.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, unless you're a Catholic, the comment stands.  And just so you understand that I'm not just pulling stuff out of thin air, I was Catholic.

To be clear, I am a Latter-day Saint. I consider the term Mormon as degrading.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, unless you're a Catholic, the comment stands.  And just so you understand that I'm not just pulling stuff out of thin air, I was Catholic.

To be clear, I am a Latter-day Saint. I consider the term Mormon as degrading.

 

Just now, anatess2 said:

There is nothing LOL about infringement of Constitutional rights by Public School teachers.

Breath, breath. It is not an attack on Constitution.

[prisonchaplain]

In my humble opinion...this string could continue to go around in circles, but the matter is largely resolved.

1. The teacher made a mistake. It was something. However, she, the principal, and the district made it right. KUDOS!

2.  The teacher's mistake seems to be reasonable judgment to some here, and to others a very poor one. Some focus on the recent reaction to blackface. Others of us are much more concerned with respect for religious practice in a government institution. IMHO, the latter is the 'big picture' issue. I don't suspect that too many African-Americans would confuse an ashen cross on the forehead with blackface. Still...I get the sensitivity.

3. The child forgave the teacher. Come on...grandma will. After all, the school had a deacon re-administer the cross. Just give her some space.

CONCLUSION: I'm actually ecstatic that the system humbly admitted fault, and went out of its way, on all levels, to respect and accommodate the child's religious practice and sensitivities.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There is nothing LOL about infringement of Constitutional rights by Public School teachers.

My LOL is about the irony of the different situations. You probably should take some breaths because you appear to be getting really worked up. This is not an attack on the constitutional rights of the kid. SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE ASH WAS FOR.

Cheers.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

In my humble opinion...this string could continue to go around in circles, but the matter is largely resolved.

1. The teacher made a mistake. It was something. However, she, the principal, and the district made it right. KUDOS!

2.  The teacher's mistake seems to be reasonable judgment to some here, and to others a very poor one. Some focus on the recent reaction to blackface. Others of us are much more concerned with respect for religious practice in a government institution. IMHO, the latter is the 'big picture' issue. I don't suspect that too many African-Americans would confuse an ashen cross on the forehead with blackface. Still...I get the sensitivity.

3. The child forgave the teacher. Come on...grandma will. After all, the school had a deacon re-administer the cross. Just give her some space.

CONCLUSION: I'm actually ecstatic that the system humbly admitted fault, and went out of its way, on all levels, to respect and accommodate the child's religious practice and sensitivities.

Number 3 is the most important one. We should all learn from the boy. I like that they had a deacon come down and reapply the ash. Thumbs up to the teacher and district on that one.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Emmanuel Goldstein

[anatess2]

53 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

My LOL is about the irony of the different situations. You probably should take some breaths because you appear to be getting really worked up. This is not an attack on the constitutional rights of the kid. SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE ASH WAS FOR.

Cheers.

I don't get worked up (well, sometimes I do but if so, then I would tell you).  I have 2 boys - they get me worked up so I don't waste my work-up anywhere else. 

So, here, let me explain to you what I'm trying to say...

When somebody steps on someone's Constitutional right, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake... a Constitutional Right was still stepped on.  So, let's put this on a couple scenarios - say the boy lost his favorite cat named Goose that day and so his grandmother stamped Captain Marvel's symbol on his forehead to comfort him when he goes to school and the teacher told the boy to take it off due to the "Facepaint rule" and the boy said, "but it's for Goose", so the teacher apologized, wrote a letter, made the boy feel special... then that's good.  And there shouldn't be any Administrative Leave or anything.  Because dead-cat-comfort is not a Constitutional right that a government is bound to protect.  Here's another scenario - say the teacher asked the boy to take off his ash wednesday ash in a non-Catholic private school - same thing.  She doesn't need administrative leave or anything because she is not acting on behalf of a government. 

Unfortunately, this specific teacher is in a government-run school who stepped on a kid's 1st amendment rights.  That is something the Public School could be sued for.  I'll give you a more blown-out example of this same scenario - a navy guy took pictures of the inside of a classified submarine because he is proud of his job.  He didn't know he couldn't take personal photos and he apologized, surrendered his phone, etc. etc.  Truly an honest mistake.  Doesn't matter - he can't just write an apology letter for this.  He has to face legal consequences for his actions which is why he got sent to jail, even if he ended up getting pardoned.  A teacher telling a Catholic to take off the ash on his forehead is not as severe as taking photos of a classified submarine, of course... but the fact still remains... the school still has to do something about it to fix the legal blunder.  Administrative leave is so much better for everyone than a lawsuit.

Edited March 19, 2019 by anatess2

[scottyg]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't get worked up (well, sometimes I do but if so, then I would tell you).  I have 2 boys - they get me worked up so I don't waste my work-up anywhere else. 

So, here, let me explain to you what I'm trying to say...

When somebody steps on someone's Constitutional right, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake... a Constitutional Right was still stepped on.  So, let's put this on a couple scenarios - say the boy lost his favorite cat named Goose that day and so his grandmother stamped Captain Marvel's symbol on his forehead to comfort him when he goes to school and the teacher told the boy to take it off due to the "Facepaint rule" and the boy said, "but it's for Goose", so the teacher apologized, wrote a letter, made the boy feel special... then that's good.  And there shouldn't be any Administrative Leave or anything.  Because dead-cat-comfort is not a Constitutional right that a government is bound to protect.  Here's another scenario - say the teacher asked the boy to take off his ash wednesday ash in a non-Catholic private school - same thing.  She doesn't need administrative leave or anything because she is not acting on behalf of a government. 

Unfortunately, this specific teacher is in a government-run school who stepped on a kid's 1st amendment rights.  That is something the Public School could be sued for.  I'll give you a more blown-out example of this same scenario - a navy guy took pictures of the inside of a classified submarine because he is proud of his job.  He didn't know he couldn't take personal photos and he apologized, surrendered his phone, etc. etc.  Truly an honest mistake.  Doesn't matter - he can't just write an apology letter for this.  He has to face legal consequences for his actions which is why he got sent to jail, even if he ended up getting pardoned.  A teacher telling a Catholic to take off the ash on his forehead is not as severe as taking photos of a classified submarine, of course... but the fact still remains... the school still has to do something about it to fix the legal blunder.  Administrative leave is so much better for everyone than a lawsuit.

I do believe that mistakes are okay. I see no reason for a lawsuit, nor do I see this as "stepping" on someones constitutional right. The teacher did not know any better, plain and simple ignorance. Now that things have been explained, the boy was able to wear the cross and the teacher,  nor the school has any problem with it. Now, if the school persisted in not allowing the cross to be worn that is another story. But, since the boy and teacher both expressed regret and forgiveness was given, it is time to move on. We do not need legal vindication when we have been wronged, but more forgiveness and patience with one another. The founding fathers did not intend for the american people to sue each other left and right. There should be no need for the school to fix any legal blunder...because a blunder is a mistake...a 1 time thing. No long term damage has been done here. In fact, more positives have come out on both sides. We all should simply forgive and forget. That is what the Lord does when we repent. We should follow his example like this young boy has.

Edited March 19, 2019 by scottyg

[unixknight]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

the school still has to do something about it to fix the legal blunder.  Administrative leave is so much better for everyone than a lawsuit.

You know, by acknowledging the error publicly and openly, and by making the effort to make amends, I think this has an overall beneficial result, because it sets an example.  Not only do we have a concrete precedent for a public school going out of its way to make things right, we also have a teacher who was of a different faith doing the same thing.  That's 2 birds with one stone.  

Most of the time we hear stories about these things coming out the opposite way.  I think this is really positive.  

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

You know, by acknowledging the error publicly and openly, and by making the effort to make amends, I think this has an overall beneficial result, because it sets an example.  Not only do we have a concrete precedent for a public school going out of its way to make things right, we also have a teacher who was of a different faith doing the same thing.  That's 2 birds with one stone.  

Most of the time we hear stories about these things coming out the opposite way.  I think this is really positive.  

Exactly!

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

12 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 That's 2 birds with one stone.  

Wait, what happened to some birds?

[prisonchaplain]

3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Wait, what happened to some birds?

Collateral damage. (Sorry...couldn't resist...govt. worker and all).

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I do believe that mistakes are okay. I see no reason for a lawsuit, nor do I see this as "stepping" on someones constitutional right. The teacher did not know any better, plain and simple ignorance. Now that things have been explained, the boy was able to wear the cross and the teacher,  nor the school has any problem with it. Now, if the school persisted in not allowing the cross to be worn that is another story. But, since the boy and teacher both expressed regret and forgiveness was given, it is time to move on. We do not need legal vindication when we have been wronged, but more forgiveness and patience with one another. The founding fathers did not intend for the american people to sue each other left and right. There should be no need for the school to fix any legal blunder...because a blunder is a mistake...a 1 time thing. No long term damage has been done here. In fact, more positives have come out on both sides. We all should simply forgive and forget. That is what the Lord does when we repent. We should follow his example like this young boy has.

I mostly agree with this.  And the kids' family chose not to sue.  But, if we are to be a nation of laws, legal mistakes need legal consequences.  Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse to get out of legal consequences.  Therefore, to show adherence to justice and not just mercy, the school issued the Administrative Leave which is an appropriate response in a case where the issue is settled out of court without lawyers or mediators.  If the school didn't do this, then we are left to wonder if the school did not believe that they have a responsibility to the Constitution or they don't believe that this kid's religious practice is Constitutionally protected.  This way, it is very clear that the school understands the limits of the school's rules in relation to their students' rights and the students are assured that they can trust the school.

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

I am not a Mormon. Thank you very much.

At least someone gets it.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

To be clear, I am a Latter-day Saint. I consider the term Mormon as degrading.

D'oh. I was just going to ask, "But are you a Latter-day Saint?" Thanks for preemptively ruining my fun.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

D'oh. I was just going to ask, "But are you a Latter-day Saint?" Thanks for preemptively ruining my fun.

I am THE wet blanket of mankind. lol

[askandanswer]

23 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Wait, what happened to some birds?

They got stoned 

[Guest Mores]

On 3/20/2019 at 12:40 PM, askandanswer said:

They got stoned 

Who would give drugs to birds.  At the very least, that would be considered a waste.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Who would give drugs to birds.  At the very least, that would be considered a waste.

Google "seagull laxative" and you will see just how much waste.

[Guest Mores]

Just now, Vort said:

Google "seagull laxative" and you will see just how much waste.

I don't think I will.  And thank you for that image.

[mnn2501]

Having grown up in an area dominated by Catholics, I was used to kids coming back to school in the afternoon of Ash Wednesday with ashes on their forehead, I was also used to the schools serving fish every Friday for school lunch even though it was a public school. To me this just speaks to the need for people to learn about others and their beliefs. I don't blame the teacher, I blame the culture (and yes I am LDS)

[NightSG]

On 3/25/2019 at 10:12 AM, Mores said:

I don't think I will.  And thank you for that image.

How about $1.3 million to study the effect of classical music on cats.

Because that couldn't possibly have been done for free in someone's spare time using YouTube music.

[unixknight]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 11:36 PM, NightSG said:

How about $1.3 million to study the effect of classical music on cats.

Because that couldn't possibly have been done for free in someone's spare time using YouTube music.

Aaaaaaand a new YouTube channel is born.