Grinch found in New Hampshire
Boy in a Santa suit asked to quit dance
Bryan Lanford was in the holiday spirit. He dressed up as Santa to attend the Hampton Academy Junior High School holiday party. Unfortunately the Grinch (cleverly disguised as Interim Principal Fred Muscara) saw him coming.
“I went to the dance with my friend,” said Bryan Lafond, who is in seventh grade. “He had an elf hat on and we thought it was pretty cool. Everyone loved the suit, but when I went by the principal, he asked why I was dressed like that.”
Principal Fred Muscara said he told the boy he couldn�t get into the dance because he was wearing the costume.
“It was a holiday party,” said Muscara. “It was not a Christmas party. There is a separation of church and state. We have a lot of students that go to Hampton Academy Junior High that have different religions. We have to be sensitive to that.”
So the reason for a holiday celebration is to not allow the celebration of any holiday? Muscara also gets a complete miss on the separation of church and state. The school forcing kids to dress up like Santa might be against the rules but allowing a kid to play the right jolly old elf has nothing to do with that.
I assume that Hampton Academy also prohibits any jewelry depicting a cross or star of David, yarmulkes, head scarves and other religious paraphernalia. After all, there are people of different religions at the school and they must be sensitive to that.
More contact information and additional commentary may be found at Precinct 333.
(Tip credit to The Precinct Chair, Mike Eaton, David Kane and Phil Kennard)
I think it’s high time for some of our educators to show us the “separation of church and state” clause in the constitution. I recently went head to head with a local schoolteacher who swore up and down that the clause was indeed enumerated in the Constitution. I found it particularly amusing when she accused me of being “ignorant” for not knowing my constitutional history. The relevant passage reads thus: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It’s pretty difficult to read the principal’s actions as anything other than a violation of a student’s constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.
It’s actually worse than that. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that Santa is a secular symbol, not a religious one. Even if there was a requirement to separate church and state it wouldn’t apply to the Kringle.
While the school official’s actions were, in fact a display of total idiocy, in all fairness he was doing what he thought best to safeguard possible liabilitities for the school.
I believe this seperation of church and state stuff has gotten way out of hand. However, if we are going to have biblical fundamentalist making our laws, then we are no different than Iraq, or Iran. They could at least use the real Bible intead of the King James version.
My email hungrily awaits the hate mail I’m sure this will generate
God Bless..
To the best of my knowledge Santa doesn’t appear in any of the versions of the Bible. I can’t vouch for the Book of Mormon.
I take it then, Clay, that you support a religious test for office, to keep all those nasty evil fundamentalists from exercising rights under the Constitution?
In this case, seperation of church and state means the state cannot tell the public what not to wear. In this case, the state told a kid he cannot wear clothing about his religious holiday. Therefore, the school violated the seperation of church and state.
Also, it seems absurd to me that they stated Christmas is not a holiday. Seems to me costumes from all holidays would be welcome at a holiday party. Now if he had worn this to the prom, it may be a different story.
Post-Christmas Grinch
One more Crazy Christmas story for you… courtesy of Zero Intelligence. Bryan Lanford was in the holiday spirit. He dressed up as Santa to attend the Hampton Academy Junior High School holiday party. Unfortunately the Grinch (cleverly disguised as Int…
Clay, the long and short of it is that you’re a joke.
Clinton referenced God and the lord twice as much as bush does in public speaches.
And the fact that we have CONGRESS passing the laws and the president doing nothing more than signing or vetoing it (I can’t even recall the last piece of legislation he vetoed) says more to be about your general level of intelligence than anything else.
But you do have a great mullet. Keep it up. And don’t let those facts get in the way of a good punchline. Lord knows you’re going to be mine for the next week or so.
God Bless…
I believe that Mr. Muscara handled the situation as great as he possibly could. It was not only a decision on his part, however, on part of his superintendent as well. Why then is he the only person attacked for his actions?
You ask should students be asked not to wear jewelry depicting their religion? This is not cause for concern, a simple necklace can be tucked away beneath a shirt and kept personal, the costume cannot.
I also believe that a very good decisin was made on behalf of the safety of the students. Underneath the white beard could have been anybody, possibly even not a student. How would these parents have felt had LaFond been allowed in dressed that way and then caused mayhem, not being easily identified. The issue then would be why he WAS allowed in in such a costume. You are all providing Mr. Muscara with nothing but a lose lose situation and I find it very unfair.
Doesn’t wash, Emily. LaFond was identified by Muscara. If he had committed any mayhem whatsoever he would have been more conspicuous for wearing a bright red suit and beard. It was a costume, not a disguise.
Tyler:
You can’t remember the last piece of legislation he vetoed because there has never been one. Bush has never met a huge spending bill he didn’t love.
“To the best of my knowledge Santa doesn’t appear in any of the versions of the Bible. I can’t vouch for the Book of Mormon.”
Of course Santa isn’t in the Book of Mormon, Jim. Neither is Frosty the Snowman, the Little Match Girl, or Old Yeller. It’s rather Grinchy of you to take an unprovoked swipe at an entire Christian denomination like that. Forty lashes with a wet noodle!
Vigile de l’ineptie scolaire
Le blog Zero Intelligence d�nonce la bornerie qui fait immanquablement irruption, comme l�acn�, dans le syst�me scolaire. C�est l�occasion de se consoler quand notre propre milieu nous donne le cafard. Parmi les histoires qui semblent tir�es d�un mauva…
Oh, dear. That wasn’t a slam on the Mormons. I was being literal there - I haven’t read the Book of Mormon so I couldn’t vouch for it. It was a poke the other way, of course Santa does not appear in religious texts. Which was my point - Santa is not a religious icon.
Why the hell are you all arguing over whether Santa is a religious symbol or not? It’s simple. There’s Christmas, the day Christ was born (according to Chrstians). Santa represents that day. Whether he’s in the bible or not doesn’t really matter as far as what I just stated. Duh.
Alright, moving on for those of you who don’t have their heads shoved TOO far up their asses…WHAT KIND OF MIDDLE SCHOOLER GETS OFFENDED WHEN THEY SEE SANTA? This is middle school. Please. They’re not going to run off and cry when they see a Santa just because they’re jewish. You see Santa all the damn time, now get over it. The principal is an idiot. Or the school board, or whoever the hell decided that a bunch of middle schoolers are going to run off and cry from the sight of Santa.
Tyler,
The long and short of it is (1) I’ve never had a mullet. (2) All this crap “outlawing” any reference to seasonal icons is stupid. (3) You appear to have missed the whole point I was making, which is all of it is pointless (4) From #3 all I can assume is you really didn’t have a point to make but the post was intended to simply start some sort of “flame war” in this forum, leading one to believe you have some insecurities you haven’t dealt with (5) I am a stringent believer in the seperation of church and state, but really don’t see anything productive to come from all the lawsuits and crap except to get people in front of TV cameras and a place in the newspaper. (6) The only litmus test I think should be required is a strictly secular interpretation of the law based on Constitutional grounds, which the republican party seems to have burned and have a total disregard for.
I guess it is plausible, to some extent, his behavoiur. But when the kid was stopped from entering the dance, it went a bit too far. Sure, one might ask why he wore it, I can believe that, given the whole basis of this forum, the guy deemed it a reasonable inquiry. But to restrict him due to the nature of his costume on an occasion that promotes tthat very thing is ludicrous.