Ilinois Student Gets Detention for Hugging

Yeah, I know. The school has no case considering hugging is not an act covered under that definition. But we won't tell them
Besides, even though it is not under that definition, when all of society thinks of a hug as affection, then it automatically is with regards to our use of the language. Except in a court of law. I bet they added the word hugging in their manual to cover themselves.

It's ok, you have nothing to defend. Even if an embrace was a few seconds longer than your stopwatch, and you enjoyed it :laugh: You keep interchanging the word hugging for embrace. I guess that is how it feels to you, more intimate than just a hug. Ok

I disagree. Most people believe when two people start kissing it's an act which could be a little too close for comfort. I'd be buried in two seconds flat!

There are many displays of affection as you know (as we use the word in our language) such as feetwashing. Jesus also placed his hands on the little children.
Personally, I would have a harder time holding it together if someone were washing my feet. Feels more intimate than embracing someone.
As former foster parents, and a human being , I know that people need to embrace both sexes. This is why it is sad that hugging is disallowed at school, it is a need. But that's how it must go.
Children who grow up with a lack of affection (embraces, huggs, tender touch) turn out differently. I'll refrain from attaching a negative label to it.
I am much more appreciative of a hug from a male close friend than any other form of affection. Kissing is no not for me, but I will allow anyone to kiss me if they ask first.
Touch isn't always enough if they are a very close friend, and you love them. Maybe I am just very bonded to some of my male friends.

 

Sounds like the same rules they have among prisoners too.

When will they censor football games too?

 

(Bolding mine.) So, if I'm taxed out of the option of private education, taxed out of the option of homeschooling, and in compliance with truancy laws send my kids to a run of the mill institution it was an exercise in volition? You're seeing implied choice were I see flagrant coersion. The only way your point would be valid is if parents were refunded money for services not used, and IIRC they aren't. Then there would be an agreement/expressed consent, but not until then.

 

It is called common sense. Try it some time.

 

That is the way things operate in a democratic society. The majority rule.

So much for Baptists who believe a democracy is God's plan for church government.

 

Pastor Larry seems to think the administrators in these cases executed wise judgement and common sense. I just cannot come to agreement with you on this.

As for your idea that "the larger the group, the less 'judgement calls' can be made," I believe there is some truth to that...but it does not mean there should be a complete suspension of common sense. And in this case, I think there was.

A slight change of gears: I do feel that, if the 'offending party' is a Christian, it is absolutely critical that they respond in a Godly manner. In other words...if you have an appeals process, work within that (not outside it). Be graceful and truthful in your explanations, rebuttals, and answers. And if you ultimately "lose," then accept your punishment.

I'm not passing judgement on any of the aforementioned kids and/or parents in these cases.....I've been out of pocket the last few days and don't know the latest. However, my lead singer for my praise band #2 has several contacts with the Prattville AL family...so I'm sure tomorrow I'll be brought up to speed.

 

Good point.

 

What?!?!?!

When did this happen? I don't remember voting for that!!!

 

Before I pray about opening this link, is the jurisdiction of said occurence zoned for this sort of behavior?

 

Elementary through high schools can hand out condoms but not hugs. Make sense?

 

No, if you don't like it, you can change schools or homeschool. Homeschooling can actually be really cheap, if one is so inclined to do it. There was no flagrant coercion. There was a rule and someone broke it. How simple can it be? How many rules will we subject to student interpretation? I think the common sense needed here is when you have a rule you enforce it, or it ceases to mean anything.

And when you suspend Jill and not Jenny, you will have complaints for exercising judgment. And then you will wish you had enforced the rule.

It is hard to imagine anyone is arguing "common sense" against my position here. Has no one ever been in a leadership or administrative position with a large number of people, most of whom are inclined to take as much room as you will give them?

 

I don't think there was a complete suspension of common sense. But if you allow one student get away with breaking the rules, and then try to enforce it on the next one, "I exercised judgment" will not carry you too far. You will lose respect.

I think this is true whether one is a Christian or not. This is simple common civility, something which is all too often absent in our self-centered "me first" society.

 

Shouldn't be handing out either.

 

Pastor Larry, you and I aren't gonna agree on this one.



:wavey: :thumbs:

 

Imagine how life will be when the Dominionists take over, KenH......

Remember them?

Regards,
BiR

 

I wonder what the punishment will be when that happens.

 

That's certainly fine with me.

My position on this is fairly simple.

1. It's about rules and authority. You don't honor either by having rules you don't enforce. If it is a bad rule, then remove it. But don't not enforce it. You make a joke out of all the rules when you do that, and you invite disrespect of others rules and authorities.

2. It is about creating an environment for education. Strangely enough, that is what schools should be about; not hugging people. If you want to hug, fine; do it somewhere else.

3. I take sexual purity very seriously. I see no good reason for a teenager to be hugging someone who isn't in their family. I just can't find one. I know some will think that is overreaction. Given the state of moral purity in our society, I disagree. I think it is morally unwise to allow teens to pursue that kind of contact. It does not encourage sexual purity.


I think the "common sense" argument (which is really all that has been made here that I can recall) is answered very simply by saying if the rule is bad then drop it. I think there are cases when the school can and should exercise judgment. But they exercised judgment when they made the rule. And to me it seems like a good common sense rule. I have seen no compelling (or uncompelling) argument against it.