|
0 members (),
1,799
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
When you think things have become as crazy as they can be, there is always something more to come along. Bob http://www.aol.com/article/2015/12/14/principal-bans-christmas-thanksgiving-and-pledge-of-allegiance/21283220/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl39%7Csec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D1856415355 A Brooklyn school has received a "politically correct" makeover, the New York Post reports. Eujin Jaela Kim, the newest principal of PS 169 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, has banned The Pledge of Allegiance, replaced Thanksgiving with "Harvest festival," and changed Christmas parties to "winter celebrations."
"We definitely can't say Christmas, nothing with Christmas on it, nothing with Santa," PTA president Mimi Ferrer told the New York Post. "No angels. We can't even have a star because it can represent a religious system, like the Star of David."
In a memo addressed to staff at the school, PS 169 business manager Johanna Bjorken clarified that Santa Claus is indeed banned: "In case you are wondering about grey areas: Santa Claus is considered an 'other religious figure.'"
"Be sensitive of the diversity of our families. Not all children celebrate the same holidays."
JOSE CHAPARRO
Last month assistant principal Jose Chaparro suggested "harvest festival instead of Thanksgiving or a winter celebration instead of a Christmas party." and reminded staff to "be sensitive of the diversity of our families. Not all children celebrate the same holidays."
Ninety-five percent of the students at PS 169 are Asian or Hispanic.
Recently, the city Department of Education announced that holiday symbols including Christmas trees, kinaras, dreidels, menorahs and the Islamic star-and-crescent are permitted, but displays that "depict images of deities, religious figures or religious texts" are prohibited.
Kim did not respond to calls or e-mails from New York Post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
I send my kids to Catholic School. It is a huge sacrifice for us.
I believe it is the right thing to do. My kids go to Mass every Friday, say Merry Christmas, and are sheltered from a lot things I see in kids who go to public school.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
The reason why I bring up Catholic schools is that I don't believe public schools are an option for a Christian. Also, the Catholic schools are struggling with falling attendance. Thus, tuition continues to increase. As a result more people opt out of Catholic schools. It is a viscous cycle.
I wish more Catholic parents realized the importance of Catholic schools. Yes, it is a sacrifice but isn't your child worth it? If we don't support Catholic schools then one day we will wake up and find them gone.
Last edited by Ray S.; 12/15/15 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 14
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 14 |
I agree with Ray in regards to the importance of a catholic education. Not only for the religious significance but also academically children get more education as the catholic schools have to deal with much less behavior issues. But times have changed.
When I was a child I went to a catholic school up to 8th grade. We went to mass every morning. On holy days and Wednesdays during the great fast my family would go to the divine services in the evenings. I tell my children I would go to church at least 6 times a week and as much as 9 or 10 times if it were Holy Week. They look at me with bewilderment. We also had religion class every day. We would go to confession as a class once a month. We had enough time to learn all of the subjects and have recess too.
Now in catholic schools that I am familiar with, children go to mass once a week. On the day they go to mass they "do not have time" for religion class. In fact this year at my children's school they took another day of religion class and replaced it with bulling education. The school sets aside two days when the students go to confession (before Christmas and Pascha).
When I approached the parish priest about this he told he agreed with me that the children should go to mass every morning but due to mounting pressure from other parents this is the policy now. (The squeaky wheel gets the oil.) How sad that even in catholic schools there is not enough time for God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
I don't think you can compare going to Mass once a week verse never talking about God. Catholic schools are far from perfect but they are light years ahead public education. Interesting fact - Catholic schools spend almost 1/2 per student than public schools. Teachers get paid much less in Catholic schools verse public schools. They score much higher than public schools. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/educating-children-catholic-schools-doing/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
The reason why I bring up Catholic schools is that I don't believe public schools are an option for a Christian. You are correct. The public school system (and the culture in general) has descended into an abyss of godless secularism and political correctness. It is a very sad thing to witness. We are homeschooling. It is also a great sacrifice...especially for my wife who is the main teacher. It eliminates a potential second income because it is a full time job for my wife.....but we would not have it any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
This whole "diversity" idea has gotten out-of-hand. It has come to mean that if ONE or TWO children do not celebrate a holiday, then no one can do so.
When I trained to teach, the idea was that, in addition to subject matter, we were socializing the students into the culture of the United States. While we may not think of Thanksgiving as a religious holiday, it is part of our national history and culture that we do stop to be thankful for what we have as members of the nation. Christmas was made a national holiday much later because some of our Protestant forebearers thought it was too Roman. But to make the kind of demands that this principal has made strikes at the very foundation of what we share as a people. Without some kind of common narrative, we risk the Balkanization that has made so many areas of the world into constant conflict.
I think part of the problem has to come from the elites in the universities and other secular areas. They've tried to make the country over and in doing so have so many constantly at each other's throats. "A house divided against itself . . ."
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Well, I never really understood the American "separation of Church and state" thingy.
Can a bona fide American here explain it to me?
I promise not to follow up with a question on the Second Amendment . . .
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,685 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,685 Likes: 8 |
Bob, et. al., Part of the reason is that the federal statutes tend to view the entire country as a monolithic entity, rather than 11 (or is it 13 now) different nations with different histories, traditions, historical cultures, politics, religions, etc. http://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-states-u-s-is-really-11-nations-says-author
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,334 Likes: 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,522 Likes: 24
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,522 Likes: 24 |
http://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/12/03/12-rules-celebrating-christmas-schools/76716260/Over the years, The Rutherford Institute has been contacted by parents and teachers alike concerned about schools changing their Christmas concerts to “winter holiday programs” and renaming Christmas “winter festival” or canceling holiday celebrations altogether to avoid offending those who do not celebrate the various holidays.
Hoping to alleviate ongoing confusion arising from political correctness over the do’s and don’ts of celebrating Christmas in schools, workplaces and elsewhere, The Rutherford Institute has issued its “Twelve Rules of Christmas” guidelines.
In issuing the guidelines, institute attorneys cited incidents in which, for example, a public school sixth-grade class was asked to make “holiday cards” to send to the troops but were told they could not use the words “Merry Christmas” on their cards.
Similarly, nativity displays, Christmas carols, Christmas trees, wreaths, candy canes and even the colors red and green have been banned as part of the effort to avoid any reference to Christmas, Christ or God.
In order to clear up much of the misunderstanding over what can or cannot be done in terms of celebrating the holiday, the following 12 rules are offered:
1. Public school students’ written or spoken personal expressions concerning the religious significance of Christmas (e.g., T-shirts with the slogan, “Jesus Is the Reason for the Season”) may not be censored by school officials absent evidence that the speech would cause a substantial disruption.
2. So long as teachers are generally permitted to wear clothing or jewelry or have personal items expressing their views about the holidays, Christian teachers may not be prohibited from similarly expressing their views by wearing Christmas-related clothing or jewelry or carrying Christmas-related personal items.
3. Public schools may teach students about the Christmas holiday, including its religious significance, so long as it is taught objectively for secular purposes such as its historical or cultural importance, and not for the purpose of promoting Christianity.
4. Public school teachers may send Christmas cards to the families of their students so long as they do so on their own time, outside of school hours.
5. Public schools may include Christmas music, including those with religious themes, in their choral programs if the songs are included for a secular purpose such as their musical quality or cultural value or if the songs are part of an overall performance including other holiday songs relating to Chanukah, Kwanzaa or other similar holidays.
6. Public schools may not require students to sing Christmas songs whose messages conflict with the students’ own religious or nonreligious beliefs.
7. Public school students may not be prohibited from distributing literature to fellow students concerning the Christmas holiday or invitations to church Christmas events on the same terms that they would be allowed to distribute other literature that is not related to schoolwork.
8. Private citizens or groups may display crèches or other Christmas symbols in public parks subject to the same reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that would apply to other similar displays.
9. Government entities may erect and maintain celebrations of the Christmas holiday, such as Christmas trees and Christmas light displays, and may include crèches in their displays at least so long as the purpose for including the crèche is not to promote its religious content and it is placed in context with other symbols of the holiday season as part of an effort to celebrate the public Christmas holiday through its traditional symbols.
10. Neither public nor private employers may prevent employees from decorating their offices for Christmas, playing Christmas music or wearing clothing related to Christmas merely because of their religious content so long as these activities are not used to harass or intimidate others.
11. Public or private employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs require that they not work on Christmas must be reasonably accommodated by their employers unless granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
12. Government recognition of Christmas as a public holiday and granting government employees a paid holiday for Christmas does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
These guidelines were compiled by attorney for the Rutherford Institute. Visit rutherford.org for links to legal citations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
Well, I never really understood the American "separation of Church and state" thingy.
Can a bona fide American here explain it to me? The 18th century version, or the modern nonsense? I can't help much with the modern, as it has no historical context; it's made up nonsense. But the actual Constitutional issue is more straightforward. There are two pieces of religion and the First Amendment; the establishment clause, and and the free exercise clause, which should be subject to different analysis given normal constitutional law. The free exercise clause hasn't really been abused; it provides that a religious practice/observance that doesn't harm others or society cannot be stopped by the government. Now stop for a moment for another issue. The Bill of Rights does NOT generally apply to the states; it is a set of limitations on the central government. However, with the 14th Amendment (aftermath of our civil war), those rights "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty" do bind the states, while those that are not that fundamental, do not. The free exercise clause is such a fundamental right, and applies to both the states & federal governments. By comparison, the right to trial by jury only attaches to the states for crimes punishable by more than six months imprisonment, and unanimous verdicts by juries are not binding on the states. Turning to the establishment clause, by any normal constitutional analysis, the establishment clause is not fundamental. But when you consider history, it's even weaker. The different states that formed the federal government varied by religion, and established state churches. The establishment clause was a guarantee of neutrality of the central government between the Christian sects--at least among the Protestants, but arguably also the Catholics, Jews, and Unitarians. That is, it meant that the federal government could not favor Presbyterians over Lutherans, for example. States still had established churches, however--and at least four continued to do so after the enactment of the 14th. As for the "separation"? Understand that Thomas Jefferson was the lunatic fringe on church & state. Think of the Jefferson Bible (the miracles edited out), or the statement that we won't be free until the last priest is hanged . . . Anyway, in a correspondence with a Baptist group, he wrote about the "wall of separation between church and state." That's the origin; it has no actual constitutional or political basis. Taken in context, the federal government is not banned from general endorsement of Christianity, or religion in general; it just can't play favorites among them (there's another issue that it doesn't have the authority to legislate or spend in their favor, but that's the generally ignored 9th & 10th Amendments). I promise not to follow up with a question on the Second Amendment . . . That one's actually fairly easily. We had just engaged in High Treason and thrown off a strong central government by using our weapons. We quite literally fought the war with squirrel guns--long barreled guns wielded by men who depended upon their ability to hit a squirrel with a single shot weapon to have any meat in the stew on a daily basis . . . So, no, the right to bear arms isn't really about self defense; it's about the fundamental right of a free people to reject and overthrow a tyrannical government--which the authors had just done. The notion that military weapons are not covered has it backwards: it's weapons with no military use that are irrelevant. (and while I'm at it, the protection of expression is about political speech--no cookbook has ever faced government has tried to censor a cookbook, which poses ho threat . . . it's about the right to dissent with speech that scares the government.) hawk, a recovering lawyer that fell off the wagon and started seeing people again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,036 Likes: 4 |
Over the years, The Rutherford Institute has been contacted by parents and teachers alike concerned about schools changing their Christmas concerts to “winter holiday programs” and renaming Christmas “winter festival” or canceling holiday celebrations altogether to avoid offending those who do not celebrate the various holidays. The only jury trial I ever did was for an Operation Rescue trial. I disagreed with their methods, but any other cause would have had attorneys lined up. That was the I discovered the Rutherford Institute--they were an important resource. hawk
|
|
|
|
|
