Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (31435)	10/9/2001 12:10:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have always said that all children should be free to express themselves. What I do not want is anyone in authority expressing themselves on personal matters like religion. There are problems in the classroom when you have evangelical children who want to coerce other children. I do think that has to be contained, since people do not send their children to school with the expectation that they will be evangelized. I had a Buddhist boy in my class last year along with a VERY strong willed little Christian girl who sat next to him. At one point during the year she apparently asked him about God and he answered. I then heard "Mrs X, Joe says there is no God, MAKE him say there is one." Ahem Well. I told her I could not do that. And that we all had a right to our own beliefs and that she should talk to mom and dad about this when she got home. She wasn't alarmed by my response, and neither was Joe- they probably both felt vindicated- the trick is to say as little as possible and leave as much room as one can for their own sense of self righteousness. I continued to receive beautifully painted crosses decked out with flowers from this little girl throughout the year, so I know I did not traumatize her. I had a few other religious contretemps among my students, but they were handles quietly, and I always kept the parents informed, and I had no problems. Religiously I had an extremely diverse class. And we had to make special accommodations for some of them- for example the two boys who were Jehova's Witnesses could not take part in any celebrations at ALL- not holiday celebrations, no birthdays, not Mother's Day cards- nothing. So we had to plan to work around that, without making the boys feel excluded. Since there were two of them it made it easier to make them comfortable. For Holidays I actually partitioned off the library for them, and set out snacks in both areas- because the boys could eat the special Holiday treats as long as they were "celebrating" the Holiday. Don't ask me why that is ok- I don't know. But the parents assured me this met the conditions of their faith. So we can protect all children's faith, and yet not force anything on anyone else. If I did not firmly believe that, I wouldn't be such an advocate for it. But I've seen it work.

To: TimF who wrote (31435)	10/9/2001 12:25:54 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

they should be able to wear a cross, or a t-shirt with religious writings or symbols (if t-shirts are allowed by the dress code) Only, of course, if they could also wear these... evolvefish.com or evolvefish.com or even evolvefish.com BTW, this is my favourite: evolvefish.com Seriously, if children can wear a cross, how about an ankh? or a pentagram? or an inverted, scarlet cross? Is a burkha acceptable? or complete nudity? or a swastika?? All of these can be classed as religious wear, and are bound to offend some... It's not just a matter of acceptable to the majority, IMO. Either you play favourites, or none at all. The latter is a better position. The US allows freedom of thought, and equality of treatment: it should therefore not officially favour certain religions over others. It equally need not 'recognise' every religion, naturally (especially if this involves the invidious reliefs for taxation etc.): commitments on not affecting, restricting or raising any hostility to non-believers might be minimum guarantees, for example, and might get rid of the more odious cults. If the US wants to become avowedly Xtian, well and good... but recognise that this is a change... If the prevailing ethos is that only a certain religion, or group of religions, is approved - and that religion is state-sponsored and subsidised above others - then I'd say you've lost that freedom.