Apparently you think an individual being prohibited from voicing his religious views in a school is not a form of suppression and does not violate his constitutional rights. That's kind of pathetic, Yoshi. I'm sorry, but it is.

If you somehow think this is incorrect, please try to prove it. Saying "wait..what?" does not prove anything.

Stop trying to drag the thread off in an unrelated tangent. We're talking about the government suppressing an individual's right to express themselves. Don't tell me you are "ok" with a bus driver being fired simply because he wore a Santa hat?

That's dumb. That isn't big government, that's our own idiocy.

Students HAVE no rights. I'm not okay with kids trying to convince me to join the christian faith at school--it happened to me (I've lived in the bible belt all my life). I'm not okay with teachers incorporating god in the classroom. If that means I can't go around shouting that I'm buddhist or athiest or whateverthe****iest then I'll gladly take that fall. As long as I can still practice, why do I need to preach? What does it do for me other than make me happy everyone knows what religion I am? Honestly.

That is completely related

I haven't heard of a bus driver being fired for wearing a Santa hat. It sounds like another one of those weird stories like the Santa Claus not being allowed to say "ho ho ho" that gets clipped from a local newspaper and emailed all over the country with the tag "what is this country coming to?"

I live in one of the most left-wing cities in the country and when I was in high school the staff wore santa hats and NOTHING happened. A bus driver getting fired for wearing a Santa hat is stupid but it doesn't indicate that religion is being suppressed in schools all over the nation. Voting for Ron Paul isn't going to get rid of the people who fired him.

Similarly, one of Ron Paul's friends being called a "cracker" by a marauding black child at a convenience store does not indicate that black people have conned American society into letting them do whatever they want without fear of reprisal, as he's implied in the past.

So! Anecdotes! They are fun.

Yoshi: OK, at this point it is just a matter of opposing opinions. You would "gladly take the fall" while I would not take such a "fall" under any circumstances.

Numbarz: Oh, the Santa hat thing is for real. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh wouldn't stop talking about it, heh. But the real issue isn't that it was done in the first place (which is done by a school official most likely). The issue is that:

1. The government fails to make it clear that this guy has the right to wear the hat.
2. Fails to enforce this guy's right.
3. Gives into every "I'm offended" claim that you can possibly think of.

And voting for Ron Paul itself doesn't fix this. Getting Ron Paul (or a similar candidate) elected provides the opportunity to fix this. Will it happen overnight? No. But it will stir the pot and begin to steer the country in the direction that will fix it. Furthermore, choosing to vote for Ron Paul (or whoever else) indicates your dedication to the beliefs that identify you (Ron Paul's views closely match the founding fathers) and indicates to politicians what changes you want to see.

In other, more related news: Ron Paul has broken $6 million today (I think...other sources are saying ~5.5 million) and is on track to set an all time fund raising record.

Wow, that's a lot of money down the drain. I'm not taking a cheap shot at Ron Paul, but man...six million wasted on somebody who has zero chance of getting elected.

Bill Clinton was in standings just as bad (if not worse) when he was running.

Yeah, until it came out that Clinton had an affair with Flowers, which prompted interest in his campaign, where he brought people in with populist ideals and dissent over the Gulf War.

Ron Paul has extremely radical views, with absolutely insane supporters, which ensures he'll never gain mainstream appeal or success.

No. If he has issues with gaining mainstream appeal then it is because he is widely opposed by the media for opposing the War in Iraq. That is dominantly why other GOP candidates and Fox News hates him.

Also, his views are not at all "extremely radical" and his supporters are not "insane" simply because you believe so. The reality of the matter is that America was founded on the principles and beliefs that Ron Paul supports. Ron Paul values liberty and so does his supporters. I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that anyone is insane because they want to reduce government influence in their lives because they appreciate and deserve the liberty that many have fought and died for.

Even if you don't think he's extremely radical or different, the American voters do.

And our founding fathers weren't crazy. Ron Paul holds some pretty crazy opinions. More when I find this particular couple articles.

I think you're getting it backwards. When you send your kid off to a state school you expect them to receive an education not an indoctrination session in whichever religion your child's teacher happens to be. Separation of church and state is very much part of your country's laws and is designed such that whatever religion someone is, they won't have to worry about the state interfering with it or forcing other religions upon them.
A secular state is a religiously neutral state not "anti-Christian"

I'm sure the guy sued the people who fired him (or Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have heard the story in the first place), and he's got a very good chance of winning. That's how this kind of dispute should be solved, not through federal mandates or whatever. It's already clear enough he's got a right to wear a hat, we all know that. Some idiot somewhere didn't, but you cannot federally suppress idiots. If you push things in favor of the Christian church you'll just have some "shocking event" in the other direction (we already have those, e.g. Kansas, Huckabee). These are isolated events of stupidity. You can't federally fix dumb people.

P.S. you're exploiting political correctness (which dictates we should hold the founding fathers in very high regard) in favor of Ron Paul here, which makes me think it only concerns you some of the time

The bus driver can continue wearing his hat! Free at last, oh free at last.

If you watch videos of Ron Paul from the 80's and videos of Ron Paul now, his stances are the exact same. That's why I like Ron Paul. He's the most honest politician I've ever seen. I think on the issues that matter, Ron Paul is the most likley and competent to change things for good around here. Sure he may have some quirks on smaller issues, but overall, I'd vote for him, and I consider myself a democrat.

Oh jeez he didn't even get fired or sue

This is such a non-issue it's not even funny D:

Bah, my mistake for one year out of sync with that one. Sorry.




Exploiting? I'm not saying it is appropriate to say certain things but rather you should have the right to say them. For example, I'm not going to use the n-word and I don't think anyone should use it -- but I certainly don't think the right to say it should be taken away from someone.

Also, please don't try to cast me into the wrong crowd simply because I believe people should be free to say what they want.



Again, my mistake. While I believe that government regulations still impact our freedom of speech/expression, I retract my posts that I made on the basis of that example.



So what's your opinion on teacher's imposing their political views on children? Views on global warming? Views on pornography (this one may be stretching things a bit, heh)?

Also, what's your opinion on stating such views in the hallway vs in the classroom?

I don't see much of a "backwards" to this. Parents need to play more of an active role in their kid's education other than just paying the bills. In any case, students should be free to discuss all topics (at least in an educational context) rather than moving to forbid them outright. And I certainly don't think it should be forbidden to discuss them outside of the classroom (in any context).



Find the articles you mentioned? Ron Paul and the founding fathers share many of the same views -- especially on the subjects of personal liberty and limited government.

This thread seems to have nothing to do with Dormouse. What a disappointment.

I wasn't aware students weren't allowed to have their own prayer groups. Students attend schools as private citizens and to my knowledge they are allowed to go praying or annoy people about religion in their free time. Maybe I'm wrong, I live in Britland.
Teachers are paid by the state and therefore, while working, act as representatives of the state, which is why they're not expected to bring religion into the classroom.

It is impossible to teach subjects like history without bias in some form and in that sense politics and things can come into the fray rather easily. There's little that can be done about that directly. But if taught properly, studying history is all about examining your sources and being aware of potential bias, hopefully that in itself would be useful inoculation against uncritically accepting a teacher's answers. As for climate change and global warming; it's well accepted by the scientific community and you'd expect to see some lessons explaining the causes and mechanisms involved in geography and science lessons. The controversy over global warming is largely manufactured on one side by petro-chemical companies funding the research of the small band of dissidents and exacerbated on the other side by those who exaggerate the nature of the situation.

Religion, though, really doesn't have a place in lessons outside of RE lessons and even then, surely the most objective way to teach people about religion is to explain what the groups believe and what they do, without adding value judgements to that? I guess it's a case of being as objective as possible where it's possible. Students should be welcome to discuss religion in the classroom but it's not up to the teacher as a representative of the state to say who's right and wrong, who's saved/going to hell etc.