MORE PC Christmas BS !!!!!! [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

SpecOpsWarrior

12-13-2002, 09:34 AM

Ok, I'll be the first one to take the bait!

"She should be ordered not to utter words of any religious importance."

I think your forgetting something Crazy, it's called the first amendment!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now explain to me how she can be ordered not to utter the word Christmas???

I understand your very liberal and you believe the separation of church and state offers you blanket protection from any sign of government sanctioned religion, ie. a government official saying Merry Christmas! However, there is no court in the land that would say that, because she is employed by the government she cant say the word Christmas while performing her duties in an official capacity!

Moving to Various Topics!

[ 12-13-2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

CinaC

12-13-2002, 09:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />claims she and two fellow instructors were told that use of the word "Christmas" in the classroom or in written materials was now prohibited.
<hr /></blockquote>I interpreted this post as meaning that the pricinple decided that the word "Christmas" violated the seperation of church and state, and took flawed measures to correct that.

If she's going to recieve instruction from her principle that she should not reference any religion or celebrations as such (with the principle's inferred goal that doing so would somehow be a cross of the seperation of church & state), then she should be instructed not to reference ANY religion, and not a specific religion or a specific symbol of a specific religion.

Clear enough?

[ 12-13-2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-13-2002, 10:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

393 U.S. 503

November 12, 1968

February 24, 1969

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus
Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government's policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board's power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court.

Held:

1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506 .

2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507 .

3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514 .

383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded. [p*504]

Opinions
FORTAS, J., Opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr /> First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), this Court, in opinions by Mr. Justice McReynolds, held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents States from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. Statutes to this effect, the Court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. [n2] See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 [p*507] U.S. 510 (1925); West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 195 (1952) (concurring opinion); Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 , 487 (1960); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 , 603 (1967); Epperson v. Arkansas, ante, p. 97 (1968).

<hr /></blockquote>In other words, the order given by the principal in question was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[ 12-13-2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

nickg

12-13-2002, 10:23 AM

it's total BS. people have been saying "Merry Christmas" to each other for how many years now, whether it was in school, work (yes, even GOVERNMENT OFFICES), out on the streets, etc.

why is it only over the last few years it's now become unacceptable to do so??

we always has "Christmas" plays, "Christmas" concerts, "Christmas" breakfast and parties.

but ever since prayer was taken out of the schools it's been a downward spiral. i am sick of all the PC crap and everyone that supports it can stuff it up their collective @$$es!!!

i tired of the "separation of church and state" rhetoric. like the other thread here, 7 blowjobs is ok, Christmas is not. gay and sex agendas are ok but God and Jesus are not. idiots like PETA are more concernced about the plight of pregnant pigs than hungry people. don't say ANTHING for fear of offending blacks, hispanics, asians, muslims, envionmentalists, gays, murderers/rapists, atheists, new age/scientologists, wiccans, druids, star gazers, owl entrail worshipers, etc.

gee.....so many who are offended out there i hope i don't offend anyone by leaving them out.

well here's is a big F*** YOU to all of you!!

grow some balls and thicker skin and quit your gaddamn whining and crying about your cause and how everyone is wrong and your cause is right and we must ALL be insensitive towards you because we don't kiss your liberal whiny ***.

the world got along fine before your rallies and parades and will continue to get along long after your causes are forgotten.

of course i have a cause too....SHUT THE F*** UP!!!!

there....now have i made MYSELF clear!!??

CinaC

12-13-2002, 10:25 AM

Nick, you know what dude, no, you never make yourself clear. All you ever do is whine and cry about people who whine and cry.

Shooter: nice post. However, if the principle had told the teacher not to mention, say, sex or blow jobs, I doubt you'd disagree with this ruling.

[ 12-13-2002, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

nickg

12-13-2002, 10:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
Nick, you know what dude, no, you never make yourself clear. All you ever do is whine and cry about people who whine and cry.<hr /></blockquote>only because enough is enough. when you were a bratty little snot nose kid didn't your mom tell you to shut up and quit whining. well the problem is people like this never learned to grow up and still need their mommies to tell to shut up when they are brats. so you can continue to be part of that group if you desire. just don't ask me to be part of it.

remember that michael douglas movie where he just got fed up and went off on everyone? i don't agree with the premise of going off and shooting everybody, BUT eventually PC will **** off enough people and we can sit back and enjoy the revolution because it WILL be televised.

now go kiss a rabbit, hug a tree, thumb your nose at God and be part of the that downward spiral if you choose. just don't count me in.

FLLawdog

12-13-2002, 10:40 AM

So, Crazy, what do you want for Christmas? Are you even celebrating it?

I got news for everyone out there who picks up the "seperation of church and state" rally flag with this subject...nothing...NOTHING...NOTHING in the Constitution says that Christmas decorations can't be displayed or that employees can't wish one another a merry Christmas while working in a government office.

With that said, Christmas is a religious holiday. It always has and it always will. Before Santa Claus came into the picture, it was about the birth of Christ. The true meaning of Christmas will ALWAYS be based on religion. Get over it! Because of this, Christmas decorations are religious symbols. Society has pushed religion aside this time of year and have fallen into the commercial trap of it. If someone out there doesn't want to be wished a merry Christmas, fine, but don't shove your f'ing agenda down everyone else's throats and ruin our holidays.

As far as the tables being turned on the discussion of sex, I think there's a line that has be drawn. I think the point that Shooter was getting at is since Jesus has been removed and sex was able to dominate, things in schools have gotten worse. Now, I'll take his opinions over most others since he works in a school and sees the problems.

shooter1201

12-13-2002, 10:44 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Shooter: nice post. However, if the principle had told the teacher not to mention, say, sex or blow jobs, I doubt you'd disagree with this ruling.

<hr /></blockquote>CiaJ....Tsk, tsk, tsk...you'd LOSE that bet. BTW...we WEREN'T talking about BJs, were we? We were discussing an ILLEGAL order by a principal to a teacher....which violated her 1st Amendment rights.

I've noticed something CiaJ. If YOU don't come up with the 'evidence', YOU don't believe it. Playing Devil's Advocate, or are you really that cynical?

nickg

12-13-2002, 10:45 AM

THE OPPOSITE OF THESE POLITICAL CORRECT TIMES WE LIVE IN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you lived as a child in the 40's, 50's,
60's or 70's.

Looking back, it's hard to believe that
we have lived as long as we have...

- We licked the beaters and didn't have anyone
telling us we were going to become deathly ill from
eating batter with raw eggs in it!

- At Easter time, we had our dyed Easter eggs in a
nest on the counter and they sat out at room
temperature for the week after Easter. We would peel
one whenever we felt like it.

As children, we would ride in cars with
no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the
back of a pickup truck on a warm day was
always a special treat.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright
colored lead-based paint. We had no
childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors,
or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes,
we had no helmets.

Not to mention hitchhiking to town as a
young kid!)

We drank water from the garden hose and
not from a bottle. Horrors.

We would spend hours building our go-carts
out of scraps and then rode down the hill,
only to find out we forgot the brakes. After
running into the bushes a few times we learned
to solve the problem.

We would leave home in the morning and play
all day, as long as we were back when the
streetlights came on. No one was able to reach
us all day.

No cell phones. Unthinkable. We played dodgeball
and sometimes the ball would really hurt. We
got cut and broke bones and broke teeth, and
there were no law suits from these accidents.
They were accidents. No one was to blame,
but us. Remember accidents?

We had fights and punched each other and
got black and blue and learned to get over it.

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank
sugar soda but we were never overweight...we
were always outside playing. We shared one
grape soda with four friends, from one bottle
and no one died from this.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64,
X-Boxes, video games at all, 99 channels on
cable, video tape movies, surround sound,
personal cell phones, Personal Computers,
Internet chat rooms ... we had friends. We
went outside and found them. We rode bikes
or walked to a friend's home and knocked on
the door, or rung the bell or just walked in
and talked to them.

Imagine such a thing. Without asking a
parent! By ourselves! Out there in the
cold cruel world! Without a guardian.
How did we do it?

We made up games with sticks and tennis
balls and ate worms and although we were
told it would happen, we did not put out
very many eyes, nor did the worms live
inside us forever.

Little League had tryouts and not everyone
made the team. Those who didn't, had to learn
to deal with disappointment..... Some students
weren't as smart as others so they failed a
grade and were held back to repeat the same
grade.....Horrors. Tests were not adjusted for
any reason.

Our actions were our own. Consequences were
expected. No one to hide behind. The idea of
a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was
unheard of. They actually sided with the law,
imagine that!

This generation has produced some of the best
risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors,
ever. The past 50 years has been an explosion of
innovation and new ideas. We had freedom,
failure, success and responsibility, and we
learned how to deal with it all.

Maybe someday you will too.

shooter1201

12-13-2002, 10:51 AM

They say 'history repeats itself'. I hope I'm still around when it does.

CinaC

12-13-2002, 10:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If someone out there doesn't want to be wished a merry Christmas, fine, but don't shove your f'ing agenda down everyone else's throats and ruin our holidays.<hr /></blockquote>Society pushes a commericialized "holiday" on people guised as a religious celebration. If that's not forcing an agenda on people, I don't know what the hell is.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />when you were a bratty little snot nose kid didn't your mom tell you to shut up and quit whining. well the problem is people like this never learned to grow up and still need their mommies to tell to shut up when they are brats. so you can continue to be part of that group if you desire. just don't ask me to be part of it.<hr /></blockquote>Nick, you *are* a part of it. All you ever do when you post a thread is to whine and cry at people who you deride as being a bunch of whiners and cryers. You may not be whining and crying on the same side of the arguement, but it's still what you're doing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />now go kiss a rabbit, hug a tree, thumb your nose at God and be part of the that downward spiral if you choose. just don't count me in.<hr /></blockquote>If MY religious freedom bothers you, you have the FREEDOM NOT to read my posts, NOT to engage in conversation with me. I realize that I can be quite outspoken about what I believe in, and if this offends you, you have quite a variety of CHOICES to make in regards to it. I realize that you may believe that just because I'm not a Christian, that I must apparently "thumb my nose" at God. This because I choose not to join a corrupted institution? No, Nick. I believe in God. Just not the Christian version.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />So, Crazy, what do you want for Christmas? Are you even celebrating it?<hr /></blockquote>Fllawdog: my personal religious views regarding Christmas (a commericialized holiday) aren't what this thread is about. Rather, it is whether or not a school can dictate what a teacher can or cannot say in the class.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The true meaning of Christmas will ALWAYS be based on religion. <hr /></blockquote>Maybe to some, and if it is to you, then wonderful (and I do mean that). To too many people Christmas is about racing to the mall, and yelling at overworked exhausted retail clerks, fighting over toys, and screaming and yelling and the "spirit" of the holiday is best seen in credit card receipts, and not love and the "Christmas spirit."

**

Back the topic on hand (and I have to make this quick -- last day of classes and all) ...

Shooter, correct me if I'm wrong, but can a school not dictate what a teacher does in a classroom? It's called a curiculum.

Now, if I wasn't clear in my first post: if a school is going to refrain its teachers from mentioning an aspect of one religion, then they should do the same for all religions.

Regarding the first ammendment, I think that were the topic something other then 'christmas' (say, the teacher telling her students about her experience in an adult movie in college), than NickG would be screaming "LOOK WHAT THE PRINCRIPLE LET HIS TEACHER SAY!"

And when this does happen, and I'm sure he'll post it when he does, I'll be glad to have Shooter's post to shove in his face.

Shooter, I stand corrected. :)

FLLawdog

12-13-2002, 10:56 AM

No, Crazy, Christmas began as a religious holiday. It's been bastardized as a commercial holiday. Someone many many moons decided to pay homage to the birth of Christ and viola, a holiday was born. Since then, commercialism has permeated the holiday.

FLLawdog

12-13-2002, 11:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Regarding the first ammendment, I think that were the topic something other then 'christmas' (say, the teacher telling her students about her experience in an adult movie in college), than NickG would be screaming "LOOK WHAT THE PRINCRIPLE LET HIS TEACHER SAY!"
<hr /></blockquote>If a teacher tells of a particular sexual experience and it's not as part of the curriculum, that's plain and simple inappropriate. You don't tell kids about your sexual exploits. That should be understood.

nickg

12-13-2002, 11:27 AM

QUOTE FROM C IN A J
"Nick, you *are* a part of it. All you ever do when you post a thread is to whine and cry at people who you deride as being a bunch of whiners and cryers. You may not be whining and crying on the same side of the arguement, but it's still what you're doing."

WELL that's because if people DON'T bring out this BS madness, it will continue and people will continue to be "sheeple" and let morons sheep **** all over them in the name of THEIR rights!!

i'm whining?? no....just making people aware of TRUE whining.
------------------------------------------------

QUOTE FROM C IN A J
"If MY religious freedom bothers you, you have the FREEDOM NOT to read my posts, NOT to engage in conversation with me. I realize that I can be quite outspoken about what I believe in, and if this offends you, you have quite a variety of CHOICES to make in regards to it. I realize that you may believe that just because I'm not a Christian, that I must apparently "thumb my nose" at God. This because I choose not to join a corrupted institution? No, Nick. I believe in God. Just not the Christian version."

NOT the Christian version?? gee, i didn't know there was another kind. your god is the god of allah? wicca? new age? Jesus said "Our God is one" it's not pick and choose here, sorry.

my question is why do you feel that Judeo-Christian people can't mention their God anywhere but those who choose THEIR OWN god have a right to do so??
-------------------------------------------------

QUOTE FROM C IN A J
"Now, if I wasn't clear in my first post: if a school is going to refrain its teachers from mentioning an aspect of one religion, then they should do the same for all religions."

THE point is they don't. Christianity is the religion that is being forced out of schools, offices, etc. allah? ok. witches? ok. stonehenge? ok. Jesus? ARE YOU CRAZY!!!!???? THAT'S the point.
--------------------------------------------------

QUOTE FROM C IN A J
"Regarding the first ammendment, I think that were the topic something other then 'christmas' (say, the teacher telling her students about her experience in an adult movie in college), than NickG would be screaming "LOOK WHAT THE PRINCRIPLE LET HIS TEACHER SAY!"

YES that is true. but there is a big difference between saying "Merry Christmas" and "look at all the guys i screwed in this movie". but i doubt if you can tell. it's all part of the "f*** it, let's just do as we want" liberal attitude and the hell with the consequences. and when it comes to consequences there is ALWAYS someone else to blame other than those responsible.
--------------------------------------------------

QUOTE FROM FLLAWDOG
"No, Crazy, Christmas began as a religious holiday. It's been bastardized as a commercial holiday. Someone many many moons decided to pay homage to the birth of Christ and viola, a holiday was born. Since then, commercialism has permeated the holiday."

TRUE, crass commercialism HAS taken over. please refer to the "charlie brown Christmas". but i do enjoy the hubbub and buying gifts for my family. and i love the get togethers with family and freinds and talking about past Christmas memories.

but i DO also honor the holiday for what it truly is. if jews, muslims, agnostics, atheists want to observe this season for their own reasons then fine. but Christians observe it for the birth of Christ and THAT is what the season IS about.

just as the Easter Bunny is part of the Easter celebration, the death and ressurection of Christ is what THAT season is truly about. and if Crosses and prayer offend those who don't observe then too bad. i don't moan and whine about those who wish to celebrate Passover, Hannukah, Ramadan, Kwanzzaa and whatever is hip and popular to worship this week just because i don't. but once again as soon as Jesus is mentioned the troops come out to rally against it. and THAT ****es me off.

shooter1201

12-13-2002, 11:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Shooter, correct me if I'm wrong, but can a school not dictate what a teacher does in a classroom? It's called a curiculum.
<hr /></blockquote>The curriculum is the 'course of study' a teacher is expected to present to his/her students. If, within the scope of that course of study, a teacher wishes to suppliment the lesson(s), the teacher may do so. It's called academic freedom.

When my classes learn about the Plains Indians, I demonstrate to them how Indians made arrows. It isn't in the curriculum or even in the book, but I am permitted the freedom to do so, since it IS related to the lesson at hand.

retired

12-13-2002, 11:59 AM

Fll,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by FLLawdog:
So, Crazy, what do you want for Christmas? Are you even celebrating it?

I got news for everyone out there who picks up the "seperation of church and state" rally flag with this subject...nothing...NOTHING...NOTHING in the Constitution says that Christmas decorations can't be displayed or that employees can't wish one another a merry Christmas while working in a government office.

With that said, Christmas is a religious holiday. It always has and it always will. Before Santa Claus came into the picture, it was about the birth of Christ. The true meaning of Christmas will ALWAYS be based on religion. Get over it! Because of this, Christmas decorations are religious symbols. Society has pushed religion aside this time of year and have fallen into the commercial trap of it. If someone out there doesn't want to be wished a merry Christmas, fine, but don't shove your f'ing agenda down everyone else's throats and ruin our holidays.

As far as the tables being turned on the discussion of sex, I think there's a line that has be drawn. I think the point that Shooter was getting at is since Jesus has been removed and sex was able to dominate, things in schools have gotten worse. Now, I'll take his opinions over most others since he works in a school and sees the problems.<hr /></blockquote>The SC has ruled that Xmas decorations such as trees, holly, etc are secular ,and do not violate the establishment clause.

I agree that Jesus should not be taught in public schools anymore than Allah or Budda should be taught in public schools. The schools can teach about religion, they just can't teach religion.

Watchman

12-13-2002, 12:54 PM

She should be ordered not to utter words of any religious importance. Singling "Christmas" out is ridiculous.

First we will make it illegal to mention any word of religious signifigance in public.

Then we will make it illegal to assemble in public for religous purposes.

After that, we will outlaw any private gatherings at any private places that have anything to do with religious signifigance.

Later, we will edit any literature that mentions anything of "religious " importance...

Crazy you are a little late with that one...
you see its already been done in progressive countries like China,Russia,North Korea and all of those other bastions of freedom that you idolize for their stance on religion.

You know Ive been thinking...
Atheism offends me....
maybe we out to outlaw that too...
:rolleyes:

[ 12-13-2002, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

xyneshia

12-13-2002, 12:55 PM

CiaJ,
Does anything NOT offend you?

CinaC

12-13-2002, 01:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />like China,Russia,North Korea and all of those other bastions of freedom that you idolize for their stance on religion.<hr /></blockquote>Hardly. They ban religion all together, as far as I've able to tell. I want freedom for all religion. And to ensure that, I want government to stay the hell out of religion's business.

Now, you know this post of yours is a lie because not only have I discussed my views on religion on this board, but I've done so in this forum. Your problem is that to your mind, government neutrality towards Christianity equals hostility towards it.

It does not. I know this won't stop you from thinking this, but you've always struck me as being close-minded in your pursuit of government jumping in bed with religion.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You know Ive been thinking...
Atheism offends me....<hr /></blockquote>Although it would not surprise me to learn that you consider the two one and the same, you ARE aware that there is a different between an athiest and an agnostic, right?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Does anything NOT offend you? <hr /></blockquote>Religion does not offend me. On the other hand, child molesting priests offend me. A Christmas tree does not offend me. Someone whining and crying about how they can't put a Christmas Tree in front of a government building offends me. People who are offended and go on to rant about how the PC crowds doesn't want anyone to be offended offends me.

[ 12-13-2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

nickg

12-13-2002, 01:43 PM

QUOTE FROM C IN A J
"People who are offended and go on to rant about how the PC crowds doesn't want anyone to be offended offends me"

gee...i guess that was directed towards me. hmmm,...but somehow i'm not offended.

the point is as long as you libby PCers out there continue your quest for a squeeky clean "me me me only" world i guess i'll just have to keep ****ing off people like you by bringing it to the forefront. why is it you people love to have agendas but hate to be called out on them??

when the PC crowd shuts up then maybe i will too.

and if my opinions come off as being "racist bigoted homophobic Christian gun-owning America/Constitution loving flag waving conservative vast right wing conspiracy viewpoint" then once again i've done MY job of ****ing someone off. and as far as i know, those of US like that STILL have 1st amendment rights too.

Watchman

12-13-2002, 01:54 PM

Crazy HUMBUG...

Your problem is that to your mind, government neutrality towards Christianity equals hostility towards it.

Government neutrality would tickle me pink. Its hardly "neutral" though is it ?

Although it would not surprise me to learn that you consider the two one and the same, you ARE aware that there is a different between an athiest and an agnostic, right?

Yep... they both beleive in themselves.
Someday they'll both be very, very lonely.

In case you havent noticed, its the very small percentage of agnostics and atheists in this country that squeal the most. The "average" person could care less about what is on the courthouse lawn. BTW, you need to come see the lit cross ON our courthouse ,Im sure youd want to petition Congress to get it removed.

[ 12-13-2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

nickg

12-13-2002, 02:10 PM

MORE PC IDIOCY -- pedophile nativity scene????
-------------------------------------------------

Friday 13 December 2002

Shots of soccer-playing children to be regulated
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 13/12/2002)

Parents wanting to take video footage or photographs of their children playing football will be asked by the FA to sign a form saying the images will not be used for inappropriate purposes such as pornography.

The move, which the Football Association describes as "commonsense", comes after Sue Stokes, a headmistress from Luton, banned parents from filming the school nativity play in case the pictures ended up in the hands of paedophiles.

A spokesman for the FA, which launches its "image policy" today said the headmistress came across as a "nutter" but "equally you could see where she was coming from".

He said: "Some people might say this is the Big Brother state gone crazy but the FA is just saying 'let's put something in place, a formal agreement, that these pictures will only be used in appropriate places'."

Rachel Tarr, the FA's Child Protection Co-ordinator, said the guidelines were aimed primarily at ensuring clubs sought the permission of parents before using images of their children.

But, equally, they would affect parents who appeared on the touchline wanting to take photographs or video footage of their offspring. "At the moment we have a situation where anyone can turn up at an event and take a picture of anything," she said.

"There is always a potential problem. This move will verify that a person is the parent of the child playing and is known to the club.

"If you engage a parent at the outset in such a policy, they will realise the significance of trying to put such measures in place." The FA's guidance will be sent to 40,000 registered clubs which employ half a million volunteer adults. Four million children play organised football in England.

The Association says photographing children has become an issue because of paedophile rings operating on the internet, the numbers of girls now playing football and the tendency of youngsters to imitate the stars and take their shirts off after scoring a goal. The FA wants someone at every club in the country to be trained in child protection "whether it's a Premiership Academy or a Sunday morning park side".

Robert Whelan, of Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, said the FA was going too far. "This is getting ridiculous," he said. "People have this fear that paedophiles are lurking around every corner but sex attacks on children are quite rare."

CinaC

12-13-2002, 02:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The "average" person could care less about what is on the courthouse lawn. BTW, you need to come see the lit cross ON our courthouse ,Im sure youd want to petition Congress to get it removed.<hr /></blockquote>If you're "average", and you don't care what is on the courthouse lawn, you won't mind if it's removed.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />and if my opinions come off as being "racist bigoted homophobic Christian gun-owning America/Constitution loving flag waving conservative vast right wing conspiracy viewpoint" then once again i've done MY job of ****ing someone off.<hr /></blockquote>Are you saying you ARE these things? Some don't surprise me, but I am surprised to learn that you're a racist bigoted homophobic. It takes a lot of courage to admit that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />but somehow i'm not offended. <hr /></blockquote>I'm surprised. Everything else sends you into a fury! :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />the point is as long as you libby PCers out there continue your quest for a squeeky clean "me me me only" world i guess i'll just have to keep ****ing off people like you by bringing it to the forefront.<hr /></blockquote>No, Nick, you misunderstand. By keeping government free from religion, we make the US at least, a nation for people of all religions.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> why is it you people love to have agendas but hate to be called out on them??<hr /></blockquote>Really, Nick? What is my agenda? To keep government free of religious entangelement? Damn straight that's my agenda. It's the agenda of the Constitution, too.

[ 12-13-2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

CinaC

12-13-2002, 02:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said the Mormon church needs to rein in its members if it is serious about its pledge to stop baptizing Holocaust victims.

"If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don't call me, I'll call you," Hier said. "With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved."
<hr /></blockquote>You know, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/12/10/baptizing.the.dead.ap/index.html" target="_blank">this</a> link is a VERY good example of why government needs to steer clear of religion. Can you imagine a Mormom led Christian government doing this on a wide scale basis? This is HARDLY what I would call "freedom of religion" ... rather, "freedom for A religion."

n567

12-13-2002, 04:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:

Although it would not surprise me to learn that you consider the two one and the same, you ARE aware that there is a different between an athiest and an agnostic, right?

Yep... they both beleive in themselves.
Someday they'll both be very, very lonely.
<hr /></blockquote>Either that, or they won't be lonely at all, because they have ceased to exist.

Or in regards to an Agnostic, who knows?! :)

CinaC

12-14-2002, 11:13 AM

I'm sure my after-life existance will be exactly as my pre-life existance was.

I'm also sure that everyone else's after-life existance will be the exact same, since the notion that a human can understand God is absolutely ridiculous.

Watchman

12-14-2002, 03:29 PM

I'm sure my after-life existance will be exactly as my pre-life existance was.

You are "sure" huh ?
Tell me...how can you be so sure ?

CinaC

12-14-2002, 03:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Tell me...how can you be so sure ?<hr /></blockquote>I have faith in my faith.

Or, for the exact same reason you're so certain your God exists and heaven (or hell) exists.

Watchman

12-14-2002, 03:46 PM

Well Crazy...

only time will tell...

Hopefully we'll be able to discuss it in the end... :D

Piper

12-14-2002, 03:51 PM

THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!

I'm putting a Christmas Tree, Menorah and a Pagan Yule Log in my front yard and no one better say ***** about it!!!!!!!!!!

:)

diver923

12-14-2002, 09:24 PM

alright....I hate debating religion, but this is f'ing ridiculous...
Watchman - I hate to break it to you bro...as pithy as your assessment of atheism and agnosticism is, it is seriously flawed. Agnostics don't go so far as to say there is no God, only that they are not convinced by the evidence at hand. Consider it a lack of Probable Cause :D
As far as religion in schools goes, even though I consider myself an agnostic, I have absolutely no problem with Christmas displays. I happen to agree that a strong moral foundation is what made this country great. For the great majority of people, their morals are founded on religion, so if it helps, good enough...I see no point in complaining about it. I did not feel as though Christianity was "rammed down my throat" when I was in school, and, gee...I still ended up as an agnostic :D Obviously, the "brainwashing" Christian America tried inflicting on me, did not work. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Basically, I think anyone with a brain can figure out the difference between glorifying Satanism and celebrating Christmas...most major religions have many core values in common. (rules against theft, murder, etc)...satanism glorifies hedonism...not exactly a value most people want to see inculcated into our youth.
It's funny how most religions tend to be of the sort that scream and yell about fair treatment, as long as it only applies to them. As an avowed agnostic (read, cynic :D ), I certainly will not tell you you are wrong in your beliefs, without solid proof of this being the case, please don't tell me I am, unless you have pictures of Jesus shaking your hand, and giving *YOU* the ultimate authority on passing judgement on the souls of the damned. Barring such proof, statements to the effect that my Heathen *** will burn in Hell, only serve the purpose of making you look like a self-righteous, judgmental idiot, in my eyes. This attitude is exactly what drives many from organized religion....something along the lines of "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"...I doubt anyone in this forum walks on water, therefore, nothing that a buncha sinners can tell me is going to convince me they have all the answers, in their handy-dandy salvation manual :D :D :D :D