• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University Tells Student to Remove Cross Necklace

How is wearing a cross different than sporting a confederate flag? One person thinks their interpretation of the symbol is the only one that is valid and they don't take any time to think of how their hateful symbols affect others. People have ancestors who were brutalized and oppressed over both symbols. She needs to save the crosses for her church. Universities should be bastions of inclusion and welcomeness for diverse individuals.
 
So, the aclu support's student prayer as long as they din't open their mouths.

WTF are you talking about? I...ME....Myself....I support the right of anybody to pray to themselves in private. Why do they need to "open their mouths"....so that they can be like the Pharisees who love to stand on the corners and pray so that others can see how "spiritual" they are? Puh-lease

No...when I worked at the ACLU we filed suit on behalf of a bible study group to use school facilities after school hours, like other campus groups....they are free to pray in public if they feel the need...but not at a school sanctioned function, unless they do so privately.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062010753 said:
Reading comprehension, reading comprehension...

Which requires context. Context.
 
Disneydude already qualified his statement, which is to say people should be able to pray in universities anytime they like so long as they are not disruptive. I pretty much agree with that statement for public universities, private universities should do as they please.

Thank you. They can even pray softly in class if they choose to do so. What they aren't free to do is stand on their desks, disrupting the class and praise the almighty at the expense of students that are trying to listen to the lecture.
 
How is wearing a cross different than sporting a confederate flag? One person thinks their interpretation of the symbol is the only one that is valid and they don't take any time to think of how their hateful symbols affect others. People have ancestors who were brutalized and oppressed over both symbols. She needs to save the crosses for her church. Universities should be bastions of inclusion and welcomeness for diverse individuals.

How very inclusive that thought is. Really. :roll:
 
of course the student should be able to wear the cross ,,, even the ACLU would take this up ... I remember that a school denied a group of students space after school because it was a Bible-study group ... the ACLU said they were like any other group or club and had the right to get space if the other groups got it ... sheeeesh ...
 
How is wearing a cross different than sporting a confederate flag? One person thinks their interpretation of the symbol is the only one that is valid and they don't take any time to think of how their hateful symbols affect others. People have ancestors who were brutalized and oppressed over both symbols. She needs to save the crosses for her church. Universities should be bastions of inclusion and welcomeness for diverse individuals.

The difference is, the confederate flag is much more a symbol of hatred and bigotry...a cross isn't.
 
If your not disturbing anyone else, you can prayer out loud. But as there is usually others who also have rights, being polite is not too much to ask. The law states that state employees can't lead a prayer. There is nothing preventing students other than the rights of others to not be annoyed. So, he's exaggerating a lot.

PirateMk1 said:
Disneydude already qualified his statement, which is to say people should be able to pray in universities anytime they like so long as they are not disruptive. I pretty much agree with that statement for public universities, private universities should do as they please.

to both of you on this part of exaggeration, I would say you are wrong, and wrong for this reason, here is disney's first statement that brought in this part of the disagreement...

disneydude said:
...They have a right to pray silently in public anytime they want. They wouldn't have a right to pray in a disrupting manner.

disney did say that students had the right to pray anytime they wanted, but silently. He asserted that to pray out loud would be disruptive. That is a crock. So when adpst said what he said to have Boo call it exaggerating was incorrect. adpst was exactly right in his assertion as to what disney said. I guess technically you could pray out loud without opening your mouth, but I'd like to see it.

To Joe, you're right being polite is not too much to ask, and if someone is praying, the polite thing to do if you don't want to hear it is to move along. As for this supposed "right" to not be annoyed, show me where this is in the bill of rights, I don't believe I've seen that...

To Mike, and Joe - The key here hinges on what is "disruptive"? If a student, or student group stands up in the middle of a class, and interrupts the teacher with prayer, then yes, I would agree that is disruptive. But, if you have that same group, saying a prayer in the quad before starting their day, and you don't like it? So what? move along...The problem is not that they are trying to impose anything on either of you, but rather the other way around, you're trying to quash their practice, thereby imposing your beliefs on them.
 
Thank you. They can even pray softly in class if they choose to do so. What they aren't free to do is stand on their desks, disrupting the class and praise the almighty at the expense of students that are trying to listen to the lecture.

So you are now changing your original statement?
 
Any rule which would prohibit the student from wearing that cross is simply a violation of their rights.
 
Can someone please explain to me how wearing a tiny symbol of one's religion possibly be offensive?

I have thrown every possible scenario I can imagine against the wall and thus far nothing has stuck!

Bizarre and petty rules like this are like roaches: everywhere but they tend to scatter when you shine a light on them, as was the case here. I love though that the university fell over itself to apologize and correct the situation but we still get quotes like "I know Christianity is being attacked. Now, I know it first-hand and it sickens me and saddens me" and “We need to band together as Christians and fight back." which are words more suitable for religion being banned outright or Christians being rounded up into concentration camps rather than because of some little idiot banning religious accessories. Typical Christian hysteria.
 
Bizarre and petty rules like this are like roaches: everywhere but they tend to scatter when you shine a light on them, as was the case here. I love though that the university fell over itself to apologize and correct the situation but we still get quotes like "I know Christianity is being attacked. Now, I know it first-hand and it sickens me and saddens me" and “We need to band together as Christians and fight back." which are words more suitable for religion being banned outright or Christians being rounded up into concentration camps rather than because of some little idiot banning religious accessories. Typical Christian hysteria.

Right. We don't want to get hysterical about Jews or Muslims losing their rights either.
 
Can someone please explain to me how wearing a tiny symbol of one's religion possibly be offensive?

I have thrown every possible scenario I can imagine against the wall and thus far nothing has stuck!

What's interesting about this is that the University is concerned about some imaginary person being offended when they are offending a real person right in front of them.
 
Right. We don't want to get hysterical about Jews or Muslims losing their rights either.

Calm down. It was some petty little university jerk who instituted the rule, which was reversed the instant his jerkery was made public. Truly much ado about nothing.
 
Calm down. It was some petty little university jerk who instituted the rule, which was reversed the instant his jerkery was made public. Truly much ado about nothing.

Oh I am very calm, always am. Don't get hysterical.

The larger point is how this petty little university jerk, as you call him, got in the position as to what religious symbols people could or could not wear. Who gave the authorization.
 
Just another attack on the status quo of America being a Christian Nation.
 
My response, to the administration of the Sonoma State University would not be printable in this forum. Suffice to say they could kiss my ars.
 
Oh I am very calm, always am. Don't get hysterical.

The larger point is how this petty little university jerk, as you call him, got in the position as to what religious symbols people could or could not wear. Who gave the authorization.

And now everyone knows he's a petty little jerk. Why do you care who "gave the authorization?"
 
Just another attack on the status quo of America being a Christian Nation.

Yes. A grand attack indeed.

My biology doesn't allow me to roll my eyes as much as your statement deserves.
 
Yes. A grand attack indeed.

My biology doesn't allow me to roll my eyes as much as your statement deserves.

Never said it was a grand attack but a attack is an attack regardless.
 
Never said it was a grand attack but a attack is an attack regardless.

If the rule was motivated by anti-religious zeal instead of pettiness and short-sightedness the university wouldn't have backtracked at Mach 50 like they did.
 
to both of you on this part of exaggeration, I would say you are wrong, and wrong for this reason, here is disney's first statement that brought in this part of the disagreement...



disney did say that students had the right to pray anytime they wanted, but silently. He asserted that to pray out loud would be disruptive. That is a crock. So when adpst said what he said to have Boo call it exaggerating was incorrect. adpst was exactly right in his assertion as to what disney said. I guess technically you could pray out loud without opening your mouth, but I'd like to see it.

To Joe, you're right being polite is not too much to ask, and if someone is praying, the polite thing to do if you don't want to hear it is to move along. As for this supposed "right" to not be annoyed, show me where this is in the bill of rights, I don't believe I've seen that...

To Mike, and Joe - The key here hinges on what is "disruptive"? If a student, or student group stands up in the middle of a class, and interrupts the teacher with prayer, then yes, I would agree that is disruptive. But, if you have that same group, saying a prayer in the quad before starting their day, and you don't like it? So what? move along...The problem is not that they are trying to impose anything on either of you, but rather the other way around, you're trying to quash their practice, thereby imposing your beliefs on them.

Context......geesh........seriously dude....
 
So you are now changing your original statement?

JMAC....you are being ridiculous. You have such a chip on your shoulder that it makes you quick to knee-jerk without taking it in context. The point being that a student is free to pray anywhere and anytime they want so long as it is not disruptive. A better choice of word would have been "Quietly" not "silently'...however if you use a little bit of context you would have understood. However, I think sometimes people want to jump into attack mode so quick that they lose complete focus of the conversation.
 
Back
Top Bottom