Police say rosaries are newest gang symbol

[flashl]

ALBANY, Ore. — Never did Jaime Salazar imagine that wearing a rosarylike crucifix to school would provoke a national stir.

But when Salazar, 14, and his 16-year-old friend Marco Castro were suspended recently for refusing to remove the religious beads because they were "gang-related," it thrust the issue into the headlines and has triggered questions over the evolving role of rosaries in religion, fashion and street gangs.

In the latest cultural take on a symbol that has gone from Catholic altars to Britney Spears' bosom, the rosary is blurring the lines of liberty and safety on campus.

Some call the rosary-gang connection a stretch and urge caution. But for educators and public safety officials charged with blocking fluid gang trends, rosaries have become one more marker to track suspicious activity.

USA Today

[Slagathor]

1. They always have been

All overt displays of religion need to be banned from public schools. Any other stance is to go against the separation of church and state. We need to follow France's lead on this one.

[goddess40]

3. I agree 100% BUT

that will give them the push to take over school boards like they did in some areas with the issue of evolution.

[SoxFan]

5. Screw the First Amendment, right?

There's this little thing called the Free Exercise Clause...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What far too many people forget is that the First Amendment's protections extend to the practice of religion as well as to preventing the state from shoving a particular brand down everyone's throat. Barring public school students from reasonable expressions of religiosity would be an unconstitiutional violation of their rights.

[Slagathor]

10. Exactly... banning them would be supporting the First Amendment

schools allowing religious trinkets = tacit approval of specific religious messages = establishment = violation of first amendment

[SoxFan]

12. No

Banning them violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, thus violating the Constitutional rights of the students.

[Slagathor]

16. No

not banning them = the school approving of the religion = violating the first amendment rights of those not manacled by ignorant superstition.

[SoxFan]

22. Read SCOTUS precedent

It doesn't back up your assertion at all. The legal issue here would be whether a proposed ban meets the three-part Lemon test.

[MaryCeleste]

17. Allowing student expression is not the same as supporting religeon

If there was a rigid dress code, then all expression would be banned, but several groups, including Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims would whine loudly. I personally have no problem with a small necklaces, rings, special underwear, dummy kirpans, and yarmulkes. Head scarf would be borderline since it would interfere with PE, but could be worked.

With this particular incident, at first it was described as the type of rosary (hand crafted with certain colors). At the time it was not clear it was all rosaries. Also be interesting to know if the school is banning possession as well.

In the long run, uniforms are going to be the right answer for schools. Otherwise just about everything will be banned for causing offense somewhere. A colleague claimed at work today that at his son's public school that wearing shirts with large amounts of orange or shirts that support the Northern Ireland and the UK would be considered inappropriate and disruptive. Add that to the other litany of complaints, and uniforms are certainty

[Goblinmonger]

7. Students have the right to display their religion

as long as it is not a disruption of the school day (that would be in the US, of course). They should be able to wear their rosary.

[Slagathor]

9. I don't think so

allowing students to display a religious trinket really does mean that the school implicitly approves of that student's ability to proselytize on campus, with the other children (due to their legal responsibility to attend school) as being trapped into witnessing the religious message. No. These superstitious baubles ought to be banned from school grounds.

[MaryCeleste]

18. Fortunately the law and the courts disagree with you

I am not much for religion either, but its part of the fabric of American life, and if unobtrusive should be allowed in school and work settings.

[happyslug]

11. That would violate the First Amendment.

Remember the First Amendment, it has two parts:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

If you BAN religious symbols form Schools, you are prohibiting the free exercise of said religion. Unless the practice interferes with Education directly AND is uniformly enforced against ALL such symbols (including Political symbols, environmental symbols or any other symbol from any movement or group) it would violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

"Free Exercise" is like "Free Speech" to restrict it is to ban. Thus any restriction must be view with strict interpretation under the First Amendment (and most fail). Congress, when it passed the First Amendment, wanted to protect two aspects of Religion and any other Group or Movement, First that the Government can NOT establish a Religion (Or any other Movement or Group) but that the Government also can NOT restrict any Religion (Or any other Movement or Group).

It is sometime difficult to do both but the First Amendment requires BOTH, thus any ban on religious symbols (And Political, Group or Movement Symbols) unless it causes a clear and indisputable harm (And that Harm would still exist if the symbol was NON-Religious in nature nor Political, Group or Movement related).

[Random_Australian]

31. How so? I'd quite like to hear your reasoning. I'm a *tad* skeptical of your claims.

:)

[goddess40]

2. They're getting smarter

I don't see how the school can get around this one without the fundy nut jobs going crazy or should that be crazier.

[MaryCeleste]

19. Try the Jews, Mormons, Sikhs, Muslims and others

well before the xtian crowd. If I took your approach to its logical conclusion, no special meals including vegetarian, vegan, halal, or kosher.

[Hugabear]

4. Good - get rid of ALL religious items in schools

School isn't the place for people to display how religious they are. This includes rosaries, crosses, crucifixes, bibles, headscarfs, etc.

[SoxFan]

6. The First Amendment disagrees

The 1st Amendment protects the free exercise of religion.

[DeSwiss]

20. So are you saying....

...that children are going to school to exercise their religion? Or to learn? Where does it end? Is there no line?

Sheesh. I think some people need to get a grip.

I think that religion should be freely exercised where religion is free to be exercised. In church. Or anywhere in public not set aside for specific public/secular activities and purposes. The exercise of religion is not a public-sponsored nor funded activity.

And what about my right NOT to be exposed to anyone's religion. How can you protect my right while exercising yours?

The only way that I know how is to keep them separate and where they belong.

IMO

===============================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[SoxFan]

23. This is atheist fundamentalism

You apparently believe that religious expression should be ghettoized, kept in churches, mosques, and synagogues, and kept out of public view at all times. That's ludicrous, and it isn't supported by 200 years of SCOTUS precedent. Do yourself a favor and actually read some of the Supreme Court cases on the issues of free exercise. City of Boerne and Lemon are good places to start.

[DeSwiss]

25. What I find ludicrous is words like "atheist fundamentalism"

What the hell does that mean? Nothing as far as I can see.

Religionists can't conceive of the idea of "no religions" without parsing it and putting it into some kind context that they're familiar with. And a pejorative connotation at that.

And I also hadn't been aware that churches, mosques, and synagogues were considered "ghettos." I come from the ghetto and there were churches and such there -- just like everywhere else.

What I believe is this: people have the right to make fools of themselves using all the cognitive dissonance they can muster to prop-up their belief in things that they would otherwise never except and that make no sense.

What I believe is that no one has the right to make me listen to, nor otherwise be exposed to those beliefs.

What I believe is that religionists think they should have rights that supersede mine.

And I already did myself the greatest favor possible when I walked away from religion.

And as a point of information, I don't consider myself an atheist. I hate labels but I can't change that. But atheists are at least realists, and I prefer the company of people who live in the reality-based community as opposed to people who live in the world of delusion...

-Have a nice day!

[MaryCeleste]

26. You missed a key point when you said

That I believe is that no one has the right to make me listen to, nor otherwise be exposed to those beliefs.

No one can make you listen, but you have no right to control your "exposure" to it if you go out in the public square. There other people's free speech rights take precedence over your not wanting to see or hear it. The muslims can wear their headscarfs and the Mormons their holy underwear. If that offends you look away. You do not have the right not to be offended or not exposed.

[DeSwiss]

34. I agree with the "public square" exposure example.

But schools aren't in the publc square.

If a religious groups wants to use a public park, I can go to another park. But one can't just go to another school when one is offended by religious dogma.

[cynatnite]

32. Keep in mind schools are not free speech or freedom of expression zones...

and they shouldn't be.

The courts have sided with the schools time and time again when it comes to dress codes, speech and yes...even religion. I'm all for freedom of expression, freedom of religion and free speech, but reality is that public schools have the right to control what kids wear, what they say and what they do while at school.

[peace13]

15. Crosses?????

Good luck with that one. What about my peace sign necklace that I have worn since 2001, should that go? Really I don't care one iota for formal religion but you are opening up a real can of worms here.

[chelsea0011]

8. Oh NO! Now, Catholics are going to have to disavow gangs.

Is Faux news on this?

[msongs]

13. in many ways the catholic church IS a gang and has murder far more people in 2000 yrs nt

[DeSwiss]

21. Well said....

And the worst of the whole lot in my book....

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaryCeleste]

27. What of their recent efforts?

They have been at times the sole progressive voice speaking out for the poor and oppressed in Latin America and elsewhere.

[SoxFan]

28. There you go again, Mary

injecting truth into a situation where it conflicts with their nice, smug assumptions!

[varkam]

30. It's a mixed bag.

It's obvious to me that the Catholic Church has done good and is very capable of it, but it's also clear that they've done some pretty heinous shit (for example, they're way behind the curve on the whole AIDs prevention thing for the sake of a prohibition on contraception). Hey, at least they're still not burnining heretics at the stake :hide:

[Realityhack]

36. The sole voice?

Um. No. I think not. One of few yes. But the absolute only one? no.
You are also conveniently overlooking issues people raise with their recent behavior with respect to the spread of aids (for example).

[moonlady0623]

14. OH for HEAVEN'S SAKE

I live near Albany and have spent years working in my small community in prevention of at-risk behaviors. While I am sure there are some Hispanic kids running around wearing Rosaries they are TEENAGERS. I used to wear long hair and love beads. It's a matter of style. Given that, I've seen police from Portland come into our small towns and warn us of gang dangers to the point of absurdity.

Teens follow fashion.
Teens will wear dog excrement if they think their parents will be shocked.

This is the same mentality that included the following in a meth-awareness guide for neighbors:
* Goes outside to smoke
* Has parties
* Has multiple vehicles

Ok so now I'm a meth cooker in my community because....

makes me NUTS. But then I WAS the teenager with the long hair and the love beads back in 1966 in a small town..............

[Realityhack]

35. I dissagree to some extent

Gangs are a serious problem in some areas.
Gang members use specific clothing, symbols, etc. to advertise their affiliation.
A rosary could easily be the symbol of a specific gang in a specific location.

Now I believe the schools actions may have been illegal in this case (it's hard to tell given the limited information available on cases involving minors). However, I think it would be silly to offhandedly dismiss the possibility that a gang or gangs in a particular area where using the rosary to advertise that they where protected by their gang. In fact it might strike them as an ideal symbol specifically because of the issues around controlling it's display.

Of course that does not make it universally a gang symbol but it does pose a distinct problem for educators who are charged with providing a safe environment for all students while adhering to the subset of constitutional protections afforded to students within the classroom.

[cosmik debris]

29. Is it a gang or a cult?

Is there a difference? I can't tell.

[Sanctified]

33. Public education is quickly becoming a joke thankfully there are alternatives. n/t