School District Bans Mouth Jewelry, Other Items

KXAS-TV ^ | July 10, 2006

[tuffydoodle]

ARLINGTON, Texas -- The Arlington school district has expanded its dress codes to include bans on mouth jewelry known as "grills" and the earlobe-stretching practice known as gauging.

"The district is having to respond to fads because they've become distracters or a safety hazard for those around them," said Malcolm Turner, the district's executive director of student services.

The nearby Irving, Grand Prairie and DeSoto districts also ban grills, and some also address gauging -- the process of placing increasingly large items in the ears to stretch the lobes.

But students said the body modification is simply self-expression.

"Really, a grill is just like an earring. It's fashion," said Sam Houston junior Devonte Wright, 16.

Others said it was unfair to ban such jewelry after students had purchased the expensive items, such as a $200, six-tooth white-gold diamond-cut grill. The price ranges from $180 to $3,000 at J's Grill in Arlington.

"If they bought it, they should be able to wear it," said Sam Houston senior LaVeda Antwine, 17.

But school officials said they hoped to teach students that life would require them to follow specific regulations in specific settings.

"We want to instill in them a sense of modesty and a sense of community," said school board trustee Gloria Pena. "We're preparing them for the work force, and in the work force there are rules."

[MineralMan]

"Where the hell does a 16,17 year old get the money for this capola? Are the parents shelling out the money?"

Let's see:

Selling drugs
Stealing stuff, then selling it
Extorting money from pansy kids

Stuff like that...

[TexasPatriot8]

Good. It's well past time this kind of stupid adolescent rebellion is eliminated in public schools. The guise of "freedom of expression" is just a lame attempt to cover the REAL reason. It's just flat out rebellion and trying to look as freakish as possible. Kids are too ignorant and stupid to understand the fact that no one is impressed with all their peircings and vulgar tatoos and other stupid things they do to themselves to try and out-do each other for the "who's the more freakish looking" award in every stupid youth clique. And the bottom line is, eventually they all grow up (age wise) and most of them, upon getting a REAL job and having their own kids, grow up mentally and emotionally also, and realize that all their stupid piercing and tatoo rebellions were dump, and permanent, and make it harder to parent their own children responsibly. The worst possible situation to be in as a parent is "do as I say, not as I do". It used to be easy.

It used to be that the worst thing parents had to admit to their kids was that they had sex before marriage, or drank under age or smoked, or might have smoked some pot. That was pretty much it. The things these teenagers are doing today are largely permanent and will be embarrassing as a mature adult, at least for those who do grow up someday, preferably before they hit mid-life like so many liberals who never grow up. I'm greatly relieved that I don't have to make any embarrassing admissions to my kids someday, other than the couple times I drank when I was 17 and was totally unimpressed. Parenting is much easier when you didn't do drugs, didn't smoke, knew how to keep your pants on till you married your spouse, and especially easier when you aren't all marked up with vulgar tatoos and freak show piercings. Unless of course you don't mind lying to your kids, about the things they can't see for themselves that is. But kids are smart and most of the time they can tell when a parent is blowing smoke up their arse. And even if they were easy to lie to, I prefer to be truthful and am just glad there's no embarrassing skeletons in my youth I have to be afraid of being asked about by my kids. Not being a rebellious freak who's unable to keep their pants up and then being able to be truthful with your kids is a great thing. :)

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[tuffydoodle]

Excellent post! I may have to print that out and put it in my permanent file.

[tflabo]

[TexasPatriot8]

Oh I wish most teenage girls could understand that concept. I don't know who's in more desperate need of a brain. Teenage girls, or teenage boys.

[TexasPatriot8]

Oh I wish most teenage girls could understand that concept. I don't know who's in more desperate need of a brain. Teenage girls, or teenage boys.

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[MineralMan]

""Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" "

Hmm...I don't know any atheists who are offended by any deities. That just doesn't make any sense at all, since they don't believe such supernatural entities exist at all.

Some atheists, I suppose, are offended by people who do believe in deities, but I'm not among that group.

[TexasPatriot8]

Well thanks! I apprecaite that. :) I am half expecting to get flammed for that previous post of mine by some troll lib. :) If I was King, the only tatoos would be on those military personnel who chose to have them, other than adults who wanted some cutsie thing. Me, I just never saw the point. What someone likes today, most of the time, they dislike it or don't care about in years to come. But I'm just a square. Better to be a square than a circus freak that doesn't even get paid for looking the part. :)

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[TexasPatriot8]

Big spike in lip, hole that will likely never heal, and no brain. I see a career job that entails the phrase "you want fries with that?" in that dorks future. If that's the only or best way that moron can express himself, he is in more desperate need of a dictionary than anyone I've ever met in my life.

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[Darnright]

[PeterPrinciple]

What someone likes today, most of the time, they dislike it or don't care about in years to come.

Correct, everything is p art of the fashion industry. I dated a gal in textiles once and she asked me why emerald greed was such a popular color that year. Being a ag student, I had no idea. She said that was decided by a committee 6 years ago. Not sure there is an official committee here but it is fashionable now, but something else will be in a few years. Leisure suits can be given to Good Will, fashionable govt programs can't.............

[srmorton]

I totally agree. These young people do not realize that the piercings and tattoos that are so much in fashion now will not go over too well with a prospective employer. In fact, I heard a news report on the radio a few months ago about a company that requires their employees to cover up any visible tattoos while at work.

I was not familiar with the term "gauging", but I have seen several examples of this practice. It looks horrible! I teach in a community college and have had a few students who had tongue rings that became infected. They are no longer able to wear them, but are left with a permanent (for now, at least) depression in the tongue which is visible when they speak. According to the instructors in our Dental Hygiene department, tongue rings are very detrimental to the health of the oral cavity.

The ones I do not understand are the parents who give their underage children permission to have some of these disfiguring means of "expression" or even give them the money to have the procedure done. Go figure!

[TexasPatriot8]

Well the whole argument that athiests use against Christians is, the mention of God or Christ "offends" them and this always elusive snipe-like "others" demographic. It's stupid. Athiests don't believe in God, so how can they POSSIBLY be offended by someone talking about something that they don't themselves believe in???

Personally, much as I love Sci-Fi movies and shows and books, I don't believe there are alien civilizations on other worlds. But am I offended by the many people who talk about it, or write about it, or make movies or TV shows about that premise? Heck no. How stupid would that be? I don't believe in the Abominable Snow Man or Big Foot, or Lock Ness Monster either, but I'm not offended by people who do, or talk about their belief in their existence.

So athiests being so "offended" by the mention or discussion of something they profess not to believe in is beyond irrational, it's illogical, and that's the whole point behind the Michael Newdows of the world who so militantly try to remove ALL vestiges of the Christian God from Government and the public square. Beyond the fact that totally contradicts the clear wishes and intent of the framers of the Constitution, made clear in their many writings and diary's and the Federalist Papers, it just defies all logic that the Ten Commandments, prayers for God to bless the country, or preceedings, or school events, or whatever, is somehow "Government establishment of religion". That's just silly, The real bottom line is, athiests are fanatical control freaks, and they are so militany in their minset that they can't be happy unless they can impose their beliefs (their lack of any belief in God), on all those who do believe, and force them to keep it to themselves in the privacy of their homes. That is so FAR removed from the original intent of the founders and framers of the Constitution. I quote Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a strong Christian, who was one of the first dozen SC Justices in the early 1800s, and was also a Congressman, who in his 1833 "Commentaries On The Constitution", said this:

"The 1st Amendment says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Now we're not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution. Indeed, the right of a society or government to participate in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected by the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the 1st Amendment to it, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State. An attempt to level all religions and make it a matter of State policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

I love to read that to anyone who believes God has no place in Government and should not be mentioned at public events. This country would not exist if not for Christianity, as Christian dedication and belief in Christ was the driving force behind all but a VERY PRECIOUS FEW of the founders and soldiers who created the United States. And all the social problems we face today can be directly linked to the systematic removal of Christian principle and doctrine from our schools, government, and society in general the past 40 years. You can also trace the current days rebellion described in this thread to that removal of Christian principles which were responsible for the nations creation. Piercings, tatoos, radical sexual dress, cavalier attitudes about drugs, alcohol, sex, etc, all of those stem from the removal of Christian beliefs from our society and schools. That is impossible to deny. Justice Story WAS a man of the same mind of the founders and framers of our country and the Constitution, and his words say it all.

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[TexasPatriot8]

You're both so right. What's really pathetic is, these kids doing these things will be stuck with it the rest of their lives, some things don't heal, and you can never remove a tatoo where it doesn't leave a scar. The real crime is the horrible parents that many of these kids have who didn't give them any kind of good responsible parenting to teach them to respect themselves. Granted, the individual is first to blame because they make their own choices, influenced first by their unintelligent immature peer group, and most of the time, lastly by their parents, but bad parenting or a lack of it altogether, is certainly a HUGE contributor to the masses of teenage and early 20s dipsticks poised to enter the real world. They can't all work at "Hot Topic", most will never have an entertainment or pro sports career for lack of any talent, and the circus requires talent too, not just a freakish appearance. Someday, most of these poor stupid kids will wake up, clear of their youthful peer/drug/booze/sex induced haze, and realize they've really screwed up their life, and their ability to provide a good life or example for their kids. BUT, that's why God gives people choices. They're ours to make, and ours to pay for. Welcome to the real world kids.

[Amelia]

Wonder how long it's going to take before someone sues the school district over this?

[TexasPatriot8]

Beyond being stupid, and ugly, and a horrible waste of money, it's just completely unattractive. If my wife had that crap on her teeth, I wouldn't have looked twice at her, because many times, you CAN judge a book by its cover. She wouldn't be who she is ont he inside if she had been so gullable to do that or so weak willed to give into that peer pressure to begin with. That, and other forms of this radical physical rebellion, or "self expression" as the PC crowd calls it, is VERY telling of the individual on the inside with FEW exception.

To date, I have never met someone of really good character with good moral and ethical standards, who is all pierced and tatooed and has freakish hair and clothes, etc so on. I have however met no small number of people who have the holes still on their face but no jewelry in them, and either removed or covered tatoos, who now have normal hair cuts and wear normal clothes, who will readily admit the stupid decisions they made to mark and scar themselves in their youth is the biggest set of mistakes they made that they can never take back. So after talking to so many people over the years, that are on the tail end of this kind of body altering rebellion, and so ashamed and regretting of it, all I can do is sit and shake my head and wonder how many years it will be for these small minded fools to grow up and think for themselves, use words to express themselves, and stop letting their equally stupid peer group tell them what they should wear, how they should act, and what ways they should permenantly mark up their body. It's such a shame.

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[MineralMan]

While some atheists have those opinions, not all do. It's the same as putting all people with a particular characteristic in the same bag.

I don't mind if people believe in deities. Why should I? I'm also not offended by references to those deities. Why should I be?

All atheists are not alike in their political beliefs. You make a serious error if you say they are.

[TexasPatriot8]

But I am not talking about "all athiests". Whic is why I prefaced my comment by saying the "Michael Newdow" types. I don't generalize I am very specific when I say things. The militant athiests who are trying to make and change policies would say to your face that you are milk toast and need to start fighting for your beliefs. I've heard militant athiests like Newdow say that very thing in reference to athiests who are not offended by Christians speaking in public or in government office or at graduations or ball games, etc.

The active athiest movement when it comes to politcs has the well known goal of removing God from ALL parts of schools, government, the workplace, and any public arena. And THAT is a violation of the 1st Amendment which protect freedom of expression of religion. The founders and the first Presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court Justices used the U.S. Capital Building as a church and had multiple Christian church services a week in it in different parts of the building (Statuary Hall and the Treasury Department), so really, how much did the founders believe in seperating Christinity from Government? Not so much when you look at historical fact and documentation of their writings and beliefs.

Like that girl that was silenced while giving her commencement address as Valedictorian, written on her own, and wanting to mention how her relationship with God and Christ as her Savior helped keep her on track and graduate first in her class. The large numbers of boos protesting her being silenced says it all. If she was going to praise allah and mohammed, she'd of been allows to talk all day long, the ACLU would have likely turned the speakers up. This is the ridiculously hypicritical stance of the athiestic movement which tries so hard to remove any trace of Christian presence in the form of symbols and phrases and all other forms from government and school and social arenas. And I have heard more than a few athiests who think it is ONLY acceptable for Christians to say what they want in their homes, and in their churches, and even there they oppose signs with religious statements on church property, and people wearing Christian themed clothing? So if most athiests are like you, why are the militants running the show in the athiest movement?

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine

[MineralMan]

"So if most athiests are like you, why are the militants running the show in the athiest movement? "

---

That's a question you could ask about a lot of people. Gunowners aren't all saying "from my cold dead hands" either. A small group of militants is saying that. Most people who are pro-choice are not out marching in the street, and most gays are not out trying to force marriage on the rest of us. It's always a bunch of militants.

I'm not a member of any group of atheists. Those folks are on their own, and do not represent me.

As for my beliefs, I don't have any religious ones at all. I simply disbelieve in all deities and other supernatural entities. Others do believe, and that's just fine. I don't.

And it is "atheists," not "athiests." I know that's nitpicking, but you might want to take some time to spell the word correctly. I promise not to spell "Christian" as "Christain."

[TexasPatriot8]

I'm a gun owner that will say "...from my cold dead fingers". And I think most gun owners will say the same thing if they have an understanding about the Constitution, the founders documented original intent, and an understanding of the fact that real tyranny in our country will come to pass when regular citizens no longer have the right to arm and defend themselves. The people have an obligation UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to overthrow by force if necessary any U.S. Government that tries to disarm the American people.

Besides, it's worked so well for Australia and England who have doen that, and murders, assaults, thefts, and other crimes have gone UP since the citizenry have been disarmed. So your comparrison doesn't hold. The United States has become weaker and less safe since Christianity has been assaulted and removed from government and society, not stronger and MORE safe.

And most Pro-Lifers don't march because they have careers and lives and mouths to feed, unlike the frothing at the mouth pro-death/pro-choice masses. So that doesn't quite hold either.

As for spelling, I type 55+ WPM and have no time for spell checking while multi-tasking here at work. In an informal venue like this, content is more important than syntax. I hope you look at the messages people are conveying more than the syntax. I have official documents and hard back historical books with typos, and that doesn't detract from the content. :)

"Who's more irrational? The guy who believes in a God he can't see? Or the guy who is offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" Brad Stine