Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A school desk is more of a deadly weapon than a blunt knife to be honest.

You can't hide a desk in your pocket, and good luck carrying a desk out of view of staff to get away with bashing someone into a hospital. Removal of desks is also a non-starter due to my stated views on the subject: that any interventions not constitute some sort of undue burden. It's hard to do much in class without a desk.

You clearly have never explored your school, stayed after class in a classroom with someone else, or have weighted a desk, have you?

And of course you can, make every student sit on the floor.

[Fanosolia]

Schools have compelling interests that overrule certain rights of students. In this circumstance, the school must be able to eliminate certain distractions where the rights lost are not undue burdens. If you want to wear swastikas, tough shit. Confederate flags, tough shit. Nudity, tough shit. Bible verses, anything obstructive, and all sorts of jewelery are often banned and removed in US schools. If you think a giant, obtrusive cross is necessary for your religious observance, you and the sihk who won't give up his sabre both get suspended.

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I thought there was also a way so the knife couldn't be drawn at all?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I thought there was also a way so the knife couldn't be drawn at all?

It was restrained by the sheath so the student couldn't get it out and flash it.

[Galloism]

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size.

And yet, it is not de jure prohibited.

The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

What nonreligious reason was used for declining religiously themed items?

This is a strange notion.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

Not just less sharp. Dull.

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

[Shaggai]

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

It's exactly as much a deadly weapon as a pencil. Ban all pencils! Students can use chalk on slates instead.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

Wait, this is new to me.

You can use a bra as a deadly weapon?!

[Syndicapolis]

I agree with the sort of secularism adopted by the French, but if we're talking DOTPs and communist societies (i.e. the sorts of society I advocate) I would hope that the prospect of religious institutions would be even bleaker. Indeed, I would hope for the total obliteration of these institutions.

Now, I'm not saying that I think people who want to believe in God or follow some kind of religion that has been institutionalised in the past - although to be honest I don't think even an individual belief in God would have any function at all in a communist society - should be stopped from doing so. They are perfectly free to be religious in their own time as long as it does not interfere with their social commitments, cause them to behave in a bigoted and/or reactionary manner or come into the public sphere at all. However, religious institutions are coercive, hierarchical and generally discriminatory too, and with the whole "community spirit," aspect of organised religion being taken care of by society in general due to its strong collectivism, religious institutions have absolutely no place in socialism.

[Galloism]

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

It's exactly as much a deadly weapon as a pencil. Ban all pencils! Students can use chalk on slates instead.

Actually, a pencil/pen is probably more deadly.

Knew it missed something...

[Shaggai]

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

Wait, this is new to me.

You can use a bra as a deadly weapon?!

A garrote, I guess.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

You can't hide a desk in your pocket, and good luck carrying a desk out of view of staff to get away with bashing someone into a hospital. Removal of desks is also a non-starter due to my stated views on the subject: that any interventions not constitute some sort of undue burden. It's hard to do much in class without a desk.

You clearly have never explored your school or have weighted a desk, have you?
And of course you can, make every student sit on the floor.

I don't understand what you're getting at. A desk of higher weight would be only more difficult to use as a weapon, and only be a less effective weapon. A desk is less effective and using your own body in an attack, and strapping everyone to a chair does constitute and undue burden. There's no way to make any location entirely safe, so schools are concerned with making it as safe as possible while maintaining as effective a learning environment as possible. A surface is needed for tasks such as taking notes, and completing assignments and tests. The floor does not constitute an effective surface for this use.

[Fanosolia]

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

Wait, this is new to me.

You can use a bra as a deadly weapon?!

okay good, I wasn't the only one that thought that was weird. i mean, I guess you have suffocation but that's all i can think of

[Shaggai]

It's exactly as much a deadly weapon as a pencil. Ban all pencils! Students can use chalk on slates instead.

Actually, a pencil/pen is probably more deadly.

Knew it missed something...

Yeah, sharpened pencils can get pretty damn sharp.

[The Alma Mater]

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

Wait, this is new to me.

You can use a bra as a deadly weapon?!

Bras have been used quite often to strangle people.

[Galloism]

Wait, this is new to me.

You can use a bra as a deadly weapon?!

A garrote, I guess.

Bra straps are both tough and flexible. They don't break easily. Try using it for (nondeadly) strangulation sometime.

I'll leave how I came by this knowledge to your imagination.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You clearly have never explored your school or have weighted a desk, have you?
And of course you can, make every student sit on the floor.

I don't understand what you're getting at. A desk of higher weight would be only more difficult to use as a weapon, and only be a less effective weapon. A desk is less effective and using your own body in an attack, and strapping everyone to a chair does constitute and undue burden. There's no way to make any location entirely safe, so schools are concerned with making it as safe as possible while maintaining as effective a learning environment as possible. A surface is needed for tasks such as taking notes, and completing assignments and tests. The floor does not constitute an effective surface for this use.

Of course it does.

I've studied with my books on the floor.

Also, a desk of a reasonable weight but light enough that you can carry it across a room without getting tired is excellent as a weapon. Do you really think that a desk is not a weapon?

Also, we were not talking about the sikh's knife as an "undue burden", we were talking about it in terms of a potential threat. I'm telling you desks are a potential threat. You don't need to know how I know this.

[CTALNH]

A garrote, I guess.

Bra straps are both tough and flexible. They don't break easily. Try using it for (nondeadly) strangulation sometime.

I'll leave how I came by this knowledge to your imagination.

You strangled a Tuk'ata with one of the many bras your mistresses left laying around inside your force sensitive bat cave?

[Galloism]

Bra straps are both tough and flexible. They don't break easily. Try using it for (nondeadly) strangulation sometime.

I'll leave how I came by this knowledge to your imagination.

You strangled a Tuk'ata with one of the many bras your mistresses left laying around inside your force sensitive bat cave?

My light saber was in the shop.

[Fanosolia]

I don't understand what you're getting at. A desk of higher weight would be only more difficult to use as a weapon, and only be a less effective weapon. A desk is less effective and using your own body in an attack, and strapping everyone to a chair does constitute and undue burden. There's no way to make any location entirely safe, so schools are concerned with making it as safe as possible while maintaining as effective a learning environment as possible. A surface is needed for tasks such as taking notes, and completing assignments and tests. The floor does not constitute an effective surface for this use.

Of course it does.

I've studied with my books on the floor.

Also, a desk of a reasonable weight but light enough that you can carry it across a room without getting tired is excellent as a weapon. Do you really think that a desk is not a weapon?

Also, we were not talking about the sikh's knife as an "undue burden", we were talking about it in terms of a potential threat. I'm telling you desks are a potential threat. You don't need to know how I know this.

forget that, what about chairs? Easier to carry, and swing around

[CTALNH]

You strangled a Tuk'ata with one of the many bras your mistresses left laying around inside your force sensitive bat cave?

My light saber was in the shop.

I am rather certain your light saber was flaccid due to romping your 7 mistresses in a row.

[Greater Weselton]

Secularism is generally bad.

[CTALNH]

Secularism is generally bad.

Said no one with over 90 IQ ever.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Of course it does.

I've studied with my books on the floor.

Also, a desk of a reasonable weight but light enough that you can carry it across a room without getting tired is excellent as a weapon. Do you really think that a desk is not a weapon?

Also, we were not talking about the sikh's knife as an "undue burden", we were talking about it in terms of a potential threat. I'm telling you desks are a potential threat. You don't need to know how I know this.

forget that, what about chairs? Easier to carry, and swing around

That works too

[Fanosolia]

Actually, when the government restricts on message is my issue.

Hence my comparison - a 1lb purple Barney a-ok. A 1lb cross, shun the believer!

If the school insisted no jewelry, or no jewelry above a certain size, I may think its a little silly, but hardly a freedom of religion issue. Your comparison of a swastika also fails, as a cross is no more offensive than a giant Barney. The nudity comparison also fails, as an inanimate cross is not inherently disruptive.

Incidentally, in the thread we had on the Sikh student, given the Sikh knife is dulled, I supported him being allowed to carry it as a religious symbol. It's not a threatening object.

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size. The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

that... seem like a weird thing to me. Should it be that the importance is just to wear it?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I would find a large barney-themed jewelery approximately as disrupting as a cross of equivalent size.

And yet, it is not de jure prohibited.

The difference comes in when students insist on wearing cross necklaces over their clothes as if it were required by their religion. I've seen many students asked by administrators to cover up jewlery(and tatoos) and nobody ever declined unless it was religiously themed(though I've known of cases where students did decline for non-religious purposes). Those that declined were removed from class regardless of reason for declining.

What nonreligious reason was used for declining religiously themed items?

This is a strange notion.

I don't care if the knife is less sharp. It's a deadly weapon and its presence on school grounds is absolutely unacceptable.

Not just less sharp. Dull.

Boots, school books, scissors, bras, and school lunch trays are all more deadly. You have no concept regarding the item in question, do you?

Large crosses are not de jure prohibited either. People wearing them are simply far more likely to make a fuss about covering it up. I don't care if you wear one, but it might matter if others can see it.

I was a bit unclear: In all circumstances where I observed other students asked to cover jewelery and tattoos, the ONLY students who declined did so for religious purposes. All were removed from class.
In other circumstances to which I was not a witness, but which I knew, students with jewelery and tatoos without religious theme declined to obscure them. All were removed from class.
There is no anti-religious bias(except anti-muslim in some states) in my country of residence. There is merely a victim complex in a lot of christians.

A dull knife goes through a neck without much difficulty. A pencil will not do the same, and not will scissors. Removal of pencils and pens is an undue burden, tasks cannot be completed without such a writing tool. I've seen lunch trays used as weapons - they shattered immediately. They are not deadly weapons at all, unless your school is supplied by prison surplus co. Bras - what. Really? You'd have an easier time strangling someone with your pants, that is a stupid argument. Boots do not increase the damaging capability of a person's legs, books are required for educational purposes. undue burdens all around.

[The Alma Mater]

Secularism is generally bad.

But is it worse or better than the alternatives - like, say, living in the new Caliphate ?