Girl suspended for...

[Andara Bledin]

Back in highschool if I told my teacher to go die in a fire, I think that'd be grounds for disciplinary action, yes.

Context matters. If you're having an argument in the middle of class, I should hope there would be disciplinary action regardless of what you'd said.

If you were to get into an argument outside of class/school, beyond perhaps having a chat with your parents, I'm not sure further disciplinary action would be warranted or desired other than to perhaps reduce your contact with that teacher to the absolute minimum possible.

[Ginger Tea]

Back in highschool if I told my teacher to go die in a fire, I think that'd be grounds for disciplinary action, yes.

That I would class with "go fuck yourself", a teacher does not need to put up with verbal abuse, but it depends on how it is spun.

If the detention is listed as verbal abuse (or whatever they list it under) then if the pupil kicks up a fuss it can be pointed out to be the pupil making a mountain out of a mole hill. Perhaps there is a list of phrases that warrant the detention and "Die in a fire" is no more or less offensive than "Suck a fuck", if it's on the list it becomes the teachers discretion on handing out detention for outbursts.

If the teacher is the one to blow it out of proportions, then it makes the teacher look bad.

Also a pupil staring at a teacher with fingers against their temples answers "what are you doing?" with "killing you with my mind" can be brushed off as either class clown or other form of class disruption, saying "I'm going to go home and bring a gun in and shoot you." not as much and should be taken as a threat.

I would not be threatened by someone's audition rehearsals for a Scanners remake, but someone having or bringing a weapon I would, I might even go straight for an arrest.

[HYHYBT]

Good grief. Anybody interested in omniquantism?

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01386.htm
and two pages later.

[Aethian]

Good grief. Anybody interested in omniquantism? http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01386.htm and two pages later.

I actually think that would take off if there was a good way to get the idea out there.

[s_stabeler]

This, however, is a far cry from what was being discussed at first--public crap like that can easily be construed as harassment, yes.

But simply thinking it, or casting a spell - which, in Wicca, is most often a fairly private affair, and not something one does out and about (and is rather akin to prayer, actually) - is not the same thing, and does not require the same reaction.

more or less, I actually agree with you. What I believe is more precisely that if a kid threatens a teacher with casting a spell on them, and is acting like they believe it will actually work (in other words, they aren't joking) then they should be punished as if it was a threat to attack the teacher. If it is merely the kid joking around with their friends, saying " Yeah, I put a spell on him last night" or something like that? Ignore it. It's the THREAT that matters, not what the threat is of.

[wolfie]

or most revivalist faiths, which agree on what they're reviving and where it's from

And in some cases, it's even in the name. Ever heard of the Mississippi Squirrel Revival?

[crashhelmet]

more or less, I actually agree with you. What I believe is more precisely that if a kid threatens a teacher with casting a spell on them, and is acting like they believe it will actually work (in other words, they aren't joking) then they should be punished as if it was a threat to attack the teacher. If it is merely the kid joking around with their friends, saying " Yeah, I put a spell on him last night" or something like that? Ignore it. It's the THREAT that matters, not what the threat is of.

I would only support that if said spell involved a "potion" of some sort and they were actually poisoning the teacher.

[crashhelmet]

And in some cases, it's even in the name. Ever heard of the Mississippi Squirrel Revival?

Dost thou speaketh of that famous day at the First Self-Righteous Church in the sleepy little town of Pascagoula

[Pixilated]

Back in highschool if I told my teacher to go die in a fire, I think that'd be grounds for disciplinary action, yes.

*snip*

Well, yes, but, as Ginger Tea said, the punishment would be based (I would hope!) on the grounds that you were being impertinent and rude.

Unless you were actually standing there with a jerrycan full of gasoline and a lighter, which would take it to a whole new level.

*snip*
Also a pupil staring at a teacher with fingers against their temples answers "what are you doing?" with "killing you with my mind" can be brushed off as either class clown or other form of class disruption ....

*snip*

Or possibly someone in need of some counselling or psychiatric help. And I'm not being snarky there.

But even if I knew the kid was a Satanist or dark warlock or something of a similar ilk (since AFAIK Wiccans do not cast spells to harm others), and I knew they were going home to burn feathers at midnight or whatever, I would have a really hard time taking such a "threat" seriously. And it would bother me more than I can say if I found out that the teacher did in fact take it seriously enough to demand some sort of penalty.

[Panacea]

Wow, this conversation went way off track from what I was originally talking about.

It's very different between Anglicans/Catholics and between various types of Wiccan.

And here's the post where it all went to shit. No offense HD, but I wasn't talking about Anglicans/Catholics in comparison to Wiccans. I was comparing Angicans to Catholics (ie one Christian sect to another) in an apples to apples response to something fireheart had to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fireheart17 View Post
Most mainstream religions tend to keep the lines between sects of a particular religion very clear. There's not a lot of blurring between them.

Anglicanism and Catholicism are two sects of Christianity, and are mainstream religions. Wicca is not mainstream, and therefore comparing it to Christianity is an apples to oranges comparison.

I'm saying that if a Wiccan schoolkid claimed to cast a spell to make someone sick, it should at least be treated as an attempted attack on the teacher. In this case, the girl wasn't even Wiccan. (she's Roman Catholic, as it ahppens)

Actually, if the principal was not superstitious and knowledgeable of Wicca, he would have laughed such a claim of a student trying to cast a spell out of the room, since he would understand that in Wicca, spells cast for evil rebound on the caster three times over.

But since he didn't know anything about Wicca, and was superstitious to boot, he made a dumbass call.

What? No. That's barely a step above thought crime. That's like rounding up a kid for saying he thinks his teacher is going to Hell.

Agreed. No religion has the kind of power this guy ascribed to Wicca. He completely misunderstand both Wicca and the purpose of faith regardless of creed. He engaged in superstition; most unseemly for someone supposedly educated.

I could claim that I'm flogging you about the head and neck as we speak with the wet end of my quivering junk across the astral plane. That doesn't mean its an attempted attack if you thought you felt something brush your hair.

No offense, GK, but if you claimed something like that I think you'd quickly find yourself acquainted with the fellows in white coats.

if she believed an action would cause harm, and then did the action with the purpose of harming, it makes sense that theoretically it should be treated as an attack, but I can´t see how this would be enforced realistically

It wouldn't be. Unless the threat was delivered in person, the cops would laugh it off.

[Nyoibo]

more or less, I actually agree with you. What I believe is more precisely that if a kid threatens a teacher with casting a spell on them, and is acting like they believe it will actually work (in other words, they aren't joking) then they should be punished as if it was a threat to attack the teacher. If it is merely the kid joking around with their friends, saying " Yeah, I put a spell on him last night" or something like that? Ignore it. It's the THREAT that matters, not what the threat is of.

So when someone says to someone else "I pray you burn in hell" then I'm assuming they should also be punished as if it were a threat?

Just checking, but any appeal to a higher power for harm is ridiculous, they should start punishing people for cheating for wishing people good luck?

[s_stabeler]

no, because " I pray you burn in hell" is usually an insult, not an actual threat. I repeat, if someone threatens someone with something like a spell, then it should be punished if they clearly believe it will work. as for wishing someone luck, that's not am attempt to harm somebody, so you are being ridiculous.

[Ginger Tea]

If you could prove to me that the school would take similar action on any verbal threats of violence towards pupils and teachers eg "I'm gonna kick your arse after school" then going to the extreme of suspension without seeing if it might be an isolated case and not the start of an unhinging of a potentially unstable psyche (that's worded so wrong but my brain doesn't want to think of the words to fix it).

Else it seems just as absurd as suspending or expelling a child for biting a pistol shape from a pop tart or pointing two fingers and going "Bang" or "Pew Pew" all these cases of zero tolerance are rather pathetic, but at least they are constant (thankfully we have as yet to read about a 12 year old bringing in a real gun), but if you only suspend wishing harm vs threats of beatings or even actual beatings, then as a school administrator you have your head else where and as they say to them

may you live in interesting times.

[Hyena Dandy]

I can understand the school being concerned, but I also think there's a good chance someone who's just laying curses on people isn't going to actually cause problems.

[s_stabeler]

If you could prove to me that the school would take similar action on any verbal threats of violence towards pupils and teachers eg "I'm gonna kick your arse after school" then going to the extreme of suspension without seeing if it might be an isolated case and not the start of an unhinging of a potentially unstable psyche (that's worded so wrong but my brain doesn't want to think of the words to fix it).

Else it seems just as absurd as suspending or expelling a child for biting a pistol shape from a pop tart or pointing two fingers and going "Bang" or "Pew Pew" all these cases of zero tolerance are rather pathetic, but at least they are constant (thankfully we have as yet to read about a 12 year old bringing in a real gun), but if you only suspend wishing harm vs threats of beatings or even actual beatings, then as a school administrator you have your head else where and as they say to them

reread what I said. I said it should be treated the same as verbal threats of violence. ( and I wasn't suggesting that suspension is necessarily the right response, either)