high school level removed the doors from the stalls of the children's bathrooms.

So the situation is not the same between that of children and that of adults.

You didn't actually answer the question I posed. You answered a different question, namely "How are school restrooms different from non-school public restrooms?" Since you didn't answer my question, I'll disregard your answer.

Further, like it makes a difference, I wasn't asking you.

Is it just me, or have you gotten kinda bitchy since you got back? What happened? Is it some kind of 4-year cycle where Libertarians find out just how useless they are outside of internet discussion boards?

It's just you.