I think it was this gang.
Posted on 02/25/2008 12:10:00 AM PST by Global2010
Albany teens suspended for wearing crucifixes
YouNewsTV™ Story Published: Feb 24, 2008 at 2:55 PM PST Story Updated: Feb 24, 2008 at 2:55 PM PST By Associated Press
ALBANY, Ore. (AP) - A pair of Albany teenagers were suspended from high school for a few days recently because they were wearing crucifixes that school officials called "gang-related behavior."
Fourteen-year-old Jaime Salazar and his friend, 16-year-old Marco Castro, say their mothers gave them the crucifixes - and they deny they're involved with any gangs.
But South Albany High School Principal Chris Equinoa is clear about the school district's position. He says religious items are not banned. But he reserves the right to ask a student to remove, or cover up, any item he feels could indicate gang affiliation - even a crucifix.
A spokesman for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Portland says the archdiocese has no reports of gangs using crucifixes to identify themselves in Western Oregon.
(Excerpt) Read more at katu.com ...
The Principle was dodging the news team and was a real arrogant jerk.
Catholic Ping in Oregon.
Have you heard about this?
If I wore a small crucifix that just happened to be outside a shirt, be it I was running, jumping or whatever, that guy saw it and told me to take it off or leave, I’d let out a string of profanities before leaving.
I think it was this gang.
The kid admitted he got a bit huffy about it and apologized for being disrespectful.
He does not plan on wearing it to school anymore.
He seemed like such a typical 14yr old not one sign of the “thug” mentality.
LOL That was Good Paleo.
The rule forbidding crucifixes needs to be challenged in court. I am sure a lawyer could build a case which attacks the premise of such a regulation. For example, what happens if gangs start wearing the auto emblems. Let’s see: Dodge, Ford, Chevy, Cadillac, Toyota—all would have to be removed from the automobiles before they could enter the school campuses. This is the logic upon which this regulation is based.
Once it is established that the crucifix regulation is flawed in logic, it is easy to make the next step: monetary damages.
If it wasn’t huge and didn’t weigh a full pound, then there’s no reason for him to not be able to wear it. An inch and a half by an inch or so is perfectly fine.
I think a picture of said crucifix is in order.
Sorry, but I find that reasonable. Tuck the necklace inside your shirt or put it in your pocket. Unless there's a pattern of some specific discrimination, I'm fine with principals governing what students wear.
I think the inevitable direction of all of this is going to be school uniforms. Not school-issued uniforms, but guidelines -- pants or skirts at least to the knee, shirts buttoned at least to the collarbone, no visible jewelry aside from simple stud earrings and wristwatches. No shirts or jackets with any message other than the school logo.
What about firing the principal? Have any of these school officials ever read the US Constitution? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" do they not understand? Yes it says "Congress" but the 14th amendment prohibits states from infringing on the rights acknowleged in the Bill of Rights.
It was a very small humble silver crucifix and the beads (plastic pale blue) of the necklace reminded me of the ones used in making Rosaries at St. Kolbe teen camp or catechism class.
Very simple.
Guessing from the tv news story I would say no bigger than an inch on the size of the Crucifix.
His mom was very old as in perhaps (just guessing) he was the youngest of many.
He was just about the age for going to Catechism classes for Holy Confirmation.
His Mom was right their confirming it was a gift from her to him.
they should have worn a Buddy Christ necklace...
they would have been applauded
c’mon, am I the only Freeper to see Dogma?
The necklace was not long enough to tuck anywhere.
It looked hand made (I reconize the beads from teen camp years ago).
The crucifix rested just below his adam apple so he would have to wear a shirt buttoned to the top as if he where to put a tie on.
Ping
In the tv news story sounds more like the kid/mom were not thrilled with being told his Catholic faith was not the issue but that his wearing the Crucifix meant he was gang affiliated..
Well if it’s that small, then the guy has no ground to stand on, and should apologize to the kid.
You have nailed it! The school district is not going to know what hit them.
He could flip the necklace around and have the cross between his shoulder blades, or just pocket it. Lengthen the chain before wearing it to school again.
I know principals are as likely as anyone to make dumb and arbitrary decisions, but whether it's a crucifix, a rebel flag, a Malcolm X cap or a beer company logo, school officials have to make those calls every day.
Do something, get sued. Do nothing, get sued. School principals are not legal scholars, but most are hard-working and well-meaning. They don't need that s--t. They need a bright clear line, rules they can read and follow.
I'm sure there will be a lot of battles over what the standards should be -- I can hear the screaming about hijab coming over the next ridge -- but we need lear and consistent standards, and immunity for officials who act within those standards. Either that, or keep watching these cases pop up in court every other week.
In this case it seems the principal is the product of the troubled society, unable to curb his anti-christian bias by the strict application of a rule against gangs in regards to a child wearing a cross.
Disgusting but not shocking.
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.