Bondi Public School principal bans ‘Easter’ in hat parade.

*Edit: I was wrong. Forgive my brashness. :Edit*


Aussie Source

It's seems the ultra-PC brigade are swapping shores this Easter.

He’s the principal determined to put an end to any use of the word Easter this holiday.

And while his first public ­attempt to do so in 2011 — which involved a letter to parents — blew up in his face following outrage over the move to dissociate the religious holiday with the ­pupils’ Easter hat parade, this time around Bondi Public School’s Michael Jones has removed the word without consultation and, given what happened five years ago, some parents are too scared to speak out.

Ridiculous doesn't cut it.


Get this...

Negative comments about the decision were deleted from the school’s parents’ Facebook page by administrators.

Censorship ensues when you dissent.



When will the snowflakes give up?

Probably never.



Before you go moaning about separation of Church & State...

The inclusion of the word Easter wouldn't be enforced by Government.
So chew on that for "all inclusive".

a reply to: Hazardous1408

So just officially call it a "hat" parade, and let the kids refer to it as the "Easter Hat" parade, or call their hats "Easter Hats" if they want to. As long as they don't stop the kids from referring to "Easter" if they so choose - then so what? If Muslims became the majority, would you be ok with the school naming events based on Islamic holidays, for all of the children to participate in? Or Luciferian?

Full disclosure: I'm Christian, and celebrate Easter. I'm going to be paying extra to send my kids to Catholic school (mainly because it's the best private school around under $15k/year) - they can freely have Christian holiday-themed events all they want. Are religious schools unavailable in Australia?

a reply to: dogstar23

To ban the use of the word Eid, on Eid, would be equally ridiculous to me.

Or Ramadan, on Ramadan.


It's Easter for Christ's sake.

What happened to make the parents afraid to speak up in 2011?
If the parents feel that strongly, they should just keep their kids out of any parade the school has.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I can't read the article, because it is a subscription only news site. Can you please provide some addition information about the circumstances surrounding how the principal went about "banning" the word? Because the quoted text in your OP seemed to skip that part. How did the principal remove the word? What happened in 2011? I refuse to draw conclusions on this event with such little information.

Your source says "subscriber only"?

But if this is just one man, making this decision for the whole school? That is BS. Why have they let this man continue to even be the principle?

Get rid of him. He sounds like a grinch.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I see. So like usual, it wasn't a case of "banning" a word, but trying to relabel the event to include people who weren't necessarily Christian. Yet offended Christians got angry about this and apparently contacted the media over it. So, naturally, the media sensationalized the story a bit.

Also the OP brought up this from his article:

Negative comments about the decision were deleted from the school’s parents’ Facebook page by administrators.

Yet the Daily Mail article says this:

'The school's website does not have a comments section. The school is not an administrator of the Facebook page for parents.'

Yaaaaaay fake outrage!

I didn't go with the Daily Fail, because it's 99% Fail.

I went with the original source as is adequate in thread creation, I assume.



I'm surprised, because I haven't subscribed to this website at all and I read the whole thing just fine. I'll add more.

The Australian spoke with a number of parents who said they did not want to comment publicly because they feared a backlash. “I know what happened to the previous people who came out and spoke against it last time,” one parent told The Australian . “Parents are scared to speak out.”

A parent told The Australian that not only was it an “appalling decision” but it was also “a shame for the little kids”.

“All the hats have eggs on them. I wanted to speak out ­because this is ridiculous — but I can’t make a scene,” one said.

“Plus the kids won’t understand at this age, it’s only kindergarten to Year 2 because the older kids don’t do it any more.”

According to both sources, it was done on a whim by the Principal...
With no discussion.

I cannot guaruntee that, but still find the decision to be pathetic.



If you want to be "all inclusive", you don't ban the word Easter...
It's oxymoronic.

a reply to: dogstar23

Our son started Catholic school this year (pre-k). Worth every penny, I promise you.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Both articles say this:

The Australian spoke with a number of parents who said they did not want to comment publicly because they feared a backlash. “I know what happened to the previous people who came out and spoke against it last time,” one parent told The Australian . “Parents are scared to speak out.”

Besides the principal being in hot water (whatever that is supposed to mean), what happened last time that would scare the parents from speaking out this time? Both articles actually fail to mention that.

This quote is hilarious:

A parent told The Australian that not only was it an “appalling decision” but it was also “a shame for the little kids”.

It's appalling that you call an event for the kids something other than what you want it to be called while all other aspects of the event remain the same? Talk about hyperbole. This whole thing is just the result of overly sensitive Christians.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not a Christian, I'm a Muslim and I find this to be pathetic.

To be all inclusive means just that...
If they proclaim to be all inclusive that should mean they can have Easter hats too...
Not eliminate the choice.

That's the opposite of all inclusive.


As for what happened previously, no, there is no mention of that.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: dogstar23

To ban the use of the word Eid, on Eid, would be equally ridiculous to me.

Or Ramadan, on Ramadan.


It's Easter for Christ's sake.

Fair enough - I personally feel the same way, but I'm fairly certain a lot of people would be up in arms (figuratively) if a public school had their children participating in an event focused on a different religion's holiday.

I'm ok with anyone who is ok with any represented (by any student in the school's population) religion's holidays having a school event or decorations being against removing "Easter" (or Christmas, etc.) I just hope those people are thinking about whether they would feel the same if it were a different religion.

There's also a factor to consider - that culturally-pervasive holidays with secular aspects enjoyed by children are often celebrated by people of various religions. I know Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists who celebrate Christmas (trees, lights, presents, Santa Claus, etc.) I understand this as well, and I'm guessing the school district is either trying to avoid potential problems, or has had complaints from parents, which are valid. My thinking is, just don't take the fun away from the kids - if you have to leave a name (Easter, Christmas) out to keep the activities and traditions otherwise alive, just do it.

I'm also interested as to why the parents are so scared of complaining this time around. Were they beaten, threatened or fined or something last time? They got their way then, so I don't understand why they're cowering in fear this time around.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does a holiday about a magic rabbit giving people candy exclude non-christians?

Is just the use of the word Easter in the title non-inclusive?

To me it seems those who are non-religious wouldn't even see it as a religious holiday to begin with so how would they even know they were being "excluded"?

I get what you're saying that this is a whole lot of nothing here, but for you to come out and defend the idea that the inclusion of a word that to most probably has no religious connotation at all is somehow harmful is baffling.

The issue to me is more that people find it necessary to remove words on the principle that someone somewhere might be offended or feel left out (for whatever reason) and therefore it must be removed. Do we make all our policies based on what might offend people? Must we always pander to the minority to retain our "Good Guy" status in the eyes of progressive America?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

They haven't eliminated anything. They are failing to call it Easter so that it doesn't seem specifically catered to Christians to people who aren't Christian. That's how inclusiveness works. If I were a non-Christian parent looking to entertain my child, I would be more likely to attend an inclusive event rather than a Christian event SAYING they are being inclusive.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see that reaction equally as non-inclusive as a hardline christian saying they won't go to an event because it isn't being called Easter.

Just two opposite sides of the scale, but both on their respective edges.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are correct.
My reading comprehension failed me on this one.

It's only the event which has changed name.
I should know better than to fall for overzealous reporting by now.

Thanks, Krazy.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does a holiday about a magic rabbit giving people candy exclude non-christians?

Is just the use of the word Easter in the title non-inclusive?

Yes.

To me it seems those who are non-religious wouldn't even see it as a religious holiday to begin with so how would they even know they were being "excluded"?

Everyone knows that Easter is a Christian holiday. Don't be coy. They may not necessarily know that it represents Jesus' resurrection, but they know it is important to Christians. They probably also see the easter rabbit and candy thing similar to how they look at Santa and Christmas.

I get what you're saying that this is a whole lot of nothing here, but for you to come out and defend the idea that the inclusion of a word that to most probably has no religious connotation at all is somehow harmful is baffling.

Easter is JUST like Christmas. A Christian holiday celebrated in modern society to the point that its secular traditions have blurred with its religious traditions, but to pretend like most non-Christians would be unaware of the religious implications of the word is naive.

The issue to me is more that people find it necessary to remove words on the principle that someone somewhere might be offended or feel left out (for whatever reason) and therefore it must be removed. Do we make all our policies based on what might offend people? Must we always pander to the minority to retain our "Good Guy" status in the eyes of progressive America?

Why is it a problem to try to be nice to people?

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see that reaction equally as non-inclusive as a hardline christian saying they won't go to an event because it isn't being called Easter.

Just two opposite sides of the scale, but both on their respective edges.

Well that is how things work in a secular society. Or at least that is how they are supposed to work. If your religious beliefs are so shallow that you will boycott celebrating it because of its name then you don't have religious beliefs to begin with.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are correct.
My reading comprehension failed me on this one.

It's only the event which has changed name.
I should know better than to fall for overzealous reporting by now.

Thanks, Krazy.

Glad I could help. Looks like Australia is co-opting Fox News' hyperbolic and sensational "War on Christmas" and adopting its own "War on Easter".