Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kinross · 05-07-2003, 04:58 PM

Info here.

Now this person is a complete religous nut, her press conference was chapter and verse, but I think that the law is flawed.

I see no harm with a person wearing religous symbols at work even at a school as long as all religions are able too. Interstingly the law was made to keep "other" religious symbols out of the school, ie wican, hindu, muslim.

PandaJoe · 05-07-2003, 05:09 PM

We'll be hearing about this in Godspam for about 15 years, won't we?

Toto · 05-07-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

The ban on religious garb in schools has been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania. In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf. The court ruled in 1990 that she couldn't

I think that students have a constitutional right to symbolic speech - the black armband case. But teachers are different, since they are agents of the state. Employees in general do not have the absolute right to wear religious insignia on the job.

From www.firstamendmentcenter.org :

Can a teacher wear religious garb to school provided the teacher does not proselytize to the students? (scroll down)

Quote:

Probably not. It is likely that many courts would allow a school to prohibit teachers' religious garb in order to maintain religious neutrality. The courts may view such garb as creating a potential establishment-clause problem, particularly at the elementary school level.

Pennsylvania and Oregon have laws that prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing to schools. Both laws have been upheld in court challenges brought under the First Amendment and Title VII, the major anti-discrimination employment law. The courts reasoned that the statutes furthered the states' goal of ensuring neutrality with respect to religion in the schools.

In the Pennsylvania case, U.S. v. Board of Education, the 3rd Circuit rejected the Title VII religious-discrimination claim of a Muslim teacher who was prevented from wearing her religious clothing to school. The school acted pursuant to a state law, called the �Garb Statute,� which provided: �[N]o teacher in any public school shall wear in said school or while engaged in the performance of his duty as such teacher any dress, mark, emblem or insignia indicating the fact that such teacher is a member or adherent of any religious order, sect or denomination.�

. . .

In its 1986 decision Cooper v. Eugene School District, the Oregon Supreme Court rejected the free-exercise challenge of a Sikh teacher suspended for wearing religious clothing � a white turban and white clothes � to her special education classes. The Oregon high court upheld the state law, which provided: �No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.� The court wrote that �the aim of maintaining the religious neutrality of the public schools furthers a constitutional obligation beyond an ordinary policy preference of the legislature.�

[However] The First Amendment Center�s A Teacher�s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools provides that �teachers are permitted to wear non-obtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or Star of David. But teachers should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g. a �Jesus Saves� T-shirt)."

Prohibiting a small cross seems excessive, especially since so many people wear crosses as ornamentation without a particular religious significance (the Pope has complained about that.) But the crucifix that woman was wearing was not small or unobtrusive.

Normus · 05-07-2003, 10:19 PM

i think no harm, no foul on that one

RufusAtticus · 05-08-2003, 02:15 AM

Those oregon and pennsylvania laws seem to be biased other cultures. At what point does a cultural mode of dress become untangled from a religious mode of dress? Would a teacher who wears home-spun clothes because her faith tells her to live simply be any different than a teacher who wears a head scarf because her faith tells her? What about a person of Arab descent who wears a head scarf not for religious reasons but because it is traditional for her family?

I can understand a ban on insignia and religious messages, but clothing that can be connected to religion in general seems to be overly broad and biased agains "non-american" modes of dress.

Ut · 05-08-2003, 02:59 AM

Interesting. In Canada, government employees can wear any kind of religious symbols they like, as long as it doesn't interfere with their job. There was a huge story about ten years ago of a Sikh who wanted to enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Being a Sikh, he wanted to wear his turban instead of wearing the traditional hat prescribed in the RCMP uniform. After a passioned public debate, we finally accepted it in the name of multiculturalism.

In France, it's completely the opposite. They are so adamant about the secularism of their government that they want every one of its employees to be a secular embodiment of government while working. No crosses. No hijabs. No stars of David. No turbans. No nothing.

Comquirk · 05-08-2003, 06:21 AM

I side with freedom of expression here. No prostelyzing, no problem.

If she cannot wear a cross, they could also stop me from wearing a Darwin fish, or something of its ilk. That just doesn't sit with me.

BibleBelted · 05-08-2003, 08:09 AM

From the article:

Quote:

Nichol said yesterday that being asked to remove her cross is like being asked to remove a wedding ring. She also complained that religion is "systematically being removed from society."

This ridiculous claim is made by the Reconstructionists almost as much as the (totally unsubstantiated) one that America was founded on "Christian principles."

I have yet to meet a fundy who can list for me even one.

Consent of the governed, liberty, free speech, freedom of assembly, equality, self-evident inalienable rights, rights in general - even the right to bear arms.

Still, I smell set up here. Though I don't doubt she is in technical violation of the law - I think the Christian Coalition strategy is to drive us up the wall with these inanities until we appear to the public at large as a bunch of shrill, persimmon-sucking scrooges.

Difficult as it may be, I say we need to try to remain the the calm, but resolute, voice of reason.

Admittedly, that may not be a winning strategy in this sound-byte information age.

simian · 05-08-2003, 08:10 AM

I agree there should be some freedom in what people wear, however:

Quote:

The ban on religious garb in schools has been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania. In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf. The court ruled in 1990 that she couldn't.

(from the article)

The law was passed and upheld on a Circuit level. While I doubt the people passing it intended it to apply to CHRISTIANS, the fact of the matter is that Christians have no special protection. They passed a law to keep minority religions from wearing their religious garb - now the same law is being applied to them. Perhaps there should have been no limitations passed on what they assumed were "other" religions...

Simian

pax_vobiscum3 · 05-08-2003, 08:44 AM

No matter how hard the secualrist try, people will still have their faith and will always practice it where and when they see fit. The U.S. government does not have the right to inhibit this no matter how many wacko judges try to kick all religions completely out of the U.S.
I get offended by some of the clothing or lack of, that some 'professional' educators get away with wearing yet you do not here me whining about it. If we are going to start taking away freedom of expression due to 'it offending someone' then I am for removing the statues of gods and goddesses off of the Public governmental buildings in many states. I see none of the secularists mentioning that; Why, because they want tolerance for all religions except Christianity, and possibly Judaism.
If I get responses to this be careful in your assumptions. I have made no reference to my faith, if I have any at all.

05-07-2003, 04:58 PM	#1
Kinross Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: . Posts: 1,281	Teacher suspended for wearing a cross. Info here. Now this person is a complete religous nut, her press conference was chapter and verse, but I think that the law is flawed. I see no harm with a person wearing religous symbols at work even at a school as long as all religions are able too. Interstingly the law was made to keep "other" religious symbols out of the school, ie wican, hindu, muslim.

05-08-2003, 08:44 AM	#10
pax_vobiscum3 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: NY Posts: 11	Liberal secularism run amock... No matter how hard the secualrist try, people will still have their faith and will always practice it where and when they see fit. The U.S. government does not have the right to inhibit this no matter how many wacko judges try to kick all religions completely out of the U.S. I get offended by some of the clothing or lack of, that some 'professional' educators get away with wearing yet you do not here me whining about it. If we are going to start taking away freedom of expression due to 'it offending someone' then I am for removing the statues of gods and goddesses off of the Public governmental buildings in many states. I see none of the secularists mentioning that; Why, because they want tolerance for all religions except Christianity, and possibly Judaism. If I get responses to this be careful in your assumptions. I have made no reference to my faith, if I have any at all.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2003, 05:09 PM	#2
PandaJoe Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bloomington, Indiana Posts: 188	We'll be hearing about this in Godspam for about 15 years, won't we?

05-07-2003, 10:19 PM	#4
Normus Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: U.S. Posts: 32	i think no harm, no foul on that one

05-08-2003, 02:15 AM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Those oregon and pennsylvania laws seem to be biased other cultures. At what point does a cultural mode of dress become untangled from a religious mode of dress? Would a teacher who wears home-spun clothes because her faith tells her to live simply be any different than a teacher who wears a head scarf because her faith tells her? What about a person of Arab descent who wears a head scarf not for religious reasons but because it is traditional for her family? I can understand a ban on insignia and religious messages, but clothing that can be connected to religion in general seems to be overly broad and biased agains "non-american" modes of dress.

05-08-2003, 02:59 AM	#6
Ut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 828	Interesting. In Canada, government employees can wear any kind of religious symbols they like, as long as it doesn't interfere with their job. There was a huge story about ten years ago of a Sikh who wanted to enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Being a Sikh, he wanted to wear his turban instead of wearing the traditional hat prescribed in the RCMP uniform. After a passioned public debate, we finally accepted it in the name of multiculturalism. In France, it's completely the opposite. They are so adamant about the secularism of their government that they want every one of its employees to be a secular embodiment of government while working. No crosses. No hijabs. No stars of David. No turbans. No nothing.

05-08-2003, 06:21 AM	#7
Comquirk Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Truro, NS/Fredericton, NB Canada Posts: 274	I side with freedom of expression here. No prostelyzing, no problem. If she cannot wear a cross, they could also stop me from wearing a Darwin fish, or something of its ilk. That just doesn't sit with me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.