WOW, let me let you in on a secret, I am not racist by any means. But I am proud to be from the south. If you want the flag to represent racism to you then fine, it doesn't to me, because I am not racist. It has a different meaning to me, so when you decide what I have to think of feel for something, then please kill me.

 

Let me be the first person in this thread to ask you to please change your mind on what "meaning" you give the confederate flag. I'll start off by offering you what the real meaning of that flag is:

 

The first national flag of The Confederate States of America, called "The Stars And Bars" was designed in February of 1861 at the commission of The Confederate States of America, a new nation of secession formed by votes of secession just that month in the states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. The flag was officially adopted on March 4, 1861 when it was raised over the Confederate capitol in Montgomery, AL.

 

17 days later, newly elected Confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens delivered a speech, known as "The Cornerstone Speech", where he officially proclaimed the core differences between the CSA and the USA, and explained exactly what the primary cornerstone of the CSA was. He clearly stated it thusly:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."

 

The Confederate States of America are founded in racism and held racism as their absolute greatest of values. It was an absolutely racist republic, and the Stars And Bars were designed expressly to represent that racist republic. These are facts. Mountainref, please accept these facts as such and quit trying to convince yourself that the Confederate Flag represents anything other than racism.

One of my favorite passages from U.S. Grant's autobiography: "But I would like to see a truthful history written...The justice of the cause which in the end prevailed, will, I doubt not, come to be acknowledged by every citizen of the land, in time. For the present, and so long as there are living witnesses of the great war of sections, there will be people who will not be consoled for the loss of the cause which they believed to be holy. As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man."

 

I guess we'll have to wait for a bit more time to pass before we will see that.

 

So now we are going to quote a President who was born in nearby Ohio and who was without any question an alcoholic??

So now we are going to quote a President who was born in nearby Ohio and who was without any question an alcoholic??

 

Yes, he was an alcoholic, does that mean we don't listen to the General of the Federal Army from that war and was later a 2 term president? I guess we skip anything that Ben Franklin had to say as well as he had quite the tendency to imbibe too much.

From Barstool's comments section:

 

Jesus daisy duke really let herself go

 

AND

 

I am surprised Flea's son lives in TN

So now we are going to quote a President who was born in nearby Ohio and who was without any question an alcoholic??

 

What meaning do you give to either of those pieces of information?

What meaning do you give to either of those pieces of information?

 

Never have I read a single piece ever showing the intellectual prowess of U.S. Grant...

I believe you can believe in what something stands for and not believe in what it is supposed to stand for. I know that makes no sense to everyone but me. So here are a few examples.

 

Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party but yet felt compassion and helped Jews during the holocaust.

 

After the Civil War our government went on a spree of eliminating the American Indian and stealing their land and forcing them onto reservations and at times giving them blankets with smallpox in the hopes it would kill them and also introduced the American Indian to alcohol which in turn led to severe alcoholism in many tribes. Also a government that lied about the way the Maine sunk just so they could have a war with Spain.

 

So if the Confederate Flag represents racism, does the American Flag represent murder, stealing, and lying?

Never have I read a single piece ever showing the intellectual prowess of U.S. Grant...

 

But...that's not what you said. You mentioned that he was from Ohio and an alcoholic, as if that would preclude someone from making an intelligent comment.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I believe you can believe in what something stands for and not believe in what it is supposed to stand for. I know that makes no sense to everyone but me. So here are a few examples.

 

Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party but yet felt compassion and helped Jews during the holocaust.

 

After the Civil War our government went on a spree of eliminating the American Indian and stealing their land and forcing them onto reservations and at times giving them blankets with smallpox in the hopes it would kill them and also introduced the American Indian to alcohol which in turn led to severe alcoholism in many tribes. Also a government that lied about the way the Maine sunk just so they could have a war with Spain.

 

So if the Confederate Flag represents racism, does the American Flag represent murder, stealing, and lying?

 

I thought it represented our freedom from Britain but I am not a history major.

I thought it represented our freedom from Britain but I am not a history major.

 

Yep, y'all can direct your questions to the true intellectuals here if you want.

Yep, y'all can direct your questions to the true intellectuals here if you want.

 

:lol:

 

Will do.:thumb:

Either you support freedom of speech and expression or you don't. I don't like what a lot of people say-even on here, but I support their right 100% to say it and believe it.

 

Not true. Preventing a student from "expressing" herself at a school function does not conflict with the First Amendment's protection of free speech. I support the broad idea and rationale of freedom of expression, but there are certain circumstances & forums in which speech should be regulated.

 

One clear example of speech that should be regulated is within a school. The primary purpose of a school is to provide a safe learning environment. A school should have more latitude than the government in determining what types of speech should be allowed. In my opinion, this authority allows a school to prohibit certain types of speech / expression which would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, if the school's officials determine that the dress would be disruptive or cause an unnecessary commotion, then they can prevent the student from wearing it. This is particularly true since they warned the girl PRIOR to the dance.

 

For what it's worth, the school's authority should extend to all school sanctioned functions (i.e. Prom & sporting events), in my opinion.

But...that's not what you said. You mentioned that he was from Ohio and an alcoholic, as if that would preclude someone from making an intelligent comment.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

 

He was born in Southern Ohio-so just pointing that out as a fact, and stating again that he was an alcoholic. As Hatz points out that doesn't preclude one from making intelligent conversation or points. I simply am saying that President Grant is not one often quoted by scholars. I am sure he said something brilliant at times...

Not true. Preventing a student from "expressing" herself at a school function does not conflict with the First Amendment's protection of free speech. I support the broad idea and rationale of freedom of expression, but there are certain circumstances & forums in which speech should be regulated.

 

One clear example of speech that should be regulated is within a school. The primary purpose of a school is to provide a safe learning environment. A school should have more latitude than the government in determining what types of speech should be allowed. In my opinion, this authority allows a school to prohibit certain types of speech / expression which would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, if the school's officials determine that the dress would be disruptive or cause an unnecessary commotion, then they can prevent the student from wearing it. This is particularly true since they warned the girl PRIOR to the dance.

 

For what it's worth, the school's authority should extend to all school sanctioned functions (i.e. Prom & sporting events), in my opinion.

 

I do not totally disagree with you, but your middle paragraph is very vague, and easily could be misinterpreted. Who in the school, decides what type of speech is allowed, a teacher, the principal, the school board? What is this based upon?

 

As others have said, they told her not to wear it, and that means when she does she is subject to discipline.

 

As to extending to sporting events, please see the school you are affiliated with and their so called "Crazies"....they certainly can wear provocative clothing that is often very funny. However, some could be construed as insulting to certain groups. I also really don't care for the way in the past (last 15 years or so), the Crazies at the conclusion of the National Anthem would scream "Colonels" where brave would normally be the last word of the national anthem sung before basketball games.Their rite to do so, but people gave up their lives for young men to be so disrespectful.

I do not totally disagree with you, but your middle paragraph is very vague, and easily could be misinterpreted. Who in the school, decides what type of speech is allowed, a teacher, the principal, the school board? What is this based upon?

 

As others have said, they told her not to wear it, and that means when she does she is subject to discipline.

 

As to extending to sporting events, please see the school you are affiliated with and their so called "Crazies"....they certainly can wear provocative clothing that is often very funny. However, some could be construed as insulting to certain groups. I also really don't care for the way in the past (last 15 years or so), the Crazies at the conclusion of the National Anthem would scream "Colonels" where brave would normally be the last word of the national anthem sung before basketball games.Their rite to do so, but people gave up their lives for young men to be so disrespectful.

 

I suppose that the "administration" would be the group of people making the decisions for the school. Again, that is a broad term, but a reasonable answer. An individual teacher would have some authority over his or her classroom. The lunchroom monitor would have some control over the cafeteria. The principal, Dean of Discipline, Dean of Academics/Students, potentially the school board & a few other members of the faculty would have the authority to make decisions regarding dances & other extra-curricular activities.

 

Regarding Covington Catholic's student section dress code: I have seen plenty of students asked to leave the game due to their conduct in the student section. Sometimes it was due to their attire, other times because of profanity, and the list goes on. As a member of the student section, you're representing the school at a school sanctioned event. Because of that, whichever school employees are responsible for monitoring the crowd have the authority to limit and/or prohibit certain types of expression.

 

The National Anthem is a bit off topic, but I'll address it anyway. When I was actively involved in the student section at Covington Catholic, we were actually told that we were not allowed to yell "Colonels" until the National Anthem had concluded. Now, whether or not the 100+ teenage boys actually listened or not was a different story.

 

Either way, I don't think anyone would find a cheer prior to the conclusion of the national anthem to be so offensive as to disturb the masses. If it did, then I can assure you that most schools would implement an action to prohibit such conduct.