Who said anything about separation of church and state? That was Thomas Jefferson. I'm talking about rules and laws.

Here's what the supreme court said, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

[wes]

That is my point. No laws against any religion.

[Dale]

A severed goats head...a marijuana joint......they are NOT symbols of any recognized religions according to law or orthodox...gimme a freakin' break Lenny.

Next time I hear of some dismembered animal in the valley area....or someone growing marijuana...I gotta think about you, lol.....yepper....fer sure.

The bottom line, Lenny....do your homework on the perameters on which a religion is recognized......#1....belief in a supreme being.

Oh wait....before you chime......I forgot....you don't believe in a supreme being.

Dale,
You ahve no idea what you're talking about. Your idea of religion is not accepted in law or society. Betcha didn't know Wicca was recognized:
http://www.jairamon.com/recognized.html

Your idea of supreme being is also not universal. There are many relligions that belive in a supreme being...just not the same one that the christians worship.

You should also investigate rastafarianism...

Dale have you ever heard of Peyote? Do you know that it is legal for licensed midicine men to carry and use Peyote for religious ceremonies?

Why don't YOU do some investigating before you chime in.

[7mmag6]

hells bells I could use a hit of peyote after reading this thread, to deep for me, and how about those lakers?

[Dale]

Yes, Lenny, having a Navajo wife I certainly know what peyote is and a medicine man is not the only one that is legally allowed to possess it. But, I'll let you figure that one out. And, BTW, peyote doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. There are differences between religion and spitiualism.

Incidentally, I've had the opportunity to attend many peyote cleansing ceremonies on Christmas eve and it has nothing to do with Christ or Christmas.

And, Lenny, there are guidelines that determine what a legal and recognized religion is....regardless of what you say. I say legal in the sense if you wish to persue non-profit status, seek legal protection, etc.

The more you talk the more I'm convinced you talk off the cuff.

Dang, anything to do with religion or God sure gets you worked up, doesn't it? LOL

^5, guy....hang in there.

[Stewart]

Well it seems the basic issue of the article still is that the school had a specific set of guidelines regarding the wearing of any religous symbol, she was aware of these guidelines and was previously warned, she wore it again and was suspended. I personally don't agree with it but in that context they would be right.

On the other hand, I know of jobs which have had to make changes so that employees religous practices are not infringed upon. So I guess a Jewish teacher in that state whose religous practices requires the wearing of a Yamikah would not be able to work at the school?

[Oxford]

Most people who have any degree of common sense realize that an unusually large cross, or some other symbol, will get attention. It is my view that only someone who is strictly out for attention, or who has no sense of good judgment, would wear something which is that gaudy.

Now...is that a crime to wear something as described above? Not in my opinion. It's just a lack of good taste or judgment. I would say if a person is that bad off for attention let him wear whatever he wants, or nothing at all. Then send him to the nuthouse if his actions get too far from society's accepted norms. That doesn't make him a criminal.

It is my opinion that laws are not to be intrepeted as stricktly "black or white". Isn't that why all those dam n lawyers keep arguing in court actions? And, the court systems keep making rulings, and appeal courts keep making other judgments.

Fairness for the good of all involved should be the guideline for those people who are chosen to be judges and decision makers in disputes of these kinds...not people checking for either black or white lines that have been crossed.

Ox:nod:

[Geech]

What's the difference, Lenny? It's so simple even you should be able to understand.

No one person has more rights than anyone else. Since threatening someone's life impedes their rights, you don't have the right to do that. However, openly wearing a cross does not impede anyone's rights.

[Doglips]

Think Im just gona get a cup of coffee, smoke a ciggerret and give up on this one.

[NRAJOE]

I gave up a long time ago...gonna smoke me a big cee gar and drink a Bud, bud! I like your drunk bee man!

[Mon Bathan]

Some thought... "the law may be harsh but it is still the law". Respect for authority is a cardinal virtue and such can be manifested by following the rules as prescribed and made known to anyone. Prudence dictates upon anyone to follow the rules as prescribed.

If the law is not fair or may be stepping into someone else rights the solution is to push for an amendment in such a way that it wil not be discriminatory to whoever or whatever. However, UNLESS it is amended or revised it remains to be the law and as a general rule it will be implemented and violators will be subjected to whatever disciplinary penalty.

I think the fact that the person was informed of what can be and can't be done in the organization prior to her joining does not discriminate her of her rights. This is so because she was informed of how things (including rules) works there and she was given the option to decide. If she believes she will be deprived of her rights based on the rules as it is being applied there, common sense dictates that she should have not joined the said organization. she may have a thousand reasons why she joined just the same the organization have the same reasons why they keep on implementing their rules.

I have nothing against any religion and I highly respect all of them. However, it all boils down to the same reality that once you bend the rules, as made known to you, due to emotional consideration, all the remaining rules in the code becomes vulnerable or B.S. You just cannot change the rules in the middle of the game.

While she may have achieved expressing her belief or practice, deep inside she also knows that she is breaking a rule and she also knows what may happen. She took the risk but in each step she made she knows well the repercussions.

There's a difference in being stuborn and practical, obedient and reasonable, besides there are more than a thousand ways to express one's religious beliefs. God sees more purity not in the material things one displays or keeps for Him.

Mon

[Geech]

I think this is a case of civil disobedience, Mon Bathan. The way the 1st amendment is commonly interpreted and enforced is totally ludicrous.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Quote:      

I think the fact that the person was informed of what can be and can't be done in the organization prior to her joining does not discriminate her of her rights.

Sorry Mon Bathan: I see what you mean but using this line of logic is akin to telling black people that I will only promote white people to better positions before they are hired. Try telling the EOP that that isn't infringing on anyone's rights.