TexasCHLforum.com

Katygunnut wrote:I think the issue people have is more with the double standard being applied. In this case, the kid is getting rights which are denied to others on the basis of their respective religions. My kid is denied the right to carry a similar weapon solely because she is not a Sikh. That does not really seem all that fair.

Exactly. It's religious discrimination.

Personally, I think zero tolerance is a crock of fish. I support a policy that allows a Sikh to carry a small Kirpan and allows Boy Scouts to carry a Boy Scout Knife and allows a girl to have a knife to cut an apple if she gets her dad's lunchbag by mistake. Equal rights for all students.

gigag04 wrote:Such a weird train of thought -

"If we don't get to exercise a right, noone should."

...more like CITIZENS should come first in consideration...not immigrants...you know, like every other country on earth!!!

cbr600 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...more like CITIZENS should come first in consideration...not immigrants...you know, like every other country on earth!!!

Source please! I don't see anything in the article that indicates the fourth-grader wasn't a US citizen.

I agree with the earlier comments that schools shouldn't stomp all over the right to keep and bear arms.

Just because someone has a religion that may be foreign to someone, does not makie them an immigrant. With that logic, all Lutherans are German immigrants. The seperation of Church and State should apply to all religions equally, not pick and choose.

cbr600 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...more like CITIZENS should come first in consideration...not immigrants...you know, like every other country on earth!!!

Source please! I don't see anything in the article that indicates the fourth-grader wasn't a US citizen.

I agree with the earlier comments that schools shouldn't stomp all over the right to keep and bear arms.

...I stand corrected...the article DOESN'T say the boy wasn't a citizen...thanks for keeping me straight!!! My disgust at the disparity between the way one religion is treated in school and the bend-over-backwards attempts to accommodate another predisposed me to assume...this time, wrongly!!!

JJVP wrote:Let's see:

--If you are a Sikh, you can wear a "religious" dagger. If you are a catholic you cannot wear a cross or pray, due to separation of church and state.

I've honestly never heard of someone not being allowed to wear a cross at school, and anyone can pray at any time at any school.

I always carried a knife to school. Sometimes my teachers would borrow it when they needed it. Fortunately I spent most of the years that I wasn't homeschooled at private Christian schools. My teachers knew and trusted me, and it was never an issue.

One time a teacher asked if anyone had scissors or something to help him cut open some packages, and he was offered about 10 knives from around the classroom. Hehe.

Oh, and no one was ever stabbed or attacked, though sometimes the teachers couldn't figure out how to close the locked blade.

How hard would it be to get the powers that be to adapt Luke 22:35-38 into an official requirement?

Jesus wrote:
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Fangs wrote:I always carried a knife to school. Sometimes my teachers would borrow it when they needed it. Fortunately I spent most of the years that I wasn't homeschooled at private Christian schools. My teachers knew and trusted me, and it was never an issue.

One time a teacher asked if anyone had scissors or something to help him cut open some packages, and he was offered about 10 knives from around the classroom. Hehe.

Oh, and no one was ever stabbed or attacked, though sometimes the teachers couldn't figure out how to close the locked blade.

How hard would it be to get the powers that be to adapt Luke 22:35-38 into an official requirement?

Jesus wrote:
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Unfortunately, the world (at least the public schools) has changed significantly.

Evidence:
- http://www.khou.com/news/cnn/khou-113302824.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/ ... 8839.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- http://www.clearskyvt.org/military-slee ... r-thoughts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I understand and appreciate that there are those who wish to express their religion in ways that violate laws and rules. In my opinion, many of those laws and rules shouldn't exist in the first place. Zero tolerance = zero responsibility on the part of the school administrators. That said, if it is zero tolerance, it is zero tolerance for everyone.

This problem goes far beyond the schools. If I have to stand in front of a scanner at the airport to board a plane, so does everyone else, religious preference or not. You cannot arrest me because I don't want to do it and allow others to pass because of their religious preference. I'm not discriminating here. I don't think anyone should have to do it just as I don't believe that the zero tolerance policy on knives makes any sense. To me, this is just like gun control laws. Zero tolerance is not keeping knives out of schools any more than banning guns keeps them out of schools. It just punishes unintentional violators and allows those who are cunning and doing it on purpose to proceed.

Zero common sense. But what did we expect to happen when we let left wing extremists run the public schools?

chasfm11 wrote:Zero tolerance = zero responsibility on the part of the school administrators. That said, if it is zero tolerance, it is zero tolerance for everyone.

While I agree with you in general I think you may be missing an important aspect of supposed "zero tolerance." I believe part of the administrative appeal of zero tolerance is in fact the opposite of the policy pretense. Since schools are run by human beings, who are often virtually unaccountable (unless they do something that makes headlines), there is no way these policies are fairly and uniformly applied. Zero tolerance provides cover for completely arbitrary decisions. When they want to punish someone, they get to throw up their hands and say, I "have" to do it, we have a zero tolerance policy. When they don't want to punish someone they simply look the other way.

JJVP wrote:Let's see:

--If you are a Sikh, you can wear a "religious" dagger. If you are a catholic you cannot wear a cross or pray, due to separation of church and state.

-- If you are a Sikh, you can wear a "religious" dagger. If you are not and you point a finger in the shape of a gun, you are arrested due to the weapons zero tolerance policy .

Makes perfect sence to me.... NOT

bull