yet you did it anyway. :crazy:Oh come on now. Not to get off-topic with political stuff, but you're quoting a document the current administration has been wiping their butts with for the past 8 years.
School Suspends Teens For Wearing Crucifixes
- Thread starter White Rain
- Start date
lol, you caught me.
Sorry though, I just laugh everytime someone quotes the Bill of Rights and expects the problem to be solved just like that.
Not expecting immediate solution, just showing the basis for the kids' position, which is stronger than most. Lack of respect for our rights comes from the top down and it takes a while to unwind the damage.
Crypto6
There's that nasty, NASTY Mexican gang taking over the West Coast that uses crosses. I think it has a 3 in its name, can't bring the name up, but I wonder if they weren't memberss in that gang? K, found the one I meant. MS-13. Read here, and here. You can see more than one Mexican gang also has symbols of Catholicism in their proud displays. :sick:
Trino
Well-Known Member
Gangs using crosses:
Spanish Gangster Disciples (Chicago)
Bishops (Chicago)
Spanish Gangster Disciples (Chicago)
Bishops (Chicago)
Don't forget the praying hands tattoos the Wikipedia article showed. And a lot of Hispanic gang members will get the Crucifiction tattooed on their backs very large. Also, the symbol weapons dealers in gangs wear either branded or tattooed on the webs of their hands is a cross according to that site I linked. ETA: It isn't just Chicago, it's a common practice in *ALL* Hispanic gangs.
No, it is not and if he were a religious student, he would know this! I am not so ready to condemn the principal on his actions just yet. Now the other cross looks appropriate. Some kids want to push the limit and act all innocent. Who knows what is REALLY going on.
txsvicki
Active Member
I agree with the principal since there could be some danger in allowing the symbols. This could even protect the boys and prevent something before it even gets started. If I ever find a red or blue t shirt in my grandson's laundry I toss it out. I don't want him to even remotely resemble gang colors at school or out and about.
Penelope631
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 1
I think jewelry made from rosary beads, and an actual rosary are different though. I know most of the nuns (wearing full habits) I saw working at the hospital in the town I grew up in had their rosaries tucked at their belts, I'm not sure if they were fastened or not.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,027
From the article:"Castro also insists he does not belong to a gang. Nor is he particularly religious, he acknowledged, although his background is also Catholic. He said he doesn’t see his personal faith as reason to insist he remove a rosary."
Why is he wearing a rosary if he is not particularly religious??? :waitasec: And why then is he refusing to take it off? Sounds like trouble to me.. I think the principal and the gang mediators are in tuned to what the latest gang symbols are. I don't condemn them. They have a right to have a dress code that doesn't allow someone to wear something that is dangerous or provocative, as these crufixes seem to have become.
Why is he wearing a rosary if he is not particularly religious??? :waitasec: And why then is he refusing to take it off? Sounds like trouble to me.. I think the principal and the gang mediators are in tuned to what the latest gang symbols are. I don't condemn them. They have a right to have a dress code that doesn't allow someone to wear something that is dangerous or provocative, as these crufixes seem to have become.
MeoW333
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,761
- Reaction score
- 73
I think they should be able to wear their rosaries if they want to. They aren't the big gaudy crosses in silver or gold with large chains. In the picture with the boys holding the rosaries, it honestly looks like something the mother would give her son.
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/02/24/news/top_story/1aaa01_cross.txt
I really do think they were targeted for being Latino. If they were 2 white boys dressed in pants slacks and button down shirts dress shirts, would the principle has said anything? Probably not at all.
I am aware that a lot of Latin gangs use Catholic religious symbols, yet those rosaries they have in the picture are very beautiful. They are far from gaudy. Even though the older boy, Marco, said he was particularly religious, it still is in his background and upraising. So it's still there none the less.
It is a jail house thing to wear rosaries; probably from lack of pockets, so inmates wear them around their neck as a necklace.
I'm not saying these boys know that; i doubt they've been to jail or arrested before.
They should just leave them be, let them wear them. They are intruding upon their freedom of religion. Certain places upstate NY do have gang problems, a lot of them; yet they can't just throw all apples in one barrel. We have white kids who dress and act like gangbangers and are not in gangs; then we have ones that are. It's encouraged with pop culture and MTV.
In the 1980's if a girl wore a rosary to school, would she be kicked out since she was imitating Madonna?
Some gangs are hiding there colors now completely.
In this case, i feel they should be allowed to wear their rosaries. That principal could have told the boys to tuck them inside their shirts, not take them off.
I really think that the fact that the boys are Latino and the common Latin gang stereotype deals with religious symbols is what made the principal jump his gun.
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2008/02/24/news/top_story/1aaa01_cross.txt
I really do think they were targeted for being Latino. If they were 2 white boys dressed in pants slacks and button down shirts dress shirts, would the principle has said anything? Probably not at all.
I am aware that a lot of Latin gangs use Catholic religious symbols, yet those rosaries they have in the picture are very beautiful. They are far from gaudy. Even though the older boy, Marco, said he was particularly religious, it still is in his background and upraising. So it's still there none the less.
It is a jail house thing to wear rosaries; probably from lack of pockets, so inmates wear them around their neck as a necklace.
I'm not saying these boys know that; i doubt they've been to jail or arrested before.
They should just leave them be, let them wear them. They are intruding upon their freedom of religion. Certain places upstate NY do have gang problems, a lot of them; yet they can't just throw all apples in one barrel. We have white kids who dress and act like gangbangers and are not in gangs; then we have ones that are. It's encouraged with pop culture and MTV.
In the 1980's if a girl wore a rosary to school, would she be kicked out since she was imitating Madonna?
Some gangs are hiding there colors now completely.
In this case, i feel they should be allowed to wear their rosaries. That principal could have told the boys to tuck them inside their shirts, not take them off.
I really think that the fact that the boys are Latino and the common Latin gang stereotype deals with religious symbols is what made the principal jump his gun.
Religion is not worn around one's neck, it is carried in the heart. Those guys go to school to get an education, not for a fashion show, or to proclaim their religion via what they wear. :twocents: ETA: Yes, there are *some* exceptions to what I said, Sikhism for example. But, for Catholicism and Christianity specifically, the items are not required for practicing the religion. There was a time when you couldn't carry such things or you'd be arrested and killed in times when Christianity wasn't as powerful a force as it is now. ETA2: Crosses and crucifixes might not have been the earliest symbols of Christianity in fact, and they weren't considered of most importance early on. Fish, anyone?
so what. the fact early Christians may not have used it as a symbol of their faith has no basis here. only think that matters in this case is if the boys saw it as a symbol of god or their mothers that gave it to them did. a person yes even the short people have rights to express their faith without the government stepping in and stopping them. a teachers aide told my daughter she could not say grace out loud at lunch when she started school at 5. luckily it only took 1 phone call to remind them of the right my daughter had to freely express her beliefs.Religion is not worn around one's neck, it is carried in the heart. Those guys go to school to get an education, not for a fashion show, or to proclaim their religion via what they wear. :twocents: ETA: Yes, there are *some* exceptions to what I said, Sikhism for example. But, for Catholicism and Christianity specifically, the items are not required for practicing the religion. There was a time when you couldn't carry such things or you'd be arrested and killed in times when Christianity wasn't as powerful a force as it is now. ETA2: Crosses and crucifixes might not have been the earliest symbols of Christianity in fact, and they weren't considered of most importance early on. Fish, anyone?
if the school banned the crescent because they said it implied a student might be a terrorist that wanted to blow up the school most would know the school was wrong. just because evil may try and steal a religious symbol does not mean good should run and hide. when people no longer stand up for their rights out of fear evil has won.
I find it kind of ironic that people want it both ways when it comes to separation of church and state.
<sarcasm>Take God out of the pledge, and take it off our currency, but hot damn if you can't wear a cross in school then raise Holy Hell!!!</sarcasm>
<sarcasm>Take God out of the pledge, and take it off our currency, but hot damn if you can't wear a cross in school then raise Holy Hell!!!</sarcasm>
personally i want the pledge to keep god as well as money but i see this as a totally different issue. money or the pledge would be a government endorsing religion issue and the cross a student wears is about the government not infringing on our rights to freely express or beliefs. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. it is that pesky little or that caused the confusion i guess.
People could just as easily argue that a state-run school allowing people to wear crosses is endorsing religion.
allowing some1 to express their beliefs is not endorsing. of course people could argue it. after all we have people who argue that earth was populated by aliens. the fact is allowing a student to express their beliefs and forcing your own beliefs on them are 2 different things. it is the difference between allowing my daughter to pray and forcing the other kids to join her. if a child wants to pray to god or satan or the aliens it is their right. when the school picks who they pray to it becomes force. when a child chooses to wear a cross as a expression of their faith it is the child right. when the school decides what children our devout enough to be allowed to express their faith they have crossed the line.