Megusic

I personally don't think that any type of religious articles should be worn in plain view of students, for or against religion.

GaryP

I agree. Seeeing other teachers wear big sweatshirts emblazoned with Bible verses , etc. REALLY irks me. I'm always tempted to wear something like the shirts offerred at Landover Baptist Church;


http://www.cafeshops.com/landoverbaptist

Melkor

I agree 100%. It's utterly inappropriate, and because of the "errors of perception" that are inevitable, a far better solution would be to not do it at all.

As the evolve fish and the Darwin fish are made up of religious symbols, they would unfortunately fall into this category as well.

Mageth

Do you think that a Christian teacher should refrain from wearing WWJD bracelets and such?

If a religious, secular, or any other symbol, image, etc. is worn in such a way that it may cause disruption in the classroom, or is blatantly "preachy" like some t-shirts (and I think the "WWJD?" stuff falls in this category), yes. I don't think we should ban teachers from wearing things such as simple cross, star-of-david, crescent/star, etc. jewelry that's merely an expression of their religious affiliation. But if a teacher wears a cross or such and discovers that it causes problems with one or more of her students, then the teacher should refrain from wearing it. For teachers, maintaining a good classroom environment should trump any personal freedom of expression/speech concerns.

These are, after all, indisputedly of a religious nature. Whereas the Darwin fish is simply a secular item, IMO.

Obviously I disagree that the Darwin Fish is strictly secular, for the reasons I and others have stated above.

Mageth

I personally don't think that any type of religious articles should be worn in plain view of students, for or against religion.

That's one option - to ban teachers from wearing any religious symbols. Things making obvious statements such as "big sweatshirts emblazoned with Bible verses", yes, they should be banned.

But that may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't really think, as I said above, simple, non-preachy stuff such as a cross necklace or star-of-david earrings, worn as a religious symbol or otherwise, should be banned.

In fact, trying to ban teachers from wearing any religious imagery would likely run into big First Amendment problems. The courts have typically held that personally displaying a symbol of one's religion is a protected form of religious expression. However, a line may be crossed for teachers/school admins when they wear things like "big sweatshirts emblazoned with Bible verses", WWJD bracelets, and, yes, the Darwin Fish; they are now making a religious statement to the students, and that runs into its own First Amendment problems.

Megusic

i agree w/ jewelry and such being fine, as long as they don't attract major attention. Religion and nonreligion are just as most students know their teachers marital status and how many kids they have, and if they are a vegitarian, it is fine to know the teachers religion, as long as it isn't being shoved in student's faces, and no students object. a shirt w/ a big cross declaring "jesus loves you" goes too far, as i believe a darwin fish also does.

pz

Reasons which I find rather muddled and unconvincing. What are they, again? They seem to center on misperceptions by others.

I've decided that ties are religious symbols -- they are obviously representative of hanging, and are affiliated with the Asatru. Ban them.

You wouldn't believe the implications of holy undergarments to Mormons. Ban underwear.

Zippers? Manichean duality. Buttons? I blush to mention them. Pants? Primal nomadic horse-religions.

It goes on and on. We could see religion in everything, and it doesn't seem to matter if we protest that a darwin fish is not a religious symbol -- if somebody says it is, it is.

Gooch's dad

I think there is a huge difference between these two cases:

1. The teacher bakes a cake for Darwin Day, and wears a sweatshirt that says in big bold letters EVOLVE.

2. All the same, but the sweatshirt has an evolve fish.

The purpose of the evolve fish IS to taunt the Christians. We use their symbol to thumb our nose at them. Yes, the purpose is partly anti-ignorance and pro-science, but the purpose is also partly mocking.

I'm an atheist, I had an evolve fish on my car for years, and will have another one soon, but I think the teacher is crossing a boundary there. Teachers should educate, should challenge ignorance by teaching good science, but they should NOT mock the private beliefs of the students.

Just my dos centavos....

-Kelly

Mageth

Reasons which I find rather muddled and unconvincing. What are they, again? They seem to center on misperceptions by others.

I'm an atheist (obviously) and, to me, and I think to many if not most other people whether Xian or atheist, the Darwin/Evolve fish, by usurping the Xian fish symbol, makes the statement "The Genesis creation account is a myth." Like it or not, this is making a statement about a religious belief, and thus conveys a religious (or, one could quibble, anti-religious) message. I don't think this is a misperception; indeed, I think it was the intent of the originator of the evolve fish to make a statement about the falsity of creationism.

Doubting Didymus

Teaching evolutionary science also makes that statement. Any compentent biology teacher, if asked during a class on evolution whether the genesis account is literally true, should answer "no". It is their responsibility to teach science students what is accurate and what is not, according to science. Is that lesson to be outlawed, because it clearly states that genesis is a myth?

And so she bloody well should. It is also the intent on geologists to clearly state that the biblical model of earth is false.