Good Friday

[newjdgirl]

Ya know, I hope they ALL stay home. Serves the school board right for taking the holiday off the calendar. Last time I checked Christianity is the majority religion in this country (for a little while longer at least) and yet the government schools continue to cater to the minority. It just pisses me off.

(((((getting off soapbox))))


Many Teachers, Drivers Plan To Skip Work Good Friday
By MARILYN BROWN

The Tampa Tribune

Published: March 18, 2008

Updated: 11:25 pm

TAMPA - Requests for personal days on Good Friday are piling up for Hillsborough teachers and bus drivers, making more late buses and combined classes likely.

The school district has traditionally taken Good Friday off, but scheduled classes this year as part of a secular calendar excluding all religious holidays except Christmas.

How many of the district's 191,000 students plan to skip school this Friday is tough to predict, but teachers and bus drivers may take personal days.

"I think an awful lot of people plan to have a personal day on Friday," said Yvonne Lyons, Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association executive director. "Anybody who has a personal day left can use it Friday."

Teachers earn 10 sick days a year and may take six as personal days, she said.

Hillsborough principals are supposed to ask teachers today how many plan to take off Friday, said Ken Otero, the district chief of staff. Wednesday, a plan will be in place, he said, to deal with the absences. It is likely to include combining classes and moving substitutes from one school to another, he said.

Otero said he didn't know how many teachers had requested substitutes.

"On any given Friday, we're running out of substitutes," he said. "On Fridays and Mondays we run out." Then teachers take on extra classes during planning periods and administrators also take over classes.

"I'm more concerned with transportation than I am in the classroom," Otero said.

As of Monday afternoon, 204 bus drivers had given notice that they will take personal or sick time Friday, said John Franklin, district transportation chief. Normally it's 90 to 100 absent each day out of about 1,000 drivers.

"It's still changing - it's a moving target," Franklin said. "It's going to be a pretty big challenge here."

Many drivers are already making two and three runs to pick up students at any given time, which will obviously increase, Franklin said.

"I'm putting together a plan to minimize disruption of kids," he said.

Drivers may also use up to six days of sick leave for personal days with no questions asked, said Luis Perez, president of the Hillsborough School Employees Federation. They earn sick days based on service time.

"I know a lot of drivers are taking it off," Perez said. "I know it is a concern.'

Observance of a religious holiday is an excused absence for any student.

Taking Good Friday off has nothing to do with religion, however, said School Board Chairwoman Jennifer Faliero.

"Parents have always taken off Good Friday - they always will," Faliero said. "This is an American tradition."

School board members voted to have school on Good Friday this year and see how many students and employees took the day off for future calendars. That tally will have no use for at least another two years, however: On the 2008-09 district calendar, Good Friday is part of Spring break.

Faliero said her two daughters are going to school Friday, but then, "Monday we're going out of town. We're taking Monday off."

Reporter Marilyn Brown can be reached at (813) 259-8069 or mbrown@tampatrib.com.


Find this article at:
[Only Registered Users Can See Links.]

[BTRedhill]

Christianity is the nominal majority religion of the country as evidenced by the state of our union. If even just the major tenets of Judeo/Christian ethics were embraced by a simple majority, I'd hazard that it would be a much better country in which to live.

Bring on the "hate" . . .

[a22042]

No hate, but I can't say I disagree. The fact is there is supposed to be separation of religion from state. If you celebrate one religions holiday then you should celebrate all religious holidays.

Remember, the reason (well a major reason) the pilgrims came here in the first place was to get away from persecution from England’s (and Europe in general) religious majority.

Saying that Christianity should get preferential treatment because it is the majority religion is like saying white people should get preferential treatment because they are (for now) the majority race in the US.

You call it "catering" to the minority, some might say protecting the rights of the minorities. Along the same lines as above is it "catering" to black people to allow them ride in the front of the bus and use the same bathrooms and water fountains as white people?

I know that is an extreme analogy, but it is the same general idea. I would venture to guess that if the muslim community suggested we take Eid al-Fitr off, or if Buddhists wanted Visakah Puja off (I can go on and on for other religious holidays) Christians would not like it so much.

The fact that they are not complaining if teachers and bus drivers use personal days makes it seem not too big of a deal to me. Especially if the administration for the school districts plan ahead.

What would be worse is if the district said they could not use a personal day and everyone just called in sick that day.

And BT, I would venture to say that if the tenants of most major religions were embraced the same could be said. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, etc,. They all have deep beliefs in peace, pacifism, in general good moral teaching.

[newjdgirl]

No hate, but I can't say I disagree. The fact is there is supposed to be separation of religion from state. If you celebrate one religions holiday then you should celebrate all religious holidays.

Remember, the reason (well a major reason) the pilgrims came here in the first place was to get away from persecution from England’s (and Europe in general) religious majority.

Saying that Christianity should get preferential treatment because it is the majority religion is like saying white people should get preferential treatment because they are (for now) the majority race in the US.

You call it "catering" to the minority, some might say protecting the rights of the minorities. Along the same lines as above is it "catering" to black people to allow them ride in the front of the bus and use the same bathrooms and water fountains as white people?

I know that is an extreme analogy, but it is the same general idea. I would venture to guess that if the muslim community suggested we take Eid al-Fitr off, or if Buddhists wanted Visakah Puja off (I can go on and on for other religious holidays) Christians would not like it so much.

The fact that they are not complaining if teachers and bus drivers use personal days makes it seem not too big of a deal to me. Especially if the administration for the school districts plan ahead.

What would be worse is if the district said they could not use a personal day and everyone just called in sick that day.

And BT, I would venture to say that if the tenants of most major religions were embraced the same could be said. Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, etc,. They all have deep beliefs in peace, pacifism, in general good moral teaching.

Well, it was never a problem in the past. It's just political correctness run amok. IMHO.

[BTRedhill]

I think it's a bit of a misnomer as a result of revisionist history that the pilgrims were fleeing England as a result of religion. Yes, they were fleeing persecution, but only because the State-established Church of England (Anglican) was being shoved down their throats as the only religion. Most, not all, founders of the USA were Christians to one degree or another. Some were atheist or agnostic. Nevertheless, what they sought was a land free of State-sponsored religion, not a land devoid of religion.

Fortunately, in America, we still have the right to worship (or not worship) as we see fit. Arguably, this country was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and those beliefs are nominally embraced by the majority of the nation. (Retailers certainly don't bemoan that evil Christian holiday called Christmas.) Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently wrong with embracing our Judeo-Christian traditions and continuing to honor those so-called "holy days" even if you don't care or elect to practice another faith.

The majority would likely nominally agree with that vs. no holidays of religious significance at all. By virtue of our founding, we are a nation of tolerance. However, that tolerance should not come at the expense of the beliefs held most dear by our current majority or of those who chose to risk execution for treason to found this country as they did.

It was not founded as a Buddhist nation, nor a godless land like the USSR. People are welcome to immigrate to countries that embrace their religious and political ideologies - perhaps the USA isn't best for them. If, however, they elect to come here and not assimilate themselves to our beliefs, it should not void our right to believe and celebrate those beliefs as we see fit.

If/when they become the majority and want to institute Sharia law and tear down our churches and temples to make room for mosques, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Meanwhile, this is a sovereign land.

[newjdgirl]

I may be biased, but I couldn't have said it better, BT. :congrats:

[a22042]

Well, it was never a problem in the past. It's just political correctness run amok. IMHO.

At one point slavery was not a problem till that political correctness got in it's way:)

[newjdgirl]

At one point slavery was not a problem till that political correctness got in it's way:)

I think that is quite a stretch. Comparing a human injustice to recognizing a religious holiday celebrated by a majority of the people living in this country is like apples and oranges. I know where you are coming from and when I posted my original thought in this thread I was certain this would be your response from reading your previous postings. We just have to agree to disagree. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.

[zindex]

At one point slavery was not a problem till that political correctness got in it's way:)

thats apples and oranges.... next think you know you'll be propositioning a 15 year old girl just to make a point.... oops I already did that.

(please see teacher post for he reference mentioned above)
</IMG>

[zindex]

I think that is quite a stretch. Comparing a human injustice to recognizing a religious holiday celebrated by a majority of the people living in this country is like apples and oranges. I know where you are coming from and when I posted my original thought in this thread I was certain this would be your response from reading your previous postings. We just have to agree to disagree. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.


thats too funny I was writing my last post the same time you were writing this one and we both said apples and oranges... Jinx

[a22042]

I think it's a bit of a misnomer as a result of revisionist history that the pilgrims were fleeing England as a result of religion. Yes, they were fleeing persecution, but only because the State-established Church of England (Anglican) was being shoved down their throats as the only religion. Most, not all, founders of the USA were Christians to one degree or another. Some were atheist or agnostic. Nevertheless, what they sought was a land free of State-sponsored religion, not a land devoid of religion.

Fortunately, in America, we still have the right to worship (or not worship) as we see fit. Arguably, this country was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and those beliefs are nominally embraced by the majority of the nation. (Retailers certainly don't bemoan that evil Christian holiday called Christmas.) Nevertheless, there is nothing inherently wrong with embracing our Judeo-Christian traditions and continuing to honor those so-called "holy days" even if you don't care or elect to practice another faith.

The majority would likely nominally agree with that vs. no holidays of religious significance at all. By virtue of our founding, we are a nation of tolerance. However, that tolerance should not come at the expense of the beliefs held most dear by our current majority or of those who chose to risk execution for treason to found this country as they did.

It was not founded as a Buddhist nation, nor a godless land like the USSR. People are welcome to immigrate to countries that embrace their religious and political ideologies - perhaps the USA isn't best for them. If, however, they elect to come here and not assimilate themselves to our beliefs, it should not void our right to believe and celebrate those beliefs as we see fit.

If/when they become the majority and want to institute Sharia law and tear down our churches and temples to make room for mosques, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Meanwhile, this is a sovereign land.

You said it your self exactly right in the first paragraph, free from state sponsered religion.

You are correct in that the US was founded by Christians. But it was also founded with the notion that slavery was OK. Should we embrace that as well?

To the best of my knowledge this country is all about freedom. Not freedom as long as it is in line with what the majority believe in.

I have nothing against people being religious, taking religious days off, following what ever beliefs they want. But it should stay out of the government. If you want your kid to go to a school that follows traditional Christian holidays send him or her to public school. Otherwise if the school accomodates the Christian students, it should accomodate the Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc. as well.

You keep mentioning our "Current" majority. What happens if/when that changes? You will be Ok celebrating Ramadan or soemthing else? Majority does NOT mean right. A lot of american blood was shed throughout history to defend that belief.

It is OK to believe and worship what you want (as long as that does not hurt others in the process!). For example, I am all for a moment of silence at the beging of school. If a child wants to pray let them, if they want to stand there and pick thier nose, what ever.

As for time off, most religious holidays tend to cluster around certain times of the year. Christmas is not based on the calander date we think Christ was born, most scolars think that the timing is way off. Rather it is based on the timing of a pagan holiday around the same time.

You seem to think that Christians have the moral high ground in religion but that simply isn't true. The bible is one of the most bloody religious documents out there. Furthermore you seem to feel that just because something is the majority that means it should have special rights above minorities. That is a very dangerous trail my friend. When we start putting aside the rights of minorities we enter a dangerous place. One that many people have given thier lives to avoid.

[newjdgirl]

thats too funny I was writing my last post the same time you were writing this one and we both said apples and oranges... Jinx

Very funny, great minds think alike! :)

[newjdgirl]

You are correct in that the US was founded by Christians. But it was also founded with the notion that slavery was OK. Should we embrace that as well?



Yes, our founding fathers owned slaves. But one of the first abolishionists was Benjamin Franklin. He saw the evils of slavery and worked to stop it. Again, this isn't even comparable to my original topic.

[a22042]

I think that is quite a stretch. Comparing a human injustice to recognizing a religious holiday celebrated by a majority of the people living in this country is like apples and oranges. I know where you are coming from and when I posted my original thought in this thread I was certain this would be your response from reading your previous postings. We just have to agree to disagree. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.

I admitted it was an extreme analogy, but the concept is the same.

Your argument is that because the "majority" believe in a certain religion then it should be enforced by the government.

My point is that at one point the "majority" thought slavery was absolutely morally acceptable. Hell, the bible says slavery is Ok (if i need to I can find some quotes).

I have absolutely nothing against people celebrating a holiday. None what so ever. but that should be a personal choice, not a state enforced choice.

I am personally a very spiritual person. I feel very deeply that people should be allowed to follow their own beliefs. But I don't want the government telling me what religion is "acceptable" or "right".

If I decide to take off a day to celebrate a religion observance then that is my choice.

I tell people "merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter". At my house we celebrate both. I do not celebrate Rosh Hashanah (a Jewish holiday where work is not permitted). But I wouldn't say anything if a Jewish co-worker took it off.

My guess is if the schools decided to let all the kids off for Eid ul-Adha (an Islamic holiday) the Christian "majority" would be in an up roar.

It is that hypocrisy that I don't like. It can, and should be avoided by leaving religion and government separate.

[a22042]

Yes, our founding fathers owned slaves. But one of the first abolishionists was Benjamin Franklin. He saw the evils of slavery and worked to stop it. Again, this isn't even comparable to my original topic.

It is comparable. The whole basis of your stand point is that you feel Christian holidays should be observed because it is the "majority" religion. Back when the coutry was founded the "majority" thought slavery was Ok too.

You are saying that because you are a part of the "majority" your beliefs are more important than minorities. That it is OK to impose it upon other minority religions.

I am saying everyone has a right to thier own beliefs. i just don't feel the government should be dictating what those beliefs are.

[zindex]

If my history serves me correctly, the movement for the end of slavery was more about economics than equality. as the north became industrialized and more populated, slavery became uneconomical (not unlike the womans movement that increased the US economy by like 30% in the 60's-70s' when the work force almost doubled). I think they also found that with cheep immigrant labor you could run a factory cheaply as well as have a built in consumer base ..... slaves had no rights and could not be consumers. that is why slavery was all but gone in the industrialized north. It was also cheeper to pay a house keep or nanny that went home at night than give a slave 3 squares a day. so I'm guessing the movement came about for more self serving purposes than kindness, or blacks wouldn't have been treated like crap for the subsequent 120+ years.

[BTRedhill]

You said it your self exactly right in the first paragraph, free from state sponsered religion.

You are correct in that the US was founded by Christians. But it was also founded with the notion that slavery was OK. Should we embrace that as well?

To the best of my knowledge this country is all about freedom. Not freedom as long as it is in line with what the majority believe in.

I have nothing against people being religious, taking religious days off, following what ever beliefs they want. But it should stay out of the government. If you want your kid to go to a school that follows traditional Christian holidays send him or her to public school. Otherwise if the school accomodates the Christian students, it should accomodate the Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc. as well.

You keep mentioning our "Current" majority. What happens if/when that changes? You will be Ok celebrating Ramadan or soemthing else? Majority does NOT mean right. A lot of american blood was shed throughout history to defend that belief.

It is OK to believe and worship what you want (as long as that does not hurt others in the process!). For example, I am all for a moment of silence at the beging of school. If a child wants to pray let them, if they want to stand there and pick thier nose, what ever.

As for time off, most religious holidays tend to cluster around certain times of the year. Christmas is not based on the calander date we think Christ was born, most scolars think that the timing is way off. Rather it is based on the timing of a pagan holiday around the same time.

You seem to think that Christians have the moral high ground in religion but that simply isn't true. The bible is one of the most bloody religious documents out there. Furthermore you seem to feel that just because something is the majority that means it should have special rights above minorities. That is a very dangerous trail my friend. When we start putting aside the rights of minorities we enter a dangerous place. One that many people have given thier lives to avoid.

Civil liberties and individual religious liberties are very different animals. Slavery has existed for nearly as long as humanity has, and, to this day continues despite the obviously lackluster efforts to eradicate it.

At no point did I suggest that Christians (or Jews) have a moral high ground. What I did argue is that Christian tenets are the cornerstone of this nation and as such should retain their place of honor. If you, collectively, wish to reside in a land where another religion or no religion is embraced, the world is full of very viable options. Intolerant, hateful Islamic law: Iran, Saudi. Atheism? China, former (soon to be rejuvenated) USSR. Hindu? India is a good start. Yet few of those nations permit the degree of "tolerance" that these minorities have imposed on Americans in the name of political correctness.

Our melting pot has become so homogenized that it isn't even recognizable any more. We have elected, sometimes quite literally, to stand for nothing and as a result have fallen for everything.

No one stands in amazement when a man walks down the middle of a 40' wide street. But when that same man walks a narrow steel cable 40' above the ground, folks take notice. Maybe it's time that we choose a narrower path.

It galls me that in the name of political correctness and by creating victims from our minority groups, we have lost our identity. We have become a nation of victims requiring governmental pandering. BTW, this entire dialogue would be banned in many of religiously-motivated countries I noted above.

As for the Bible being a bloody book, yep, you're right. But the beauty of it is that the bloodshed was largely old testament; you won't find wars in the new testament until Revelation. History is full of men and women who have fought wars in the "name" of God and many evils have been done in that way. However, I don't recall any large groups of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc. espousing the destruction of the civilized world because it does not share their beliefs. There have been a few crazies who do small-scale, isolated acts. But radical Islam is a whole new evil. And if you were to accuse me of claiming Christianity and/or Judaism as a high ground over that rubbish, I would assent with all sincerity.

[a22042]

If my history serves me correctly, the movement for the end of slavery was more about economics than equality. as the north became industrialized and more populated, slavery became uneconomical (not unlike the womans movement that increased the US economy by like 30% in the 60's-70s' when the work force almost doubled). I think they also found that with cheep immigrant labor you could run a factory cheaply as well as have a built in consumer base ..... slaves had no rights and could not be consumers. that is why slavery was all but gone in the industrialized north. It was also cheeper to pay a house keep or nanny that went home at night than give a slave 3 squares a day. so I'm guessing the movement came about for more self serving purposes than kindness, or blacks wouldn't have been treated like crap for the subsequent 120+ years.

I would argue there were a few who realized it was morally ambiguous, but your point is not counter to mine at all.

It was morally OK by the majority to have slaves then. The majority thought it was acceptable. Just because something is the majority belief does not mean it is always the right one.

I am not saying Christianity is the "wrong" one. On the contrary if you through out a good chunk of the bible (namely the old testament) then you have some pretty good guidelines for being a decent person (much like religious documents of other religions I might add).

But let the decision for what is the "right" or "wrong" belief be a personal and individual one. Don't let the government make that choice for us.

[BTRedhill]

Providing a common holiday that coincides with a major religious one is hardly governmental sponsorship of a religion. Rather, it is acknowledging for the morale of the majority of its employees that the particular day is meaningful in some way to them. Quite honestly, if you embrace Christianity, you must appreciate that without Resurrection Sunday (vis a vis Easter), Good Friday is meaningless.

At the point that some other group becomes the religious majority, then I guess we'll be having most of November off and we'll be really hungry all day long. And we won't get anything done at work because we're starving and praying till sundown. Of course, women won't be driving then. And divorce will be WAY easier. "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you." But again, I'm left to ask, if these current minority groups have it so good in their homeland, why are they coming here? I haven't packed my stuff and moved to Iran and insisted that they embrace my beliefs. I haven't traveled to France and been angry because the locals didn't speak English - even when I had to pee really badly and couldn't remember the word for bathroom.

[zindex]

I would argue there were a few who realized it was morally ambiguous, but your point is not counter to mine at all.

It was morally OK by the majority to have slaves then. The majority thought it was acceptable. Just because something is the majority belief does not mean it is always the right one.

I am not saying Christianity is the "wrong" one. On the contrary if you through out a good chunk of the bible (namely the old testament) then you have some pretty good guidelines for being a decent person (much like religious documents of other religions I might add).

But let the decision for what is the "right" or "wrong" belief be a personal and individual one. Don't let the government make that choice for us.



Oh I his was not for you it was to point out that our fore father didn't just wake up one day and decide that owning another human being was wrong. Like most people since it no longer served their purpose it needed to be out lawed. I'm sure there were those that felt it was wrong how could they not but self serving reasons got the ball rolling.

A better argument to you would be if there are people here that are not american but are here legally say from canada or Britain or hell even mexico, should we also not celebrate our national holidays for fear of offending them and not imposed our beliefs as americans. Should we no longer get Thursday and friday off on november for thanks giving because the English in our county do not celebrate it.

Or should they know that when you go to someones house then you follow their rules. We have alway had the Christain holidays intertwined with our national ones. If I am of another faith I should understand that it a tradition of the nation I live in, and not take offence as long as I am able to keep my beliefs. It is unfair to the people of this nation to have to change or ignore our traditions because 2 or 3 % (guesing on the numbers) do not agree.

[a22042]

Civil liberties and individual religious liberties are very different animals. Slavery has existed for nearly as long as humanity has, and, to this day continues despite the obviously lackluster efforts to eradicate it.

Yes it has. Does that make it right? Just because the majority thought it was OK. Just because civilization was founded using slaves?

At no point did I suggest that Christians (or Jews) have a moral high ground. What I did argue is that Christian tenets are the cornerstone of this nation and as such should retain their place of honor. If you, collectively, wish to reside in a land where another religion or no religion is embraced, the world is full of very viable options. Intolerant, hateful Islamic law: Iran, Saudi. Atheism? China, former (soon to be rejuvenated) USSR. Hindu? India is a good start. Yet few of those nations permit the degree of "tolerance" that these minorities have imposed on Americans in the name of political correctness.

A lot of things were the cornerstone of this country. I would say that the most fundamental of those concepts is freedom.

As for the comment about options, the same could be said about Christianity. If you so strongly believe that it should be enforced by the government you should move to a country where there is no seperation of state and religion.

Our melting pot has become so homogenized that it isn't even recognizable any more. We have elected, sometimes quite literally, to stand for nothing and as a result have fallen for everything.

No one stands in amazement when a man walks down the middle of a 40' wide street. But when that same man walks a narrow steel cable 40' above the ground, folks take notice. Maybe it's time that we choose a narrower path.

It galls me that in the name of political correctness and by creating victims from our minority groups, we have lost our identity. We have become a nation of victims requiring governmental pandering. BTW, this entire dialogue would be banned in many of religiously-motivated countries I noted above.

Well said by, if I was forced to guess, is a white male. Political correctness did not make victoms of minorities. Groups like the KKK did that well enough with out political correctness. Our own government did that with segregation.

I am a white male. I don't know what it's like to be a minority. But my wife is a minority, and as such my children look like minorities. I never knew what it was like to be looked at as anything other than white till i noticed people looking at my children and my wife differently than I was looked at (or somethimes not differently since I was with them).

You are correct, this dialogue would be banned in many places. Isn't it wonderful that we live in a country where we are allowed to have independant thought? Where we are allowed to believe and say what we want?


As for the Bible being a bloody book, yep, you're right. But the beauty of it is that the bloodshed was largely old testament; you won't find wars in the new testament until Revelation. History is full of men and women who have fought wars in the "name" of God and many evils have been done in that way. However, I don't recall any large groups of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc. espousing the destruction of the civilized world because it does not share their beliefs. There have been a few crazies who do small-scale, isolated acts. But radical Islam is a whole new evil. And if you were to accuse me of claiming Christianity and/or Judaism as a high ground over that rubbish, I would assent with all sincerity.

"radical islam". Ever hear of the inquisition? My guess is if such a thing were to happen today the people undertaking such endeavors would be "radical christians".

My point is that we should be allowed to believe in what we want to (once again as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). We shouldn't impose it though.

You are thankfully free to believe what you want, and teach your children what you want. That freedom is not extended to you only because you are a "majority", and it shouldn't end with someone because they are a "minority".

It's funny, thinking about those countries you mentioned that had the state and religion intertwined all seemed like crappy oppressive places to live. For the most part the religious beliefs of that country are morally equivilent to Christianity. The fact is though, once you start buying into the concept that the rights of themajoprity are more important than the rights of minorities you start getting into oppressive states.

Getting back to point, I am not saying those school teachers and bus drivers dont have a right to celebrate the holiday. But it shouldn't be mandatory. Other wise you should make mandatory holidays out of all the religions holy days.

Oh wait, that is unless you think it is Ok for the majority to impose themselves on the rights of the minorities.

[a22042]

Providing a common holiday that coincides with a major religious one is hardly governmental sponsorship of a religion. Rather, it is acknowledging for the morale of the majority of its employees that the particular day is meaningful in some way to them. Quite honestly, if you embrace Christianity, you must appreciate that without Resurrection Sunday (vis a vis Easter), Good Friday is meaningless.

At the point that some other group becomes the religious majority, then I guess we'll be having most of November off and we'll be really hungry all day long. And we won't get anything done at work because we're starving and praying till sundown. Of course, women won't be driving then. And divorce will be WAY easier. "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you." But again, I'm left to ask, if these current minority groups have it so good in their homeland, why are they coming here? I haven't packed my stuff and moved to Iran and insisted that they embrace my beliefs. I haven't traveled to France and been angry because the locals didn't speak English - even when I had to pee really badly and couldn't remember the word for bathroom.

Your own arguments support my case. IF say islam became the majority religion here, should we in fact change how our government runs and do all the things you mentioned?

That alone is an argument for separation of state and religion.

There are some fundamentals that should be set yes. English should be the national language. But to say someone should assimilate and learn our language is a whole different thing than saying they should switch to our religion.

Point of fact, they come here BECAUSE OF THE FREEDOM WE AS A COUNTRY OFFER. The freedom to believe what they want to believe in. That, I would argue, IS the cornerstone of our country.

[a22042]

Oh I his was not for you it was to point out that our fore father didn't just wake up one day and decide that owning another human being was wrong. Like most people since it no longer served their purpose it needed to be out lawed. I'm sure there were those that felt it was wrong how could they not but self serving reasons got the ball rolling.

A better argument to you would be if there are people here that are not american but are here legally say from canada or Britain or hell even mexico, should we also not celebrate our national holidays for fear of offending them and not imposed our beliefs as americans. Should we no longer get Thursday and friday off on november for thanks giving because the English in our county do not celebrate it.

Or should they know that when you go to someones house then you follow their rules. We have alway had the Christain holidays intertwined with our national ones. If I am of another faith I should understand that it a tradition of the nation I live in, and not take offence as long as I am able to keep my beliefs. It is unfair to the people of this nation to have to change or ignore our traditions because 2 or 3 % (guesing on the numbers) do not agree.

Thanksgiving is not based on religion. It is not based on belief. Just as 4th of July isn't. That argument is not valid in this case.

My point is I don't think the government should tell me what the "correct" religion is.

Tradition or not. Lots of things were tradition at one point or another, that didn't make them right.

[BTRedhill]

So in other words, stand for nothing and fall for everything? Clearly, the point was missed that governments as employers recognize that many of their human resources sway a certain direction, perhaps a majority of them. By majority, I do not blindly associate that with group-think or mob-mentality. But if providing a day off that many have traditionally recognized and now do not because it does not embrace some minority group that whined loudly enough about it imposes the beliefs of said minority on the larger group.

Your point about government validating one religion over another is an extreme take on the subject. We're only talking about a group of days off from work based on what most Americans celebrate or at least recognize. If you're Islamic and don't give two craps about Good Friday, super. Do your own thing. Nevertheless, you must balance the morale needs of the bulk of your constituents (i.e., employees) with the needs of the business. Imagine the management headache that would begin if when a person is hired, s/he must identify the days off they want each year with respect to their own religion (or lack thereof). What if they change religions half way through the year and have shot their wad of holidays? What if they don't have anything other than April Fool's day as their holiday of choice?

This is the problem with extremely liberal thought processes; there are no absolutes and everything is situationally determined based on the direction of today's wind. No one is saying you have to celebrate a Christian holiday simply because you have the day off work. No one is arguing even that the holidays as they stand are historically valid. In the absence of standards, you have chaos. And what you propose by arguing counter to a "christian calendar" amounts to little more than that.

As for the other commentary about the inquisition, I addressed that in an earlier post.

Don't you just love a spirited debate?

[zindex]

Thanksgiving is not based on religion. It is not based on belief. Just as 4th of July isn't. That argument is not valid in this case.

My point is I don't think the government should tell me what the "correct" religion is.

Tradition or not. Lots of things were tradition at one point or another, that didn't make them right.

then your argument is that one belief negates another, and I don't find that to be the case. Because it was called christmas holiday it some how offends others that not only don't believe in christmas but have another holiday instead such as honica (not spelled even close to right). slavery was a tradition and it was deemed wrong so it is no longer (at least in the US for the most part). So how does getting this friday off so people can worship or not worship offend anyone (how is it wrong why should it be out lawed) . It would not be a state mandated day of worship you would not be dragged from your homes and beaten if you where not in a church. You could spend the day getting drunk (like I would do). how is this an affront to other religions. I'm guessing that is the question.

The US as Redbull said has many laws and traditions and a moral center that is based on the christian faith, yet in our nations primary doctrine it states that there is to be a separation of church and state. A nation that is rooted in its religion has it written that the religion has no part in its government, but that does not mean that it can't be part of its people, or not part if some people so wish. I for one need all the days off I can get.

[zindex]

So in other words, stand for nothing and fall for everything? Clearly, the point was missed that governments as employers recognize that many of their human resources sway a certain direction, perhaps a majority of them. By majority, I do not blindly associate that with group-think or mob-mentality. But if providing a day off that many have traditionally recognized and now do not because it does not embrace some minority group that whined loudly enough about it imposes the beliefs of said minority on the larger group.

Your point about government validating one religion over another is an extreme take on the subject. We're only talking about a group of days off from work based on what most Americans celebrate or at least recognize. If you're Islamic and don't give two craps about Good Friday, super. Do your own thing. Nevertheless, you must balance the morale needs of the bulk of your constituents (i.e., employees) with the needs of the business. Imagine the management headache that would begin if when a person is hired, s/he must identify the days off they want each year with respect to their own religion (or lack thereof). What if they change religions half way through the year and have shot their wad of holidays? What if they don't have anything other than April Fool's day as their holiday of choice?

This is the problem with extremely liberal thought processes; there are no absolutes and everything is situationally determined based on the direction of today's wind. No one is saying you have to celebrate a Christian holiday simply because you have the day off work. No one is arguing even that the holidays as they stand are historically valid. In the absence of standards, you have chaos. And what you propose by arguing counter to a "christian calendar" amounts to little more than that.

As for the other commentary about the inquisition, I addressed that in an earlier post.

Don't you just love a spirited debate?

as I finish my post then read yours I find that they are oddly similar though mine is not as eloquently put.

[BTRedhill]

Thanksgiving is not based on religion. It is not based on belief.

Huh? Who were they thanking for their newfound freedom? The redskins? Pocahontas? My people call it maize. Praise Allah and pass the pork!

[BTRedhill]

as I finish my post then read yours I find that they are oddly similar though mine is not as eloquently put.

Thanks, but really not all that eloquent. Just passionate about some subjects.

[hawkeye171]

I find it interesting schools have a vacation day for the state fair and strawberry festival, but hold classes on Good Friday.

[a22042]

then your argument is that one belief negates another, and I don't find that to be the case. Because it was called christmas holiday it some how offends others that not only don't believe in christmas but have another holiday instead such as honica (not spelled even close to right). slavery was a tradition and it was deemed wrong so it is no longer (at least in the US for the most part). So how does getting this friday off so people can worship or not worship offend anyone (how is it wrong why should it be out lawed) . It would not be a state mandated day of worship you would not be dragged from your homes and beaten if you where not in a church. You could spend the day getting drunk (like I would do). how is this an affront to other religions. I'm guessing that is the question.

The US as Redbull said has many laws and traditions and a moral center that is based on the christian faith, yet in our nations primary doctrine it states that there is to be a separation of church and state. A nation that is rooted in its religion has it written that the religion has no part in its government, but that does not mean that it can't be part of its people, or not part if some people so wish. I for one need all the days off I can get.

I think you bring up another valid point for why it shouldn't be a national holiday. I would go on a limb and say the majority of americans don't actually celebrate good friday. Hell, if you walked down a street and asked 100 random people I would be willing to bet less than half know what the hell it is.

The article made it clear that employees could take time off to honor it if they so chose. It is not like they are being forbidden to celebrate it. It would be a totally different story if the article instead said that people were not allowed to take the day off, and if they did they would face disciplinary action.

You people seem to think I am saying we should abolish religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply think church should be separate from government.

Do I think schools should ban signs that say merry christmas? Hell no, but I think they should also be allowed to put signs up saying happy honica and what ever other sayings up there.

If I was uber religious I would take it upon myself to take my kid out of school. Not just to f*ck off that day, but to honor the day for what it should be. I don't need the governent to tell me how or when to follow my beliefs.

The fact is though, I would be willing to bet the vast majority of people that did get off good friday did nothing in honor of that day. Student, teachers, and what ever z does.

For those that do feel strongly about it, it is a personal choice. Stay home, go to church, do what ever it is you need to do.

[a22042]

So in other words, stand for nothing and fall for everything? Clearly, the point was missed that governments as employers recognize that many of their human resources sway a certain direction, perhaps a majority of them. By majority, I do not blindly associate that with group-think or mob-mentality. But if providing a day off that many have traditionally recognized and now do not because it does not embrace some minority group that whined loudly enough about it imposes the beliefs of said minority on the larger group.

Your point about government validating one religion over another is an extreme take on the subject. We're only talking about a group of days off from work based on what most Americans celebrate or at least recognize. If you're Islamic and don't give two craps about Good Friday, super. Do your own thing. Nevertheless, you must balance the morale needs of the bulk of your constituents (i.e., employees) with the needs of the business. Imagine the management headache that would begin if when a person is hired, s/he must identify the days off they want each year with respect to their own religion (or lack thereof). What if they change religions half way through the year and have shot their wad of holidays? What if they don't have anything other than April Fool's day as their holiday of choice?

This is the problem with extremely liberal thought processes; there are no absolutes and everything is situationally determined based on the direction of today's wind. No one is saying you have to celebrate a Christian holiday simply because you have the day off work. No one is arguing even that the holidays as they stand are historically valid. In the absence of standards, you have chaos. And what you propose by arguing counter to a "christian calendar" amounts to little more than that.

As for the other commentary about the inquisition, I addressed that in an earlier post.

Don't you just love a spirited debate?

BT, do you think if every american where to take a poll asking exactly what good friday is and why it's celebrated do you think the majority of people would know what it is? Honestly? And of those that actually do know what it is, if they are given that day off, will they do anything specific to observe it? Or will they just use it as a day off?

Yes, the majority of americans are christians, but I would go as far as to say most americans are passing christians. Meaning they dont attend church sunday school, etc. If you really want I bet I could find some stats on that.

So in reality, those that wish to have the day off to go to church would likely be in the minority. The rest simply want it off just to have it off. In either case, the article clearly said anyone wanting it off can take it off. How is that a slap in the face? Let me reverse what you said: If you are a christian and want to celebrate good friday and are told you can take a personal day then do it. Celebrate it and be merry.

How is that chaos? How is that not having standards? The definition of standard is to have uniformity. By favoring one religion over another is infact not a standard but an exception. By having an equal view on the matter, basically saying "listen, we aren't going to give everyone every religious day off, but you are given a certain amount of personal days that you can use for what ever religious observance you wish" seems more even and fair than saying "OK, we like this religion better than the rest so we are going to favor it and only let people have those days off".

I don't know BT, that seems chaotic to me.

Listen, I am not sayong don't observe the day if you feel strongly about it. Observe it, go to church, do what ever you want. No one is saying you can't.

edit:
Yes, I do love a good debate.

also, I want to point out something, you mentioned extreme liberal thought processes. I am actually not liberal nor conservative, but rather a blend of the 2. I am a registered independant because i think bother parties have gone too far in thier extremes left and right.

[a22042]

Huh? Who were they thanking for their newfound freedom? The redskins? Pocahontas? My people call it maize. Praise Allah and pass the pork!

The holiday is not about who they were thanking, but rather what they were thankful for. The tradition for that holiday is to remind us to be thankful for what we have.

[a22042]

I find it interesting schools have a vacation day for the state fair and strawberry festival, but hold classes on Good Friday.

Yeah, fair doy throws me for a bit of a loop too. Though I guess it is technically a celebration for local heritage maybe?

[food man]

as of this posting, white people are a minority in 40% range

[zindex]

as of this posting, white people are a minority in 40% range
I have heard that 40 % number before but I believe it is not true so I looked up census data and found this on Wilipedia ( so take it for what it's worth)


White Americans — all whites — are the majority in forty-nine of the fifty states, with Hawaii ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]) the sole exception; the District of Columbia ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]), which is not a state, also has a non-white majority.[13] ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]_note-whiteamericans) Non-Hispanic Whites, however, are the majority in forty-six states, with Hawaii, New Mexico ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]), California, and Texas ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]), as well as the District of Columbia, as the exceptions.[14] ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]_note-4) These states have "minority majorities", i.e. minority groups are a majority of their populations.
The non-Hispanic White percentage (66 in 2006) tends to decrease every year, and this sub-group is expected to become a plurality ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]) of the overall US population after the year 2050. However, White Americans overall (non-Hispanic Whites together with White Hispanics) will remain the majority race beyond 2050.[15] ([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]_note-5)



In some states you find that whites are out numbered by the total number of minorities when added up, but as a whole are still the majority.
([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]_note-5)


I wonder what they mean by white hispanics? Does that meen hispanics with whilte skin or some one like me a Puerto Rican, becuase we have been citizens for over 100 years? Cuase i'm by no means white skinned and niether are many of my PR people.
([Only Registered Users Can See Links.]_note-5)

[a22042]

Most census data will tell you white's are still the majority, and most projections - despite ultra conservative knee jerk fear mongering (sorry, had to toss that in BT!) that say other wise - will remain that way for quite some time.

[keith455]

I started to read this whole post but gave up..

[Wirlgirl]

I can make it simple...people are not happy because our school board has no backbone and decided to have school on Good Friday. A day that many people take off for religious and traditional reasons.
Some folks are confused and think that the seperation of church and state means that you ban every holiday and long held tradition.
More importantly the only folks suffering are the school children (of all religions) as many of their teachers, bus drivers and supportive staff will call in tomorrow. I am sure that the BOE didn't even think of the overalll cost to tax payers as federal funds are paid based on attendance. If parents who observe Good Friday keep their children home then our county will take a financial hit.
Oh wait I was thinking the BOE understands budgeting and has common sense.
Take your objections to tradition and look at this as a business.
Goal to educate children and stay in a budget.
Kids don't come to school=no money and no education
Teachers don't go to school= no education and higher costs for substitue teachers

[Wirlgirl]

Just a follow up...the school down the road from has 18 teachers and the principle scheduled off tomorrow. That doesn't include anyone who calls in "sick" on Friday.

[BTRedhill]

Just a follow up...the school down the road from has 18 teachers and the principle scheduled off tomorrow. That doesn't include anyone who calls in "sick" on Friday.

They're also telling kids to pack their lunches because all those "mean" lunchroom ladies are going to be gone. What kind of outfit manages itself in such a way that you have customers but no staff to handle them properly?

Oh wait - a government outfit.

[rjclark2]

Don't kid yourself when you think most of the teachers and support staff are calling in tomorrow because of their strong religious beliefs. I think if someone dug deep enough they'd discover that the teachers and staff are really taking off because the BOE took a holiday away from them and they're trying to prove a point. I used to get Good Friday off many years ago but the company I worked for got complaints from folks of other religions that they didn't get their holidays off so the company came up with personal choice holidays. If you want to take Good Friday off, put in for in, if you want Yom Kippur off, put in for it, if you want Ramdan off, put in for it. If you want Spaghetti Monster Day...you get the picture.

I read in a newspaper the other day that Guinness has a petition campaign going on to make St. Patrick's day a national holiday. Hmmmm a day off to drink Irish beer!!!!!!

[a22042]

EXACTLY!

I have no problem with someone taking time off for a religious observence, but you know most of those people taking off are just going to sit at home, or go to the park or anything that doesn't involve a church.

Do I think some of them will be in church? Of course. Do I think the majority of them will be in church? Hell no. Them taking off is more of an F*ck You to the boe. I would be next year the number of people taking off would be greatly reduced.

Further more, people jump on the boe for taking it as a paid holiday away, but no one is bitching about those tachers and bus drivers who are taking the day off just because they want to - not because they have deep religious beliefs and want to go to church tomorrow.

I grew up in northern VA just outside of DC, and that was not a holiday for us. It isn't a holiday everywhere.

And if I had to bet, I would guess this was just as much - if not more - of a financial decision than a politcal one. If it wasn't this day I am sure some other paid vacation day would have been removed.

Yeah, it's going o be a cluster this year, no doubt. But that is just as much the staff whom aren't really going to be celebrating and just want a day off as it is the people who made the choice to remove it as a paid holiday. Next year, not so much a cluster, the year after, even less.

[Wirlgirl]

most of those people taking off are just going to sit at home, or go to the park or anything that doesn't involve a church.
I don't know that...and neither do you...it's kind of a prejudicial remark to make.
Those people.....

[a22042]

First off, as for prejudicial I absolutely did not mean it in that way. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "most of THE people". I have absolutley nothing against religion as long as it doesnt harm or interfere with other people.

Secondly, you're right, I don't know that for sure. But right with in this thread you had someone say they were going to sit at home on thier butt and drink.

Most statistics I have read indicate that while the majority of people in america are Christian, the vast majority are not "practicing" - meaning they don't actively go to church. There may be a spike on holidays, but still the far greater majority of people don't.

Now that being said I typically am weary of statistics - I read once that 98% of people who die in car accidents are wearing shoes - ergo if you don't wear shoes when you drive you are 98% less likely to die. I don'y usually like stastics, but soemthines they are good for getting baseline understandings.

The fact is even if it was a paid holiday MOST people wouldn't be going to church, it would simply be a day off. I would be willing to bet the spike at beaches (if it was a nice day) would be higher than the spikes at churches.

Again, you are right, I don't know that as fact. But I would be inclined to believe it.

[zindex]

Secondly, you're right, I don't know that for sure. But right with in this thread you had someone say they were going to sit at home on thier butt and drink.

that was me! but I can't becuase I have to work tomorrow.

[mommy2cat]

I read in a newspaper the other day that Guinness has a petition campaign going on to make St. Patrick's day a national holiday. Hmmmm a day off to drink Irish beer!!!!!!

Heck Yes! lol I would much rather have St Patricks Day off and the day after the Super Bowl :) than a religious holiday...JMHO!

I am not at all religious and my kids will be attending school tomorrow.

[BTRedhill]

I am not at all religious and my kids will be attending school tomorrow.

Evidently that's not entirely true. In order to desire those two days off, you must be religious about consuming sufficient volumes of alcohol to necessitate a day off.

I prefer to remember my holidays and vacations . . . A few glasses of Everitt Ridge 2002 don't inhibit that at all.

[mommy2cat]

[QUOTE=BTRedhill] In order to desire those two days off, you must be religious about consuming sufficient volumes of alcohol to necessitate a day off.QUOTE]

Yes, I believe I need to go get my religious fix, Anyone want to meet up at the bar?! :)

BT, Although your opinions are way off, They are still quite humorous

[BTRedhill]

[QUOTE=BTRedhill] In order to desire those two days off, you must be religious about consuming sufficient volumes of alcohol to necessitate a day off.QUOTE]

Yes, I believe I need to go get my religious fix, Anyone want to meet up at the bar?! :)

BT, Although your opinions are way off, They are still quite humorous

Ah, yes, I see. By virtue of having a right-of-center perspective, my opinions are way off. Gotcha. Ever heard the expression "there's no sense in casting pearls in front of swine"? (No, I'm not calling anyone swine. Swine would not see the value of pearls, therefore you don't toss something of intrinsic value in front of them.)IF I had to choose, I'd much rather choose to raise my children with a sense of sobriety and goodwill than self-indulgence. But my opinions are (apparently consistently) way off. Thank you for establishing the benchmark to which I should strive.

I need to try to use this expression in the next appraisal I write: "he (or she) continually sets low expectations for himself and excels at falling short of them."

[a22042]

Not off, different. There is a difference.

And one thing I can say about BT, I appreciate that i can't get into a discussion and it not get nasty.

[newjdgirl]

Not off, different. There is a difference.

And one thing I can say about BT, I appreciate that i can't get into a discussion and it not get nasty.

Yes, different. Earlier in the thread we were talking about minorities. I think we know what the minority perspective is on this board now. :whistle:

[BTRedhill]

Not off, different. There is a difference.

And one thing I can say about BT, I appreciate that i can't get into a discussion and it not get nasty.

Can or Can't? I try not to get nasty. Or at least I think I try.

[a22042]

er CAN get into a discussion and it not get nasty.

Sorry.

[zindex]

er CAN get into a discussion and it not get nasty.

Sorry.

If you would like I would be willing to offer my translation services to you. No charge. ;)

[a22042]

good that would maybe soomtimeses be i am thinking might you no what i meen