Supreme Court rules kirpans (ceremonial Sikh Dagger) okay in school

Globe and Mail ^ | Mar 2, 2006 | RICHARD BLACKWELL AND TERRY WEBER

[annalex]

What about those crosses removed from public lands and municipal seals?

[Potowmack]

Sikhs are the good guys. I always liked this guy, he fought for the right to wear his turban as part of his Royal Canadian Mounted Police uniform:

[1rudeboy]

I just find it amazing that the current wave of immigrants demands that their new country bow to every demand in the name of tolerance.

Never carried a pocket-knife to school when you were little? What do you think happens when Junior tries to do it now?

[Potowmack]

What about those crosses removed from public lands and municipal seals?

I thought those controversies were silly. Removing those crosses did not put Christians in any worse position than every other religion. As far as I know, Muslims can't put up their holy symbols in public land, either.

[formercalifornian]

Handy when vampire geography teachers start showing their fangs.

[proud_yank]

... a faithful man must bear a weapon.

I agree, so why can't I walk around town with my 12-ga? LOL

Some could be larger than 2" too, no?

[proud_yank]

Of course, this entails some human sacrifice, but, hell, it's Canaduh, who gonna stop me??

Lots of liberals to choose from, I doubt any Canadian FReeper's would object too much to that....

[proud_yank]

welcome to FR

[Potowmack]

Handy when vampire geography teachers start showing their fangs.

As would be the Kirpan, I guess.

I think there's a movie in that concept, somewhere.

[Argh]

Hah! I'd better not plan on eating them, I'll get terminal indigestion.

[BW2221]

What about the three weeks of Muslim indoctrination in California middle schools where non-Muslim students were required to study an "approved" version of Islam, take Muslim names, pray to Allah, etc.?

Imagine a Catholic week in schools, studying "approved" Catholic doctrine, taking the names of saints, etc. The ACLU would have it shut down before the first kid made the sign of the cross.

[annalex]

I am tempted to find Indian (native American) symbols in similar displays and see what would happen if someone complains about them. I am pretty sure Oklahoma has some Indian-looking ornament on its license plate, just right off the top of my head.

Besides, the cross "controversy" puts Christians in a worse position than they naturally would be, even if not worse than other religions. Denial of a religious expression of the dominant culture in the public space is robbing that space. American culture is domonantly Christian, so we have crosses and not crescents as our monuments. You cannot deny us our crosses because no American community exists (still) that is dominantly Muslim.

[Potowmack]

Imagine a Catholic week in schools, studying "approved" Catholic doctrine, taking the names of saints, etc. The ACLU would have it shut down before the first kid made the sign of the cross.

Based on the decision in that case, I recommend that Catholics in California try to get such a program in schools. I actually think they'd win.

[tpaine]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Sikh students can carry ceremonial daggers to class and that doing so does not pose an undue danger to others in the schools.

The Supreme Court of the United States should rule, - based on the clear words of the 2nd Amendment, -- that any person can carry concealed knives anywhere and that doing so does not pose an undue danger to anyone.

[Potowmack]

I am tempted to find Indian (native American) symbols in similar displays and see what would happen if someone complains about them. I am pretty sure Oklahoma has some Indian-looking ornament on its license plate, just right off the top of my head.

Are they religious symbols? I honestly don't know, but it's an interesting question. I think the New Mexico flag has an Indian design on it.

Besides, the cross "controversy" puts Christians in a worse position than they naturally would be, even if not worse than other religions. Denial of a religious expression of the dominant culture in the public space is robbing that space.

The Constitution requires the government to treat all religions equally. I'm personally quite happy with there being no religious displays of any type on public property. I'm paying my taxes to get my garbage picked up, not for religious symbols.

You cannot deny us our crosses because no American community exists (still) that is dominantly Muslim.

Nobody is being denied crosses. They're just being denied crosses being placed on public property with taxpayer money. I wouldn't want my tax money spent on a Star of David or Muslim crescent, either.

[BW2221]

The politically correct (including federal judges) believe that promoting Islam is promoting tolerance and is "inclusionary." Promoting Christianity, on the other hand, violates the separation of church and state.

Court opinions are based on judicial bias, not necessarily the Constitution or legal precedence. Are you living in the 19th century?

[proud_yank]

The Constitution requires the government to treat all religions equally. I'm personally quite happy with there being no religious displays of any type on public property.

Its public property, people can display what they like on it. If a Jewish person would like to set a menorah, if an athiest wants to display an empty box on public property, by all means do. As for tax $$'s for 'religious displays', I think that opens up a Pandora's box with regard to artwork exhibits at museums, natnl. cemeteries, etc...

I'm paying my taxes to get my garbage picked up, not for religious symbols.

IMHO, the govt should not be responsible for trash pick-up :-)

[proud_yank]

Some on your ping list might enjoy this thread.

[annalex]

Every time there is a cost attached to a monument with Christian symbolism, there is a voluntary organization of one kind or another willing to pay the cost. Its pleas are ignored and the crosses razed. Ripping emblems from buildings, stationery and uniforms actually costs money.

The distinction between a religious symbol of historical significance and that of cultist significane is nonsense. Culture is, quite simply a subset of religion. The distinction is being made only as a rearguard defensive action to protect at least some of our vanishing culture. It is like West European Jews trying to explain that they are not exactly like the schtetl ones on their way to the camps.

[Roverman2K]

Oh ya, try getting it on an airplane with that excuse :)