I'm assuming for the moment that this is not a troll, pelican. Time will tell whether I am being naive.

>>the Principal decided to ban the traditional Easter hat parade and egg hunt for the juniors. There was outrage at the school... [t]he reason given was that, given our multicultural society it was thought that Easter being a Christian festival was not reflective of all the families at the school... the parade was not terribly religious - in that there were no bible readings or other religious rituals... I guess what we have to ask ourselves is was this decision right or wrong? Was it PC or was it the Principal's way of saying religion or religious festivals should not be part of public schools given that children from various ethnic backgrounds attend public schools all over Australia. What do people think?<<

Taking up school time for a hat parade and an egg hunt seems a pretty stupid idea to me. I have absolutely no problem with the principal bringing a halt to such trivia. The termination of such a pointless and blatantly commercial exercise as making hats and eating chocolate would seem signally non-religious in intent.

"Religious grounds" sound more like an excuse than a reason. If the parents had been "outraged" because their expressed community religious views were not being catered for, it might be a tougher one to determine. But "...the parade was not terribly religious". Did it in fact have any religious connotation at all? It certainly doesn't sound like it from the description.

It's much of a muchness with Valentines' Day, really, just replace easter bonnets with roses. I doubt if there would be a story if a Principal came down against any ceremonies in support of St Valentine.

(And in case anyone doubts that such events exist, I happen to know that a school in leafy Sydney north-shore suburbia actually holds a "Valentine's Day assembly")

“sheilas, poofs, nig..ers, The mentally ill”? As they used to say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other one!

Sorry Foxy, but I strongly dispute your analysis. We cannot lump language like “sheilas” and “poofs” in with “the mentally ill”. Those who’d label women and gays as the former are more likely to name the latter “loonies” or “nutbags” or whatever. If anything, the “mentally ill” might itself be considered a PC term by those who call a woman a sheila. I think the way you’ve grouped language here: “women, gays, blacks, and lately physically and mentally handicapped and the mentally ill” — is perfectly acceptable nomenclature to most. So why is it only the mentally ill that can also be found in the politically incorrect group that includes “poofs” and “nig-ers”?

I disagree with your interpretation of Dr Deegan’s point. As I said, I think she was trying to say that we should talk about “*people* with mental illness” rather than defining the people by the illness. She’s not offended by the terminology, but by the emphasis, by its placement in a sentence. She was trying to say the person came first, while the illness or disability or ethnic group or sexual orientation comes second.

Looking at her other work, I see that she’s perfectly happy to use terms like “mental health”, “mentally ill” etc in other contexts. If you think she objects to terminology rather than syntax, why doesn’t she reject the terminology? And can you find any other examples of people finding “mentally ill” politically incorrect? And with what would you replace it?

I note you’ve given me a little lecture on what PC language actually is! Have I really come across as that thick? I am entirely depressed by this. I believe this is important and have tried over this thread to distinguish the real meaning of political correctness, rooted in Ivy League academia, from the entirely fallacious accusation that PC culture silences real dissent. Why do you not think I understand it?

Dear Vanilla.. I must commend your superlative approach to disagreement with Foxy.. all you need to do now is translate that same approach into your responses to... 'me' :)

"Promoting Minorities" to address what you raised in your previous post. Is 'racist' when the promotion is at the expense of other non them groups. As long as that 'expense' is of course not itself based on any unjust structure deliberately put in place to discriminate against such minorities.

We should never be promoting 'racial groups'.. no not ever.. we should be promoting "Justice" for all. I hear Aunti Pauline in the background here. ."All Australians should be treated equally"..yep..I cannot for the life of me find even a hint of racism or problem with that.

I hope I have clarified my meaning there.

I'm still interested in your evaluation of various bits of evidence I have presented from time to time (some might say 'most' of the time)..
I've made a number of claims.. about Islam etc.. and I am struggling to find any serious response.. all I've had mostly is simple "abuse"

Hoping to hear from you about that when ur able.

cheers

Pericles

I don't know what a troll is but I am assuming you are asking whether I am on the level?

Firstly, I don't make things up for the purpose of debate and secondly I don't know why anyone would think this impossible given this thread is about PC.

As I said, the running of the egg hunt and hat parade was not conducted in an overtly religious fashion (only in that Easter is obviously a Christian celebration). There were some Christian families who argued that Australia is predominantly Christian and felt that we (the 'royal we') are always giving in to the PC brigade. Even other parents (agnostic or atheists) were a bit put out because lets face it Easter is a tradition.

I should add that this decision by the Principal was not because of any feedback from those families of other faiths. The parents were upset because they perceived that the Principal was trying to fit in with growing PC culture and wanted to be seen as someone who was up with the current thinking by her peers.

I was interested in what others thought given the theme of these posts and whether this really is PC or just good policy given our multicultural society. Personally I was a bit put out at the time, I guess like anyone I am a victim of tradition and find change hard in some respects but we have to remember this was a public school not a religous based school.

You might think making hats is pointless but the children didn't :). The school also conducted a parade during bookweek where children make their own costumes based on a character from a book in an effort to promote reading.

Getting back to what I think Ginx's point was: is this an example of PC run amok or is PC being used to promote one point of view? Was the decision fair given our changing times?

Individual, in response to your question, how many times should a person be forgiven?

Look at Matthew 18:21-22
"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?"
"Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

Be blessed.

Dear Pelican,

The Easter egg hunt should have gone ahead (in my opinion).

In Dec. 2001, In Kensington, Md. in the US an annual firefigthers Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The City Council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Logically and respectfully, how can on person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. Would that have made it the perfectly "correct" American way?

Dear Vanilla,

Sometimes, it takes me a while to focus on the issue at hand, and I
tend to "waffle" on a bit. But I wasn't trying to imply anything as far as you're concerned. Your arguments concerning Dr Deegan's case that I cited earlier do make sense. Thanks for your input.

Take Care.