Native Ceremony takes place at a public school

[?Impact]

51 minutes ago, msj said:

1) We are not talking about where it takes place.  We are talking about when.  

2) The date of the event was not present in the letter. That is pure incompetence. 

4) The participation in the religious ceremony was (or should be determined in court) to be against section 76 of the School Act 

1. Yes, more than 36 hours notice would be nice. Not however a federal case.

2. Yes, including the date should have been done. Again, not a federal case.

4. As I have pointed out with many of the other activities (Valentines cards, Halloween costumes, Christmas Trees, Menorahs, etc.) our schools have lots of things that would violate section 76 to the game extent this ceremony does. Why did this suddenly become a federal case?

Edited November 18, 2016 by ?Impact

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

1. Yes, more than 36 hours notice would be nice. Not however a federal case.

2. Yes, including the date should have been done. Again, not a federal case.

4. As I have pointed out with many of the other activities (Valentines cards, Halloween costumes, Christmas Trees, Menorahs, etc.) our schools have lots of things that would violate section 76 to the game extent this ceremony does. Why did this suddenly become a federal case?

I think it's because it's about natives. People get upset when natives are criticized. 

[BC_chick]

1 hour ago, msj said:

As I stated earlier in this thread: when in Thailand I was the only one in my tour group who did not partake in a Buddhist ceremony. 

I did so because although I do practice and share some Buddhist beliefs (although more Tao te Ching type stuff) I do not fall for the ceremony crap. 

I also thought it important to stand up to the peer pressure of participation. Yes, you do stand out, even as an adult, for not doing what the herd is doing. 

Watching the event was not all that inspiring as it was just the usual religious crap - they are all more same, same, but slightly different. 

Of course, one can learn about things in many different ways. 

When one is a child and the event is religious I do not think a child, in a secular school setting, should feel compelled in any way to participate in any religious ritual. 

Then can learn about it in other ways including observation (whether in person or by watching a video) and reading about it.  

I can't say I understand why you'd refrain from participating in Buddhist ritual, but it's not my place to try to. I respect that you're obviously very sensitive and I can see why you'd be upset if this was your child. 

I feel we're going in circles here but while I concede that two days notice is not ideal and I agreed that it legitimizes their argument to a degree, I find it very suspect that the parents base their grievance on the participation when the letter clearly stated that all the children would be involved. 

If I shared a mindset like yours and my child came home with that letter like that you can bet that I'd be calling the school or emailing immediately to get information.  The fact that that the date is not stated is even *more reason* why they should've called to get clarity.

They did not go to the school until after the 17th if the ceremony had taken place which means these hyper sensitive parents waited three days to inquire about the date of an event which was explicitly explained to them to be contrary to their what they feel comfortable allowing for their child. 

That's not the school's fault.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by BC_chick
grammatical corrections

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think it's because it's about natives. People get upset when natives are criticized. 

I would say the exact opposite. If my child's school decided to have a Christmas tree in the lobby and I complained, do you think I would get the attention of the national media? No, I would be written off as a quack, like the crybabies in BC should be. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I would say the exact opposite. If my child's school decided to have a Christmas tree in the lobby and I complained, do you think I would get the attention of the national media? No, I would be written off as a quack, like the crybabies in BC should be. 

Maybe if they had a Nativity scene. Christmas trees are just German. 

 

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, that's why you're so crabby...

I guess I get crabbier when I see the amount of time and money that's spent transforming these picayune issues into the sort of riveting cosmopolitan concerns that require lawyers, judges, politicians and accountants to sort out.

[Boges]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess I get crabbier when I see the amount of time and money that's spent transforming these picayune issues into the sort of riveting cosmopolitan concerns that require lawyers, judges, politicians and accountants to sort out.

Must hate the Human Rights Tribunal then eh? 

[Boges]

41 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I would say the exact opposite. If my child's school decided to have a Christmas tree in the lobby and I complained, do you think I would get the attention of the national media? No, I would be written off as a quack, like the crybabies in BC should be. 

Christmas trees aren't religious rituals, they're cultural symbols. That being said, school do a lot to minimize any cultural relevance of certain mainstream Holidays. I've heard of schools call October 31st, Orange and Black day and severely restrict the type of costumes kids can wear. It's rare you'll hear mention of Christmas at a public school. It's Winter Holidays, to be inclusive of other cultural group. Even though most know that Christmas has a Pagan heritage. 

People who would call this smudging a cultural symbol haven't read the relevance of it. It's obviously meant to clear the room of evil spirits. Imagine an exorcism being demonstrated in a public school? 

However a more apt comparison is a communion or a prayer session where students are encouraged to participate. These things would be unheard of in a public school. 

[herples]

Better to wait and see what the court says.

[msj]

 

4 hours ago, BC_chick said:

I can't say I understand why you'd refrain from participating in Buddhist ritual, but it's not my place to try to. I respect that you're obviously very sensitive and I can see why you'd be upset if this was your child. 

 

Oh isn't that a nice little crap to thing to say.

There are lots of reasons to not participate: 

1) I'm not a practicing Buddhist.

2) if I was I would find it a mockery to have others insincerely mimick my rituals which I would presumably take seriously and sincerely as a practicing member. 

3) #2 is a big one for me because while I'm an atheist, I do respect others rights to sincerely believe what they want to believe. I may think it's pure crap but they have a right to hold their beliefs sincerely and so long as they don't bug me then I won't mock them. 

4) why participate in something that you are not? I have not been baptized nor smudged because I am not a Christian nor of First Nations heritage (well, not quite enough anyway, its complicated).  

Edited November 18, 2016 by msj

[msj]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think it's because it's about natives. People get upset when natives are criticized. 

Let me put it to you this way: if this was a story of an Evangelical Protestant group coming into a school on less than 2 days warning and having the kids "learn" about baptisms by dunking them in water and stating a few Biblical words then not only would I be supporting the lawsuit against the school for promotion of a religion but I would be wondering how complicit the staff were in this event. 

Up till now I've given the administration a pass in this regard but, to be fair, I have to wonder to what extent they are just incompetent and to what extent they wanted the kids to "accidently" particpate in this "voluntary" event even though the letter was awful and the timing suspect. 

That is, am I giving them a pass because this event was related to First Nations religious practices so I assume that these people are not as underhanded as I think/know Christians to be?

[The_Squid]

Opting out provisions don't save an unconstitutional practice.  If this practice is deemed to be against the Charter, then parents opting out of it can't justify the practice continuing.  It must be stopped anyway.

And this is clearly a religious ceremony.  The courts have a very broad interpretation as to what is religious.

 

[msj]

5 hours ago, ?Impact said:

1. Yes, more than 36 hours notice would be nice. Not however a federal case.

2. Yes, including the date should have been done. Again, not a federal case.

4. As I have pointed out with many of the other activities (Valentines cards, Halloween costumes, Christmas Trees, Menorahs, etc.) our schools have lots of things that would violate section 76 to the game extent this ceremony does. Why did this suddenly become a federal case?

It's a case because someone is willing to step up and take it to court. 

The practice ought to be considered the same as if Evangelical's came to the school and started dunking kids in water to cleanse them. 

Clearly that would be contra the School Act and as The Squid nicely states above: if this practice is deemed to be against the Charter then the practice must stop anyway. 

Only way to know for sure is to take it to court. 

If you want to pursue Xmas trees and Halloween decorations in the courts then be my guest. 

[BC_chick]

1 hour ago, msj said:

 

 

Oh isn't that a nice little crap to thing to say.

There are lots of reasons to not participate: 

1) I'm not a practicing Buddhist.

2) if I was I would find it a mockery to have others insincerely mimick my rituals which I would presumably take seriously and sincerely as a practicing member. 

3) #2 is a big one for me because while I'm an atheist, I do respect others rights to sincerely believe what they want to believe. I may think it's pure crap but they have a right to hold their beliefs sincerely and so long as they don't bug me then I won't mock them. 

4) why participate in something that you are not? I have not been baptized nor smudged because I am not a Christian nor of First Nations heritage (well, not quite enough anyway, its complicated).  

Crap?  

You say that you were the only person in your tour group who didn't participate.  

Unless the rest of your group was all of the above, then yes, you're the one obviously with a sensitivity issue.

 

[BC_chick]

I think this is where the legal term 'reasonable' person would apply.  I don't blame the school one bit for thinking a reasonable person would not care about something like this.

I also don't think it's the school's fault that these people claim they didn't know their child would actually participate in something like that when the letter says exactly what the event is and what the children will be doing.  Nor is it the school's fault that the lazy parents didn't call the number on the letter or email the school, and instead waited three days to get their asses down to the school to say "hey that thing you so explained in great detail, I don't like it, when is that so I can keep my kid at home?".

I hope they lose massively.  Big jerks.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by BC_chick

[msj]

Just now, BC_chick said:

Crap?  

You say that you were the only person in your tour group who didn't participate.  

Unless the rest of your group was all of the above, then yes, you're the one obviously with a sensitivity issue.

 

I have never been one to follow the herd which is probably part of it. 

I also will guess that some thought they were being polite to make the motions and partake in it. 

In my view they are rude, insincere, mockers. 

Again, if you do not sincerely believe then you should not participate. That is only "sensitive" in that I actually am more respectful than the people who participate think they are being. 

Yes my wife and I had a little discussion about it. The anthropologist in her wanted to partake in it and she was not impressed when I told her that this is exactly why anthropology is considered a social science.

There was no love that night. 

[BC_chick]

Just now, msj said:

I have never been one to follow the herd which is probably part of it. 

I also will guess that some thought they were being polite to make the motions and partake in it. 

In my view they are rude, insincere, mockers. 

Again, if you do not sincerely believe then you should not participate. That is only "sensitive" in that I actually am more respectful than the people who participate think they are being. 

Yes my wife and I had a little discussion about it. The anthropologist in her wanted to partake in it and she was not impressed when I told her that this is exactly why anthropology is considered a social science.

There was no love that night. 

I started off by stating that sentence to empathize with why you'd be upset about something like this even though I don't understand it one bit.  But I really don't want to make this about you.  

I had a lot more to say about the discussion itself which you didn't even address.

[DogOnPorch]

I suppose we'll be making Muslims light Menorahs and celebrate Passover.

No?? Why not?

[msj]

5 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

I think this is where the legal term 'reasonable' person would apply.  I don't blame the school one bit for thinking a reasonable person would not care about something like this.

 

 

 So, you are saying that if Evangelical Christians went to the school on less than 2 days warning and baptized grade 3 students then you are cool with it? 

 

[BC_chick]

8 minutes ago, msj said:

 So, you are saying that if Evangelical Christians went to the school on less than 2 days warning and baptized grade 3 students then you are cool with it? 

 

If Canada had a history of indoctrinating young minds with First Nation spirituality, then maybe I'd see the two on par.  I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

As I said before, to me this is like going on a student exchange program through the school (its core objective to make students aware of other cultures) and getting all uptight because they visited the Vatican on a field trip and the Vicar blessed your child.

Edited November 18, 2016 by BC_chick

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

Must hate the Human Rights Tribunal then eh? 

I really don't give it a lot of thought to tell you the truth.

[-1=e^ipi]

5 minutes ago, BC_chick said:

and getting all uptight because they visited the Vatican on a field trip and the Vicar blessed your child.

If public funds were being used to 'bless children' then I'd have a problem with that as well.

[msj]

No, my scenario is exactly equivalent: 

One religious group comes in and performs their little cleansing ritual with burning sage versus another religious group coming in to perform their little cleansing ritual with water. 

That's why it is wrong for either group to come in. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by msj

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, msj said:

The practice ought to be considered the same as if Evangelical's came to the school and started dunking kids in water to cleanse them. 

 

34 minutes ago, msj said:

No, my scenario is exactly equivalent: 

One religious group comes in and performs their little cleansing ritual with burning sage versus another religious group coming in to perform their little cleansing ritual with water. 

Actually your scenario is not the same at all. First from a physical standpoint, burning sage is vastly different than dunking someone in water. If you compared it to using holy water to make the sign of the cross for example then it would similar in a physical standpoint. From a symbolic standpoint it is also vastly different. Baptism is about the individual, not about ridding of evil spirits. It is about purification and regeneration of the individual and about admitting them into the Christian church. 

A better equivalent would be the use of incense during a service to symbolize the prayers being lifted up towards God.

[msj]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

 

4. As I have pointed out with many of the other activities (Valentines cards, Halloween costumes, Christmas Trees, Menorahs, etc.) our schools have lots of things that would violate section 76 to the game extent this ceremony does. Why did this suddenly become a federal case?

Lets also add to the list as reasons why this should be a federal case: https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Servatius-v-SD70-EXHIBITS.pdf

I suggest you read pages 23 through 29 to get a better sense of the issues. 

This is not merely a case of one cleansing ritual. 

In January of this year it appears that there has been another incident involving a prayer. 

That is a repeat offence after already being warned by the parent that the initial incident was unacceptable. 

It appears likely that had the school not violated section 76 twice we would have never known of the first incident as the parent was not going to pursue it. 

I also ask people to read the remaining pages thereafter as it lays out the various rulings from other cases and reasons for the Charter challenge. 

I particularly enjoy the email from Greg Smyth (Superintendent for SD70) who responds in an email that they need more time. [see page 37]

Oh, the irony is so laughable. 

Then keep reading noting the dates and lack of professionalism on the School Districts' part.  

Timeliness is a one way street it seems. 

What a clown show our bureaucrats offer us. 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by msj