Posted on 04/14/2005 7:06:35 AM PDT by Asphalt
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. -- A ninth-grade student has accused officials at a Southern California high school of discrimination for suspending him for wearing lipstick and eye makeup.
James Herndon, 16, said the five-day suspension imposed Monday by administrators at San Bernardino's Pacific High School was unfair because females are allowed to wear cosmetics on campus.
"If I can't wear makeup," he said, "then the girls or the staff can't wear makeup."
Herndon says his black lipstick and red eye makeup express the Wiccan religious beliefs he shares with his mother, a priestess in the neo-pagan faith. The suspension violates his constitutional right to free expression, he contends.
Linda Hill, spokeswoman for the San Bernardino City Unified School District, declined to comment on the case, citing student confidentiality laws.
She said, however, that students shouldn't wear excessive makeup or clothing that could conceal their identity or be distracting to other students, a prohibition applied to male and female students alike.
Herndon, who is repeating his second year at the school, has worn makeup since he enrolled, according to his mother, Valerie Wallace.
Despite the suspension, Herndon plans to wear the makeup when he returns to school next week.
"My son shouldn't change the way he is," Wallace said.
"The point here is that you may have a very hard time explaining to Mr. Red Mohawk why his 'religion' is a cult and yours isn't."
The obvious question that's raised by your statement is "What is an agreed-upon definition of cult?"
What is yours? Please be as specific as you wish, it will help us define your intent as much as anything.
Inclusion, not exclusion.
This means that there cannot be a State religion, but neither can expression of any religion be legislated AGAINST.
So yes, just like the courts should not be ruling to strip Christians of their symbols on public property, neither should our Tax code be used to penalize "nut jobs".
[T]he government shouldn't be saying what is and isn't a religion, and therefore what is allowed and falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment.
Especially when it doesn't have any reason to do so. All that's at issue in this case is whether Mr. Red Mohawk's school can have a dress code that doesn't allow him to wear makeup. Mr. Red Mohawk's mother is the one raising the 'religion' issue.
> And since everyone who has tried to explain it has now resorted to impugning antiRepublicrat's motives, I'd say the point's been made and made well.
Agreed. There is a definite lack of the sarcasm-detection-gene on the part of many Freepers. It was blisteringly obvious that aR was not actually attacking Christianity, but simply showing what the typical anti-Wiccan blather looks like when turned around.
Though different, when I was working at TGIFridays males were not allowed to wear earrings. In the front of the house because of appearence reasons, and in the back of the house (kitchen) for food saftey reasons. Can't have an earring falling into a dinner.
As a male with piercings I didn't mind the rule at all, as the employer sets the rules, and the possibility of an earring ending up in food was legitimate. But one day I forgot to take my earrings out before starting my shift. The manager told me to remove them and I did. No problem. But then I noticed that one of the female cooks was wearing earrings and I requested that the manager have her remove her earrings and the rules be altered to say NO ONE can wear earrings in the kitchen.
It was done instantly.
The point here is that you may have a very hard time explaining to Mr. Red Mohawk why his 'religion' is a cult and yours isn't.The obvious question that's raised by your statement is "What is an agreed-upon definition of cult?"
What is yours? Please be as specific as you wish, it will help us define your intent as much as anything.
Don't have one, don't need one; your logic is flawed. I'm not the one claiming that the two things (religion vs. cult) can be distinguished. That ball's in your court -- and if there isn't an 'agreed-upon definition', you lose.
We Christians don't believe that those who carried out Jesus' crucifixion were in control of events.
> "What is an agreed-upon definition of cult?"
"Cult: any religion I don't like" seems to be a universally popular definition...
We Christians don't believe that those who carried out Jesus' crucifixion were in control of events.
But you don't believe that God is in control of other executions? If not, what's your point? An execution carried out as part of a divine plan is still an execution, isn't it?
"Inclusion, not exclusion." No, exceptionalism, not uniformity. The founders were not inclusivists, but exceptionalists. Your response is straight out of the '90's version of PC answers to conservatives.
"So yes, just like the courts should not be ruling to strip Christians of their symbols on public property, neither should our Tax code be used to penalize "nut jobs"."
Do you agree that this is, however, being done by the government every day? If so, on what legal and moral grounds do you believe that they exercise such authority?
""Cult: any religion I don't like" seems to be a universally popular definition..."
LOL.
The only people I can't stand are the people with whom I have to interact everyday. If I hate their personalities, am I justified in hating their 'cults of personalities'?
sarcasm/cynicism/lunatic moment now off
Girls get to wear tampacs at certain times of the month too, Mr. Wallace-does that arouse your feeling of being discriminated against as well? Probably not, for unlike lipstick and eye shadow, no one knows what you may have shoved up what, while you attend school.
So you are saying we should compound one wrong with another because you feel they are moral to do so? Or am I reading you wrong here?
When I was a kid, showing up at school like this would have made supsension a relief, not a punishment.
Your entire post is the right-wing equivalent of a red mohawk. Thanks for making my point.
But you don't believe that God is in control of other executions? If not, what's your point? An execution carried out as part of a divine plan is still an execution, isn't it?
My point was to answer the question you asked. You at least pretended it wasn't rhetorical, so I figured I'd answer it.
You're boring for an attorney.
"right-wing equivalent of a red mohawk"? Haahahaha. That's hilareous! It must mean that a red mohawk is leftist?
I take it all back. You aren't a real attorney are you? Even attorneys aren't that dumb.
I think I may have outted you as a troll with your "right-wing...mohawk" comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.