Disclaimer: I've not verified the validity of this story. There is a parody of it on the net; I assume that the parody is based on actual events. If you want to pay me, then I'll consider verifying this story with the students and school officials.

_________________________

'Hate incident' in city

Ham report stirs 'mess'

Hate crime in Maine

A related story -- Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat

"Just to put this absurd story into perspective, here's what some schoolgirls got for being Christian in Muslim Indonesia"

* Warning - Graphic Picture at the end of the editorial *

You Really Can Indict a Ham Sandwich

Question to basmati (now known as MAV):

Do you think the nativity scene should be displayed on courthouse lawns at Christmas?

basmati's (aka; most army veterans, MAVs) answer:

No. Call me old-fashioned but I happen to believe in the establishment clause in the Constitution regarding no state-sanctioned religion

How can you have a Federal ( and State) Holiday called Christmas and not allow a nativity scene?

Wouldn't that be called "winter holiday of a non-specific event that may or may not have occurred, but if it did would have been around this time of year" holiday?

How "old fashioned" is this secular 'no nativity' mindset of yours anyway basmati(MAV)?
______________________________________________________________

I've read they are considering a hate crime charge for the kid on this.
Now I can understand the following about the guy's action:
Mean spirited -yes
Would I do it - no
Punishable as a prank -maybe

But I need one of the lawyers here to explain this to me.
Logically, how can something that is not a crime be a "hate crime"?
If you throw the sandwich at someone maybe you have assult (a crime which might be a hate crime).

You smear the sandwich on someone or force them to eat it, once again, maybe you got assault and battery which could be charged as a hate crime.

But leaving my sack lunch on a table (even with a bad motive) is not illegal !! How do you get a "hate crime" without a underlying crime???

Seriously, this is the problem with the liberal mindset of trying to criminalize thoughts instead of actions.

__________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I think I have the answer to this problem.
We could segregate the lunch room into two areas: ham eating area and non ham eating area. There could be a water fountain in each area, marked,"ham eaters only, and non ham eaters.
Since the school probably couldn't afford two swimming pools, there would have to be a sign at the door to the pool that said, "ham eaters only allowed to enter pool." Non ham eaters can use the river, if not occupied by ham eaters.
Each classroom would be marked "ham eaters only." or "non ham eaters only."
The language problem could be resolved by teaching "ebonics" in the 8th grade to both ham eaters and non ham eaters. That way, but only when necessary, could they converse.
Ham eaters would play football, basketball, baseball, and choir. Non ham eaters would only play cricket and pray five times a day.
I think if universally inflicted upon the kids, that it would work out well, and some day the non ham eaters could even vote in the auditorium for school officers.