Well, now... I know I would be very upset if my childrens' school was to have a policy which insisted they dress in a manner that I considered immodest. I don't see any problem with changing the code to allow them that.
And as far as looking into the policies of other schools, I would say that they are getting ahead of the problem so that other students don't have to feel like they're causing a problem by wanting to be modest.
The sensitivity training, though, sounds a little over the top. Maybe it's just the phrase "sensitivity training" that bothers me, though... I wouldn't see a problem with someone wanting to address the teachers and let them know what to expect in regards to those Muslim holidays, so there aren't any unintentional problems. I would, however, think it was just as appropriate for them to have such information about the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, or what have you.
Posted by: LNC at October 2, 2006 04:07 PM
Accomodating religious beliefs is now somehow the newest wave of facsism....
Well I was against prayer in school anyhow.
Wade
Posted by: Wade at October 2, 2006 04:22 PM
I thought there was supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Hence schools cannot have Christmas Programs, they must have Holiday Programs. Why special sensitivity training for one religious group - isn't that something the ACLU has fought against? (At least with Christians?)
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 2, 2006 04:52 PM
Liberals are blinded to the long term results of this!!
No Christians allowed but welcome Islam!!
Posted by: Lug at October 2, 2006 06:07 PM
I thought there was supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Hence schools cannot have Christmas Programs, they must have Holiday Programs. Why special sensitivity training for one religious group - isn't that something the ACLU has fought against? (At least with Christians?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EXACTLY!!!
Posted by: AFWIFE at October 2, 2006 06:08 PM
Back in my secondary education days the controversy was whether girls could wear pants or shorts instead of dresses or skirts. The relevant argument then, and it seems to me the argument now is... what does it matter?
So I guess my question is... what does it matter? Are people here against modesty? If so, why? If not, why?
Posted by: Ricorun at October 2, 2006 07:38 PM
Separation of Church and State....the biggest myth in US History. Nowhere....NOWHERE does this appear in the US Constitution. In fact, it comes from a statement by Thomas Jefferson several decades later in 1802 in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association.
Yet you ask 99% of liberals and they will tell you it's in black and white in the Constitution.
Posted by: Warriornation at October 2, 2006 08:16 PM
Lake Braddock Secondary School is about 3 miles from where I live and the local media has said nary a peep about this. This is nuts.
A school board member is my next door neighbor. Guess I'll be paying him a visit.
Posted by: Finn Grove at October 2, 2006 09:36 PM
Warrior - if it is required of the Christians and the schools, why not for other religions?
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 2, 2006 09:37 PM
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't
QALAT, AFGHANISTAN — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" and their allies into the government.
The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.
"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."
Posted by: Willem van Oranje at October 2, 2006 10:20 PM
kjs,
Yep. So true!
I always wondered why too, why the democrats want only Christians to be under their so-called, Seperation of Church and State. It is utterly amazing at the the level of hate directed towards Christians!
And yet, any other religion is permitted as free to practice their religion at will.
Warrior,
Yep, and what an absurdity at the left to try and assert that it is in the constitution.
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at October 2, 2006 10:20 PM
WVO - You REALLY like posting off topic don't you? Hey, here's an idea. Start your own blog. If you have enough money left over after buying drugs.
Posted by: Kahn at October 2, 2006 10:26 PM
Think so afKahn? I thought the title of this post was made for this story. We all know what the Taliban stands for and thinks about appropiate attire for men ánd women and about the Shari'a.
I would hate it when you were going to denounce the Shari'a and burqa's etc. at this point, while in the near future you would have to praise the succesful accomplishment of restoring the Taliban to power and asserting that women in burqa's were just fashion victims instead of religious victims.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje at October 2, 2006 11:49 PM
It is a campaign "to adapt public schools in the United States to Islamic norms," Pipes said, and "is an integral part of its effort to adapt the country to the Shari'a, or Islamic law."
Exactly. Shari'a in America. Now.
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 3, 2006 09:10 PM
WVO - since when is what is happening in US public schools part of what is going on with the Taliban? You must either be really high and not able to understand the thread - or just enjoy looking really stupid by posting way off topic.
Posted by: kjstrouble at October 3, 2006 10:24 PM
Warriornation wrote: "Separation of Church and State....the biggest myth in US History. Nowhere....NOWHERE does this appear in the US Constitution. In fact, it comes from a statement by Thomas Jefferson several decades later in 1802 in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association.
Yet you ask 99% of liberals and they will tell you it's in black and white in the Constitution."
More likely they would quote the Establishment Clause and discuss some of the history of the concept. However, the more pressing issue is that, by your logic, separation of powers doesn't exist, judicial review doesn't exist, executive agreements don't exist, the president's inherent powers don't exist, and presidential signing statements sure as hell don't exist. You realize, I'm sure, that certain practices and concepts evolve in a country in the course of 200+ years. Call yourself a strict constructionist or whatever you want, but even Scalia takes into account what the Framers would have wanted when they wrote the Constitution. And as noted above, at least one of them articulated exactly what you're railing against.
Posted by: Chris at October 4, 2006 12:01 AM
Well, now... I know I would be very upset if my childrens' school was to have a policy which insisted they dress in a manner that I considered immodest. I don't see any problem with changing the code to allow them that.
And as far as looking into the policies of other schools, I would say that they are getting ahead of the problem so that other students don't have to feel like they're causing a problem by wanting to be modest.
The sensitivity training, though, sounds a little over the top. Maybe it's just the phrase "sensitivity training" that bothers me, though... I wouldn't see a problem with someone wanting to address the teachers and let them know what to expect in regards to those Muslim holidays, so there aren't any unintentional problems. I would, however, think it was just as appropriate for them to have such information about the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, or what have you.
Accomodating religious beliefs is now somehow the newest wave of facsism....
Well I was against prayer in school anyhow.
Wade
I thought there was supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Hence schools cannot have Christmas Programs, they must have Holiday Programs. Why special sensitivity training for one religious group - isn't that something the ACLU has fought against? (At least with Christians?)
Liberals are blinded to the long term results of this!!
No Christians allowed but welcome Islam!!
I thought there was supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Hence schools cannot have Christmas Programs, they must have Holiday Programs. Why special sensitivity training for one religious group - isn't that something the ACLU has fought against? (At least with Christians?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EXACTLY!!!
Back in my secondary education days the controversy was whether girls could wear pants or shorts instead of dresses or skirts. The relevant argument then, and it seems to me the argument now is... what does it matter?
So I guess my question is... what does it matter? Are people here against modesty? If so, why? If not, why?
Separation of Church and State....the biggest myth in US History. Nowhere....NOWHERE does this appear in the US Constitution. In fact, it comes from a statement by Thomas Jefferson several decades later in 1802 in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association.
Yet you ask 99% of liberals and they will tell you it's in black and white in the Constitution.
Lake Braddock Secondary School is about 3 miles from where I live and the local media has said nary a peep about this. This is nuts.
A school board member is my next door neighbor. Guess I'll be paying him a visit.
Warrior - if it is required of the Christians and the schools, why not for other religions?
Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't
kjs,
Yep. So true!
I always wondered why too, why the democrats want only Christians to be under their so-called, Seperation of Church and State. It is utterly amazing at the the level of hate directed towards Christians!
And yet, any other religion is permitted as free to practice their religion at will.
Warrior,
Yep, and what an absurdity at the left to try and assert that it is in the constitution.
Jeremiah
WVO - You REALLY like posting off topic don't you? Hey, here's an idea. Start your own blog. If you have enough money left over after buying drugs.
Think so afKahn? I thought the title of this post was made for this story. We all know what the Taliban stands for and thinks about appropiate attire for men ánd women and about the Shari'a.
I would hate it when you were going to denounce the Shari'a and burqa's etc. at this point, while in the near future you would have to praise the succesful accomplishment of restoring the Taliban to power and asserting that women in burqa's were just fashion victims instead of religious victims.
It is a campaign "to adapt public schools in the United States to Islamic norms," Pipes said, and "is an integral part of its effort to adapt the country to the Shari'a, or Islamic law."
Exactly. Shari'a in America. Now.
WVO - since when is what is happening in US public schools part of what is going on with the Taliban? You must either be really high and not able to understand the thread - or just enjoy looking really stupid by posting way off topic.
Warriornation wrote: "Separation of Church and State....the biggest myth in US History. Nowhere....NOWHERE does this appear in the US Constitution. In fact, it comes from a statement by Thomas Jefferson several decades later in 1802 in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association.
Yet you ask 99% of liberals and they will tell you it's in black and white in the Constitution."
More likely they would quote the Establishment Clause and discuss some of the history of the concept. However, the more pressing issue is that, by your logic, separation of powers doesn't exist, judicial review doesn't exist, executive agreements don't exist, the president's inherent powers don't exist, and presidential signing statements sure as hell don't exist. You realize, I'm sure, that certain practices and concepts evolve in a country in the course of 200+ years. Call yourself a strict constructionist or whatever you want, but even Scalia takes into account what the Framers would have wanted when they wrote the Constitution. And as noted above, at least one of them articulated exactly what you're railing against.