It would seem that "banning religious advertisement and programing broadcast over public airwaves" would be in opposition to: impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech,
But an elected school board and superintendant can violate that which is guaranteed under the Constitution? Heck of a job taking both sides of your argument on this issue.
The US Constitution protects our right to own guns... but, there are Constitutional laws that restrict, machine guns, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, etc.
The US Constitution protects our freedom of speech... but, there are Constitutional laws that ban inciting a riot, or yelling fire in a crowded theater, as well as copyright laws.
The US Constitution protects our freedom to celebrate our Religion... but, there are Constitutional laws that protect others from being forced to be included in that celebration.
I didn't write the Constitution, and I didn't interpret the Constitution... The laws of our land that allow a School Dress Code, and also prevent (your example) "banning religious advertisement and programing broadcast over public airwaves" are both legal as stated by the US Supreme Court.
I'm sorry you seem to have such a difficult time seeing the obvious difference.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I posted the Amsterdam elementary school dress code, that is in effect today, and is quite effective.
When the issue was first being discussed, I read several other area schools dress codes that were similar. Even Schenectady schools have a dress code which is less restrictive... you can view it at:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I didn't write the Constitution, and I didn't interpret the Constitution... The laws of our land that allow a School Dress Code, and also prevent (your example) "banning religious advertisement and programing broadcast over public airwaves" are both legal as stated by the US Supreme Court.
I'm sorry you seem to have such a difficult time seeing the obvious difference.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Constitution has been "interpreted" beyond its original intent by the likes of Thrugood Marshall, William Brennan, and now Ruth Bader Ginsburg. All believe that the original document is flawed(hence the amendments), and legislated from the bench though judicial activism, ruling not based on the Constitutionality of a law, but rather if the law fits their ideological world view.
Oh Box, I understand the Constitution. My problem is with the liberal statist who believe that through activism on the court, rule on law based on personal interpretation rather than the letter of the Constitution. The laws of our land have been twisted by the illiberal that run around disguised as liberals, taking away our liberties under the guise of "the common good" or "equality".
Who reading this message board actually believe that a dress code policy that limits individual self expression and promotes conformity, is a solution to the misbehavior of children or failures in the public education system? I for one think it's a joke! What's next? You can be suspended for drawing a picture of rosary beads in art class.
CICERO, Read Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (01/21/10) if you want to see a bastardization of Original Intent. Talk about Judicial Activism... can you picture John Adams or Thomas Jefferson declaring that a Union or a Corporation has the voting rights of an individual citizen?
Dress codes have helped improve problems in schools due to Racism, Gangs, Poor vs Rich academic performance, and disruptive behavior. Because dress codes don't make sense to you doesn't alter the facts that they often successful.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
CICERO, Read Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (01/21/10) if you want to see a bastardization of Original Intent. Talk about Judicial Activism... can you picture John Adams or Thomas Jefferson declaring that a Union or a Corporation has the voting rights of an individual citizen?
Reread Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was a first amendment case not voting rights for corporations. In Justice Kennedy's majority opinion he says:
"There was no principled way to distinguish between media corporations and other corporations and that the dissent’s theory would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, on television news programs, in books and on blogs."
Gee, great legislation, the ruling majority could crush dissenting political speech from unions or corporations, and control favorable speech from news outlets.
...if he just wore a muslim getup he could go back tomorrow, get straight A's and be voted class president! Dumb kid. He could then go on to get an affirmsgative action appointment straight into Harvard Med, full boat!
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Student’s religious rights not violated, mates’ safety was
Re May 21 article, “Student suspended for not hiding beads”: Let’s uphold the First Amendment, not make a mockery of it. I support the school’s decision to allow the middle school student to wear his rosary beads as long as they were inside his shirt. I feel this was a fair compromise. His defiance to that request was totally inappropriate and the consequences appropriate. Rosaries are not jewelry. Take it from one who, among other children, was severely reprimanded for trying to put them around her neck. The Rosary is a prayer to the Blessed Mother. If these rosaries truly meant what the student professed them to mean, he would not have been wearing them; and he would have had no problem complying with a request to place them under his shirt. If he is truly religious, a small request like that would have been insignificant. In his own words, referring to his uncle who died, he stated, “It’s hard to explain, when he died I started feeling he should be inside things I wear.” So why not place them inside your shirt? Mom, you are correct. This young man is grieving, and needs to talk to someone. He is still trying to cope with the traumatic death of his brother fi ve years ago and the current death of his uncle. He needs your support and understanding. He needs you to help him understand the reasons why the school has had to adopt such policies and how he, as a young adult, can remember and honor his brother and uncle while also helping the school maintain a safe environment. The school did not choose to proclaim wearing beads as a symbol to identify one as a gang member. Unfortunately, individual gangs have decided to do this. Along with taking away our feelings of safety, gangs are now desecrating our religious symbols. Purple may not be a current color for a gang, but it might be next week. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ [American Center for Law and Justice], is right in stating it is offensive to equate a rosary with a gang symbol, but he shouldn’t blame the school district, he should attack the gangs. The Supreme Court does protect a student’s right to religious freedom. Are you next going to defend the gangs when they want to wear their colors in school because it is an expression of their religious beliefs? This young man, who by his own admission is not particularly religious, is only 13 years old. Let’s not make a mockery of the First Amendment by fighting for the religious rights of someone who has declared he is not particularly religious. The Schenectady school district doesn’t want to take away anyone’s religious rights. They want to protect Raymond’s rights — along with all the other students’ right to a safe learning environment.
As a Catholic priest, I feel compelled to address the issue of the rosary now gaining attention in the news . To Catholics, the rosary is a devotional aid for prayer. It is not worn around the neck as some sign of gang identity or good-luck charm, or to prove a point. I appeal to Catholic and non-Catholic people, especially youth, to respect the rosary. It has a long tradition in the Catholic faith, as it recalls the life and death of Jesus, and in particular honors Mary, his blessed mother. For many Catholics, it is a prayerful tool which brings comfort.
Re Carl Strock’s May 25 column, “Magnification of a necklace: now a lawsuit”: Excuse me if I am wrong, but didn’t the child get suspended for not obeying school policy? I feel everyone has turned this into a religious reason because it was rosaries. [The student] did not get suspended for wearing a religious symbol. If in fact he was wearing the beads in memory [of his deceased family members], that’s great — but then he would not need to display them. I have children in this school district and feel if we do not treat every case as if it could be a threat, or if we bend the rules for some, we will have bigger problems on our hands. When, at any point, have you heard the mother say, “I don’t agree with the rules and you may not, either, but they are in place for a reason and we have to come up with some type of compromise”? Never. I agree that you should stand up for what you believe in, but teaching your child to disobey their superiors is just setting them up for failure. No matter how old you get, you will always have to follow some sort of rules and regulations, even if you don’t like them! As a taxpayer in this community, I am going to be very upset if they get paid our money because her son doesn’t have to follow school policy. Our kids do — because they are taught to!
Academic injustice Schenectady School District is out of line by barring student from wearing rosary BY DANIEL T. WEAVER For The Sunday Gazette
With so many school districts having trouble teaching the three R’s, it seems foolish that a school district would make a federal case out of a fourth R — the rosary. Yet 13-year-old Raymond Hosier Jr. has been booted from school for wearing one, because gang members wear rosaries as identifiers. Banning the wearing of rosaries because gang members wear them is somewhat like banning the use of white sheets because they are associated with the Ku Klux Klan. It’s not surprising that the Schenectady City School District is behind the times on this issue. In 1997 a judge in New Caney, Texas, ruled that a school district was wrong for denying two students the right to wear a rosary because of its alleged association with gangs. The American Civil Liberties Union represented the students. The American Center for Law and Justice rather than the ACLU is representing Raymond Hosier. While the ACLJ and ACLU take different stands on many issues, it appears from their respective websites that they are in agreement on this one. LEGAL SUCCESSES Hopefully, the legal arm of the Schenectady Central School District will do a little research before attempting to defend the ban in court so they don’t needlessly fl ush taxpayer dollars down the toilet. The ACLU has successfully overturned bans not only on students wearing rosaries, but also bans that prohibit Native American boys from wearing braids, Rastafarian children from wearing dreadlocks, and Mormons from wearing shirts with religious expressions on them. The ACLJ has also been successful in defending students’ First Amendment rights. Most people supporting the school district’s position have not only ignored previous court rulings on students and their First Amendment rights, but they have also advanced arguments that are irrelevant. “Raymond is not Catholic.” Irrelevant. In America, he has the right to wear a rosary, whether he is Catholic or not. “Raymond could hide the rosary under his shirt.” Outgoing school board president Maxine Brisport is quoted as saying that was a fair compromise. Irrelevant and muddleheaded. He has the right to wear it openly. Furthermore, if he decided to use the rosary to pray in school, it would be awkward to do so if it were under his shirt. And any compromise that needlessly restricts the First Amendment is not a compromise with Raymond but with authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Freedom of speech and religious exercise are meaningless if they have to be hidden under a shirt. Can you imagine how effective this newspaper would be if the government said “you have the right to print it but you can’t distribute it?” SYMBOL TO BE DISPLAYED The rosary is more than just a set of prayer beads. It is also a symbol of Roman Catholicism. Like any symbol, it is meant to be displayed not hidden. Suppose gang members started wearing wedding rings as identifi ers — would teachers be forced to hide their wedding rings? A school that bans the wearing of rosaries, or any positive uplifting symbols, because gang members are using them has already capitulated to the gangs. Like so many of our policies and laws, this ban restricts the innocent, while doing little to hinder thugs. It also means the school district is colluding in a process by which criminals are co-opting a symbol which for 2,000 years has stood for hope and peace. Then we have the spectacle of an administration that put up with Steven Raucci’s defiance for years telling us that Raymond is being punished for defi ance. Raymond was defiant and rightly punished for getting into a shouting match with an administrator over his seat assignment during a math test. But when a few days later, an administrator told him he couldn’t wear his rosary anymore, his failure to comply was not defiance. One might call it civil disobedience, but it’s not even that. It’s simply an American citizen exercising his First Amendment rights. LOSING SIGHT Lost also in the discussion of Raymond’s situation is that he is a boy who is grieving, his uncle having died two weeks ago. When I see Raymond, I don’t see a defiant boy. I see a boy carrying a load of guilt, most likely triggered again by his uncle’s death, because he blames himself for his brother’s death fi ve years ago. That’s too heavy a burden for a 13-year-old. I also see a boy who is trying to make sense out of the tough questions of life — questions about suffering and death, questions that all thinking people have, questions which many of us didn’t have to deal with until we were adults. Most boys Raymond’s age are obsessed with video games, sports, girls’ breasts and other issues which maturity reveals don’t bring lasting satisfaction. Even if I disagreed with Raymond’s stance, my heart would go out to him. Unfortunately, much of the discussion about Raymond’s stance has an element of heartlessness in it. Catholicism, gangs, the rosary, the First Amendment are all important issues, but they can’t be divorced from Raymond, a living, breathing boy at the beginning of his journey into manhood.
'Rosary' lawsuit filed against Schenectady schools
By LAUREN STANFORTH, Staff writer Last updated: 2:59 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 2010 SCHENECTADY -- A conservative Christian not-for-profit has filed a federal lawsuit against the Schenectady school district demanding it allow a 13-year-old boy to wear rosary beads to school.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which is paying the boy's legal fees, filed the complaint in U.S. District Court today saying the Oneida Middle School student's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated.
The teen, Raymond Hosier, was first suspended May 17 for wearing the rosary with purple beads and a large white Crucifix because school officials said beads are considered a gang-related symbol.
Raymond and his mother, Chantell, said he wears the beads because his brother held the rosary as he lay dying in the hospital after a bicycle accident in 2005.
School officials said Raymond can wear the rosary under his shirt, but he has refused. The lawsuit says he is still under suspension.
This whole issue is very annoying. Although I say my rosary each day, it is a sacramental used to pray. It is not a piece of jewelry. That being said, if that rosary is so important to this young man, why not wear it on the inside of the shirt? Also the school district is nuts for taking this on. The Schdy school district is so out of touch that they are becoming scary. Do they tell an observant Jewish boy he cannot wear a kippah (yamulke) or a Muslim girl she cannot cover her head? No--so let the Catholic kid (is he Catholic?) wear the rosary. In my opinion he should not display it but really who cares. What is even scarier is that some conservative Christian is taking this on as a test case. Can't imagine where that is headed.
The SCSD is out of line-full stop. This is hardly the only idiotic rule over there. And GB is right if he put on a black tent with eye slits nobody would say nuthin and he could get a full ride to Columbia. "This rule is to protect the kids"-lol
Where is this heading? A big payday for the family and his lawyer due to the lack of flexibility by this principal and dysfunctional district. Another only in Schenectady story.
Logged
The SCSD is out of line-full stop. This is hardly the only idiotic rule over there. And GB is right if he put on a black tent with eye slits nobody would say nuthin and he could get a full ride to Columbia. "This rule is to protect the kids"-lol
