Off by quite a bit, aren't we? Didn't you say you were a teacher
Not really. I was just presenting a large but wholly arbitrary number as opposed to giving a history lesson. Besides, depending on your belief system, 5000 years in and of itself might be considered wrong on the high side. If your just trying to discredit my statement by picking away at an arbitrary number, just say so and be done with it. If you would prefer that I point out that the earliest human remains date back to somewhere around 70,000 years ago, I can do and just did that.
The school is NOT doing 'the exact same thing.' Notice that the friend of the OP was not on school property. They were not at a school function. They were completely away from the school when they held the gun.
Indeed I did notice that, hence the validity of my example. Depending on what your role at a school is, virtually all schools have policies that dictate to one degree or another what a student may or may not do off campus. No doubt that this is a bad policy, but in principle it is no different that NCAA policies that dictate the lives of student athletes. In this case, they are saying you can't have weapons or firecrackers as opposed to saying that you can't accept a car from the boosters, but the policies are both the same in that they dictate how a student represents a school off campus.
This is not about keeping their campus and students 'safer'. It is about controlling every aspect of their student's lives.
I think one thing that gets lost in this argument as it pertains to me is that you all may think I don't agree with this statement. I do, but where I veer off is that I don't see any particular injustice in it. If this student doesn't want his life controlled in this particular fashion, don't go to that particular school. According to Google, there are 4,140 2 and 4-year universities in this country. Surely this student can find one that suits his needs. The key word here is "private". If this was a public school, I assure you that my opinion would be drastically different.
Do you tell your Mormon friends that they cannot be your friend since they are Mormons? Or is ok for them to carry out their normal life and normal rights as long as it is not in your house?
Other than here on THR, I don't specifically have any Mormon friends so I don't know that I can answer that question other than to say that if constant, nagging discussions about the church were at the core of our conversations, then no, a Mormon (or a Catholic, or a Baptist, or an Athiest) could not be my friend. Further, it is not any more acceptable to be accosted about religion while I am walking down the street than it is at my house. In other words, my Mormon house policy extends to every aspect of my life whether on my property or not.
Also, I don't specifically have anything against Mormons, they just tend to be a handy example since I don't enjoy talking about religion in the least and I don't have a whole lot of Presbyterians knocking on my door.
