pax_vobiscum3

Calzear,


Wear your pentacle wherever you choose, I have no problem with it for the SCHOOL and thus the GOVT is NOT promoting what YOU bleieve in by YOU wearing it. That is the focus of this discussion, the SEP. of Church and State. (sorry about the caps, they are merely for emphasis)

Toto,

I already pointed out that I know of people who are polytheists so your opinion is not based in fact, sorry. Again we are getting away from the issue of sep. of church and state.

Im,

I agree that ALL should be allowed, barring violent and pornogrpahic images as they fall under a different ruling.

Toto

pax: but you haven't responded to my distinction between Art and Religion, which I think is the essential point.

nogods4me

So is some dude nailed to a cross a violent image?

pax_vobiscum3

Toto,

I apologize, I must have looked over your article about art. From what I gather you were talking about religios items in museums. Museeums are not government owned thus I see no connection of a church and state issue. If I am missing something pleas eforgive me and let me know.

4me,

Most people wear barren crosses. It is mostly only Catholics who wear the cross with Christ upon it . To answer your question, it was a violent act but it is not glorifying that act but glorifying the selflessness of the one who suffered through that act. The is nothing vulgar , so far as blood, guts, etc, in other words it is not 'graphic'.

Undercurrent

So what you're saying is that the intention of the wearer factors into whether an article should be forbidden or not? If I wore a cross, with Jesus on it, and was thinking how cool it was that they nailed a guy to a piece of wood and trying to show off the fact that the guy was writhing and suffering in pain during a slow death, it would be forbidden under your "violence" proscription?

Photocrat

The cross they showed on TV was pretty small (golden, less than 1 in). It made no mention of whether or no she was actually a Christian.

Honestly, I've seen quite a number of people who wear those as just jewelry and I honestly don't see why they have such a problem with it. It's a stupid law that places a prior restraint on free speech. If they're proselytizing students, terminate them for THAT, not for wearing jewelry...

As I side note, I wonder what would happen if some group of nudists decided that wearing clothes was a special 'religious' event for them, e.g. ANY clothes whatsoever were 'religious garb' to them? Would teachers have to teach naked in those states, or what? :)

Toto

You are e-forgiven.

Many museums are government owned or supported. The National Gallery of Art for example had a show entitled Caravaggio's The Taking of Christ: Saints and Sinners in Baroque Painting . I can't think of anyone who had any objection based on separation of church and state to that exhibit. They have also exhibited Buddhist art and Navajo sand paintings.

My point is that there is a difference between displaying religious art which can be appreciated on its own terms, and displaying a religious symbol that conveys a message. The crosses on public land are symbols meant to assert Christian dominance of the air space. That makes them a violation of the First Amendment.

Toto

It was pretty clear from the article in the OP that she was insisting on wearing the cross because she is a Christian.

Teachers do not have an absolute right to free speech in the classroom. Employers have the right to impose a dress code on employees, and that's what this is. Deal with it.

pax_vobiscum3

Toto,


It seems that just because the religious symbols are locked away in some building it is ok with you, but let them be outside and all of a sudden they are not art any longer in YOUR eyes. That seems very duplicitous to me, sorry. If there is no problem by secularist. as you say,. to having "RELIGOUS" things in a museum because they(secularist) see it is 'art', then there should be no problem with the RELIGOUS things anywhere, or is it that you can ONLY call something 'art' if it is in a museum?
It is interesting that you used the word 'dominance'. Feeling dominated comes from within.

Undercurrent,

No, that is not what I said. My first sentence in that quote is tied into the second sentence with the subject of it all being about 'Graphic' depictions of things. I defined graphic in that sentence. The first sentence was merely an explanation of what the symbol signifies to 'most people', or perhpas I should say 'most Christians'. It does carry with it the fact that it was a horrid death, of course.

pax_vobiscum3

From Photocrats post, I agree. So if a NON_christian wore the corss it would be ok for then it would be only art, TOTO? Very odd indeed.