Slog - Comments on Candy Canes for Jesus

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:33:37 -0800

Everyone knows that candy canes remind people of Moses.

Or was it Mohammed.

Well, it was one of those guys ...

Comment by sara

sara — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:44:14 -0800

Agreed that this is a stupid decision--for one thing, no reason to needlessly give these War on Christmas folks useful fodder on an issue that isn't in any way a state establishment of religion or whatnot!

One detail--the kid's dad did not write that little thing unless he's more powerful than I'd tend to give him credit for--it was all around my high school in Ohio almost ten years ago. Of course, back then they were giving the candy away for free. ;)

Comment by Sara (a different one)

Sara (a different one) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:23:20 -0800

The previous Sara is quite correct. The weird religious attribution of the candy cane has been around for ages- I recall being incredibly disturbed and intrigued when reading it ten to fifteen years ago during junior high or high school. The particularly detailed account I read not only said that the red stripes were meant to represent the blood of Christ, but that the exact number of stripes was meant to correspond to the number of wounds he received from soldier's lances while on the cross. Later, I would read an account of the eating of the ortolan on this very slog and find the same feelings of confusion, revulsion and insidious curiosity.

Of course, all of this Jesus-candy business is horse shit.

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp

Comment by sari

sari — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:32:49 -0800

josh, you are the wonkiest wonk in wonkdom. why is that so hot?

Comment by Michigan Matt

Michigan Matt — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:53:36 -0800

Yeah, this candy cane = Jesus' suffering bit is something I recall from my youth in Indiana. And that was, like, 20 years ago. Oh, and dogwood trees represent Jesus somehow, too. I forget the story behind that one.

Comment by Toby

Toby — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:57:57 -0800

"The explanatory note was conceived and written by the boy�s dad."

...so um, if the kid didn't write them, *whose* first amendment rights were violated here? You following me on this?

Dads shouldn't talk through their kids' mouths.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:06:12 -0800

Don't like this court decision. The kid should be able to proselytize his religion, and the other kids should be able to call him a brainwashed goon. Everybody's free speech rights are protected.

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:08:43 -0800

Have you suddenly found Jesus or something? Sorry, dude, but I really don't think Jesus - or any other bullshit religion, belongs in schools. How would you feel if the kid was out there proselytizing for Scientology? According to your logic, he should have a right to do that too.

Comment by Cato the Younger Younger

Cato the Younger Younger — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:24:42 -0800

I have heard that before as the explaination of the candy cane. That is why I do not eat them.

Comment by Cheyanne

Cheyanne — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:47:47 -0800

Hard Candy is a prison euphamism for being murdered.

"We're gonna give that vato some hard candy".

Who wants a candy cane?

Comment by Violent J's Mom

Violent J's Mom — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:49:07 -0800

Is that a Juggalo Mansion?

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:03:26 -0800

I always thought the candy cane was a nod to the symbolism of the barber pole...

...which you might not want to read before breakfast.

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:28:43 -0800

@8 - Sure, if the kid wanted to proselytizing for Scientology, he should have the right to do that. And all the other kids should have the right to call him crazy for it. Seriously, dude, there shouldn't be anything wrong with simply expressing either religious preference or lack thereof, so long as no one is actually harmed.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:54:27 -0800

@8: There is a tangible, important difference between the promotion of a religion by a student and the promotion of religion by officials like teachers or administrators. Please make sure you understand this difference before you get involved in the discussion.

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:21:10 -0800

@14, my apologies - I'm only a dumbass lawyer who's obviously incapable of comprehending subtle distinctions like that. Having said that, I still don't think that ANY religion has ANY place in a public school, regardless of who's doing it. And it would appear that the Supremes see it that way as well.

Comment by asdf

asdf — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:15:20 -0800

Don't forget that in the recent "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, the Supreme Court majority cited the general pedogogical opposition to drug use in ruling against the student. But, IIRC, Justice Alito (!) voiced concerns that that was too vague a standard, and could be used to suppress legitimate protected speech.

Comment by Aislinn

Aislinn — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:22:47 -0800

@15: Really? You honestly believe that? You believe that a student shouldn't be able to hold and express their own religious opinion while at school? That mindset will only serve to martyr religious students and make them cling that much harder to their ideology. Yes, a student should be able to proselytize for Scientology, or Satanism, or the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster. And a student should be able to hand out candy canes with an inane Jesus-related explanation on them. Not a teacher, a student. Denying that student the right to use Jesus candy canes in the scope of a project would be the same as denying the GSA at Mount Si the right to hang their Day of Silence posters. It's the same small-mindedness and oppression of an idea that you don't like simply because you don't like it. I know a lot of lawyers - thankfully they all understand that the law must be applied equally, for everyone, and not just for the causes we champion.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:25:57 -0800

@15. hmmm... the supremes saw it as disruptive to the lesson, not as religion, mr or ms lawyer.

or do you really think there should be absolutely NO mention of religion in schools at all? can't talk to your friends about it? can't make fun of it? no cross necklaces? no taking the lord's name in vain?

Comment by matrisseM

matrisseM — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:24:33 -0800

His religion is suger coated BS. That's exactly what he's handing out to people who probably should not be eating candy if they don't want cavities. The school nutritionist should be screaming more than anyone else. What's next COKE CANS FOR JESUS? :p

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:00:42 -0800

Remember, the Great Spaghetti Monster didn't die for your sins, and He invented the Candy Cane to memorialize that non-decision of his.

The red is for pirates, the white for the bones of pirate fish, and the mint reminds us that we will never look like him, even with extensive plastic surgery.

Comment by MK

MK — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:18:24 -0800

If the kid had been forcing his classmates to read the note, I could understand this decision.

BUT he wasn't even distributing them to everyone - he was selling them. The kids had the right to not buy his candy canes at all, and those that did choose to buy one had the right to ignore the note entirely.

Comment by Mr. Joshua

Mr. Joshua — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:42:53 -0800

I've done that before. Only we used the "history of candy canes" to talk about it...they were originally used to keep kids quiet in a living nativity play.

I can't understand what kind of crappy Christian sells their candy canes, though. That's like the Gideons taking tips when they pass out bibles.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:54:00 -0800

@15: RTFM, bitch.

Comment by Keith

Keith — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:50:51 -0800

Mmmm, these candy canes are Sacrelicious...