Student suspended for dressing like a pirate.

[PyratePhil]

But then, most kids don't have a Dad whot teaches martial arts.

Or would go talk to the teacher in Pyrate garb ?......

Exactly!

[Sir Eric]

It's not about the distraction. Remember, the kid was asked several times to remove the eye-patch. Had he simply removed it, there would be NO ISSUE here. I agree that not being in the room means none of us know what really happened. The kid may have simply been sitting there, minding his own business, trying earnestly to learn like a good student, and the teacher may have been a grumpy, funless and sour person with a thing against youthfull expression.

The kid still defied the accepted authority. Yes, we teach kids about all the great rebels who changed the world while expecting them to conform, but surprise surprise, that's how our society works. We do have freedom, but we're expected to abide by certain laws, regulations and social structures. When we don't, there's a punishment. Kids should learn that as well.

I was going to avoid this, but if claiming religious faith to an entity that was invented to prove a point about the Kansas Board of Education's Science Standards is a legitamate platform, then kids should also be allowed to eat ice-cream in class because the Great Vanilla God wishes it so, wear gorilla suits and throw feces because it follows the tenants of Father Darwin, and pull their pants down in order to honor the Moon Goddess. I know I've just riled up all the Pastafarians, but please... let's keep the argument of religious freedom centered on legitimate religion, not on kitchky fads, otherwise the meaning of the phrase is completely debased.

[PyratePhil]

It's not about the distraction. 

The kid still defied the accepted authority. Yes, we teach kids about all the great rebels who changed the world while expecting them to conform, but surprise surprise, that's how our society works.  We do have freedom, but we're expected to abide by certain laws, regulations and social structures.  When we don't, there's a punishment.  Kids should learn that as well.

I was going to avoid this, but if claiming religious faith to an entity that was invented to prove a point about the Kansas Board of Education's Science Standards is a legitamate platform, then kids should also be allowed to eat ice-cream in class because the Great Vanilla God wishes it so, wear gorilla suits and throw feces because it follows the tenants of Father Darwin, and pull their pants down in order to honor the Moon Goddess.  I know I've just riled up all the Pastafarians, but please... let's keep the argument of religious freedom centered on legitimate religion, not on kitchky fads,  otherwise the meaning of the phrase is completely debased.

Well, I replied to the distraction argument because it was already brought up several times in this thread. Still, I reserve my final judgment until I know exactly what went on in that classroom - which is pretty much never.

Maybe I'm still too much of an aging hippie, but I think questioning authority is one of the best ways to improve the system - if it's done the proper way, of course. Come to think of it, that might be what this entire thing hinges upon.

Re: religions...awww, now you got me going... ...

My main response to your last paragraph is, WHO establishes what a "legitimate religion" is? I've been discussing this on my religion and spirituality board for years, in addition to having studied it quite extensively for my Metaphysics degree (my "useless" degree, as my lady friend used to call it LOL).

It falls into two camps - one recognized by the IRS (because of the filing of a non-profit/church status); one recognized through the graces of Christianity, which states that a church exists outside the regulations of Man. Since the IRS status is merely for non-taxation and other corporate perks, many smaller, less established and less popular assemblies use the second argument. I know of hundreds of churches that are "legitimate", although they do not meet, nor care to meet, IRS sanctions.

If the Pastafarians have filed and had accepted a church status with the IRS, then you are bound by law to recognize them as a legitimate church (playing by those social rules you mentioned). If they have not, then the very fact that they claim themselves to be a church is enough to qualify them as "legitimate", at least to the practitioners. Just because we might not agree with their main premises doesn't allow us to claim them illegitimate.

We could claim them silly, ridiculous or insane, but not illegitimate.

PS - just did a quick search on the FSM site and couldn't find any evidence of it being a 501©(3) - there WAS a brief discussion of going that direction back in '06, but that's all I found. Not sure what their present status is.

[LongTom]

It's not about the distraction.  Remember, the kid was asked several times to remove the eye-patch.  Had he simply removed it, there would be NO ISSUE here.  I agree that not being in the room means none of us know what really happened.  The kid may have simply been sitting there, minding his own business, trying earnestly to learn like a good student, and the teacher may have been a grumpy, funless and sour person with a thing against youthfull expression.

The kid still defied the accepted authority. Yes, we teach kids about all the great rebels who changed the world while expecting them to conform, but surprise surprise, that's how our society works.  We do have freedom, but we're expected to abide by certain laws, regulations and social structures.  When we don't, there's a punishment.  Kids should learn that as well.

The problem is, it is only legitimate if it is about the distraction, or safety, or some other thing plausibly related to the conduct of instruction. The teacher does not get to be absolute dictator in his classroom. As the Supreme Court has famously said, students do not forfeit their Constitutional rights at the classroom door.

I was going to avoid this, but if claiming religious faith to an entity that was invented to prove a point about the Kansas Board of Education's Science Standards is a legitamate platform, then kids should also be allowed to eat ice-cream in class because the Great Vanilla God wishes it so, wear gorilla suits and throw feces because it follows the tenants of Father Darwin, and pull their pants down in order to honor the Moon Goddess. I know I've just riled up all the Pastafarians, but please... let's keep the argument of religious freedom centered on legitimate religion, not on kitchky fads,  otherwise the meaning of the phrase is completely debased.

That is kind of the whole point, isn't it? If you are in the business of deciding what is a "legitimate" religion and what is not, then you might as well start agitating to de-certify Presbyterianism, if it doesn't suit your agenda. Either you are for freedom of religion or you are not. There is no middle ground.

Two thousand years, ago, there was this cult of Jesus that had, what, a dozen members? Are you siding with the duly constituted authorities who would have preferred to stamp it out in its infancy?

This is why the argument must necessarily center not on whether my beliefs, as an individual or as part of a larger group, constitute "legitimate religion" or "a kitschy fad," but whether governmental actions to suppress or regulate my actions surrounding those beliefs have a rational basis. I am an avowed Jeffersonian on issues like this:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Of course the teacher may prohibit ice cream eating, as it interferes with the performance of classroom activities. Likewise the throwing of feces, as it is an undisputed health hazard to the targets. And so on. When the dispute boils down to the man occupying the seat of power simply disliking something, his powers of control take a backseat to the other person's freedom. Our system sets a higher bar than "because I'm in charge and I don't like it, that's why."

[captjacksparrowsavvvy]

Our system sets a higher bar than "because I'm in charge and I don't like it, that's why."

My motto at home" because I'm the mom and I say so!"...LOL

I am enjoying this thread tremendously...

I am an ageless hippie,still hoping that our troops will come home before Christmas and waiting for the kids protesting on campus to break out into song"I'm only 18, I got a ruptured spleen and I always carry a purse..."

sigh, the good ol' days.

I have 4 kids of my own 24,24,21, and 18. I was extremely fortunate to be able to be a stay-at-home mom and be with my kids 24/7. I do not regret it and would do it again in a heart beat.

My kids are not perfect by no means and have gotten into trouble but I do believe things would have been a lot worse had I not been around for all those years. I am still there for them should they need me. (and yes they do even at these ages)

One thing I emphasize to my kids is respecting the teacher and staff at school. I didn't care if they failed a test or got a d on a report card. I wanted them to behave in school and I was rewarded with many years of compliments on how well my kids behaved all through the school years. One teacher even asked if I was planning any more kids because he enjoyed my kids in his class. They did what they were told and didn't sass back.

I am a director of Religious Ed at a Catholic school with over 700 kids. It is beyond frustrating to see the lack of respect from a good majority of these kids. Some of the children have issues or special needs and I know they are acting out but there are many kids that have no rhyme nor reason behind their disruptive behavior.

Some parents are kids themselves. Grandparents are raising grandchildren. There are single moms or single dads just barely getting by and many extended families. Again, this does not always attribute to bad behavior. We can't pinpoint it and it's really useless to try to find the cause.

IN the case of this boy with the eye patch, since I didn't read the article, I don't know all the circumstances but again, I feel that if the teacher made a request to remove the eye patch, it should have been done and the whole situation would have been finished.

Sad thing is, all the kids in the class lose valuable time because of the incident. this is exam prep time and well, every minute is precious right now.

Yes, there are always good kids that get overshadowed by the attention-seekers or just plain jerks in class. Hopefully the goof-off's will learn something from their peers before it's too late.

[Pirate Seika]

Unfortunately... there really isn't any intelligence on either side here..... of course the teachers and school played into his hands and he got the attention he was looking for....

Perhaps I could open The Church of the Flintlock & Cutlass or Church of the Skull & Crossbones and post a website and register it as a not for profit religious entity and voila... hahahah

i went to school in the 80's with a big black mohawk and leather jacket.. etc...

and was NEVER asked to wear my hair down or change my jacket... i think the school went overboard here (pardon the pun) is it really a question of religion? or freedom of expression? hard to say....

was he actually causing anyone harm.. and did he just show up like this outta the blue.. or was he dressing like this all the time..? if so and it hadn't bothered anyone in the past.. why now?

me in the 80's

[LongTom]

Assuming the kid wasn't waving the blowup sword and cracking wise with Pastafarian piratese during the lesson, by far the smart thing for the teacher to do would have been to completely ignore his little, ahem, eccentricity. (There is nothing more deflating to a jokester than the sound of crickets chirping...) Then the ball would be in the kid's court to push the issue or not (read: anything further the kid did at that point would incontrovertibly be speaking out of turn, and would merit discipline).

Assuming the opposite behavior (that he was in fact cutting up in class), then it is entirely appropriate to say "You'll get these back at the end of the day," or worse if necessary.

If it was the other kids who were reacting to his get-up, then hell, send THEM out of the room. People should be responsible for their own behavior.

Not knowing which of those dynamics was actually in play that day, I can't say why the teacher did what he did, or whether he was out of line or not.

In all three cases, however, the message is consistent: You are here to LEARN. Either sit down, shut up, and learn, or get out. I don't give a damn what you wear, so long as you are participating civilly in my lesson, so you may as well give up trying to make a scene with it.

[captjacksparrowsavvvy]

Yes, the bottom line is to sit down and get on with the lesson. Class time is short to begin with.

Oh dear, I don't have many pics of me from the late 60's or 70's. Perhaps it's better that way~ my hair was long as Melanie and Joni Mitchell's. I played folk guitar with everyone and it was an extremely difficult time for my parents as they had no clue what the hell was going on.

We were the class that broke the dress code in 1969...No more dresses, skirts or dress pants. It was bell bottoms, hip huggers, love beads, peace signs, head bands,Flag patches and California grass.

When we protested, it was hundreds of kids, usually sitting down and singing peace songs to make a statement and get attention. It wasn't one kid with a pirate eye patch but funny how one person can get the media's attention. Hey, maybe this kid will be the one to find the cure for cancer, ya never know.

I remember in the early 60's in grade school, when a boy wore a Beatle wig to class, he was disciplined. The next year, he grew his hair long like the Beatles(yes that was considered long back then)

My mom refused to let me have a Beatles wig. I wonder if they are worth anything on Ebay? LOL

sorry I am reminiscing...

[Sir Eric]

There have been some really great points made, and it's been a fun conversation to engage in, that's for sure.

Good point about what constitutes a "legitamate" religion. I must conceede that what seems like bunk to me could easily be the answer somebody else is seeking. If you wanna worship a rubber duck, worship a rubber duck. Do what ya gotta do. And in retrospect, I can see the point.

But, I find it far too ironic to confirm "legitimate" status on a "religion" specifically created to poke fun at other peoples idea of religion.

[John_Young]

Note to Long Tom: No... the "Cult of Jesus" had more than 12 members. He had 12 "teachers" or "deacons" or just "Bodyguards", but to call the Disciples the only members... well it wouldn't be a major religion if no one believed and followed, eh?

[PyratePhil]

But, I find it far too ironic to confirm "legitimate" status on a "religion" specifically created to poke fun at other peoples idea of religion.

Understood and appreciated.

That's probably one of the reasons why "religion" is such a hot-button topic - we (many of us) have our own belief systems in place and don't appreciate being lectured to.

I've always said that religion just gets in the way of being a holy person...

[Sir Eric]

I've always said that religion just gets in the way of being a holy person...

Belief is the most powerful force in the universe. Just ask Yoda.

[PyratePhil]

Belief is the most powerful force in the universe. Just ask Yoda.

Ask him I may.

Answer me he may not.

[LongTom]

There have been some really great points made, and it's been a fun conversation to engage in, that's for sure.

I do enjoy a vigorous debate. Thanks for adding your thoughts (and putting up with mine).

Good point about what constitutes a "legitamate" religion.  I must conceede that what seems like bunk to me could easily be the answer somebody else is seeking.  If you wanna worship a rubber duck, worship a rubber duck.  Do what ya gotta do.  And in retrospect, I can see the point. 

Yup, or maybe worship an elephant-headed boy, if that's your thing. (That's Ganesha, from Hindu mythology. Probably sounds like bunk to the average Catholic.)

But, I find it far too ironic to confirm "legitimate" status on a "religion" specifically created to poke fun at other peoples idea of religion.  

Pastafarianism was not created to poke fun at Religion per se. Rather it pokes fun at the Kansas State Board of Education, granting "legitimate" status as science to something that obviously is not. To put it another way, Intelligent Design gets to be called Science (even though it's obviously not), but the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster does NOT get to be called Religion (even though it's obviously not)? Ironic indeed.

[captjacksparrowsavvvy]

Yup, or maybe worship an elephant-headed boy, if that's your thing. (That's Ganesha, from Hindu mythology. Probably sounds like bunk to the average Catholic.)

Is this remark intended to slight me? Just curious, because if you are trying to take a jab, then you have crossed the line in this discussion.

This average Catholic understands,acknowledges and RESPECTS others religions and beliefs. It's not bunk to me or others in my church. Sad that you would think that way.

Funny that you just mentioned 'Catholic', not making reference to 'Jew','Buddist','Jain','Muslim' or 'atheist'...Perhaps they are not "average" or don't fall in the "bunk" category?

BTW, Ganesha is a pot-bellied man not a boy.

[LongTom]

Easy, there...

I mentioned Catholic because it is one of the branches of Christianity. I am unaware of any politically active proponents of Intelligent Design from other major faith groups such as Hinduism. I have no idea which specific branches of Christianity are active in Intelligent Design. (For that matter, I did not recall that you were Catholic at the time I wrote.) I suppose that I could have picked Southern Baptist instead, and it probably would have been nearer the mark for Kansas, but think how much that would be seen as a swipe.

Regarding bunk, respecting and acknowledging others' beliefs is not the same as believing them to be true. Ganesha is certainly not part of Catholic canon. I doubt you "believe in him," in the same sense that you believe in Christ. (You could surprise me on this point. ) In my opinion, it says nothing disrespectful to claim that the average Catholic will regard Ganesha as a figure of myth rather than revealed truth.

You could say the exact same thing about an adherent of Judaism, Islam, Jainism, or any other faith in which Ganesha does not play a part in the cosmology; but for me to be rigorously inclusive on this point of protocol would make my writing even more unwieldy than it is already.

Regarding the Ganesha as boy vs as man aspect, I was remembering one of the stories of how he got his elephant head. If memory serves, he was a boy at the time; but it's been a while since I read that, and my memory is not the greatest.

It is not my intent to provoke anybody, or anything other than some thought. I apologize if I got overenthusiastic. I wish you a joyous Easter.

[PyratePhil]

Bah, humbug!

As a Taoist I've been on the receiving end of plenty of slurs - from every faith imaginable, but because I live in a country that's predominantly Christian, I experience it the most from them. And if I said it any other way, I would be rightly accused of currying favor or trying to be PC.

It isn't personal - it's a numbers game.

[LongTom]

Some highly illuminating reading:

Tinker v Des Moines School District

This is the Supreme Court decision whence came the line I misquoted earlier. Here's the actual wording: It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Very interesting reading.