Doubting Didymus

The evolvefish is not antireligious because anything about it is specifically against any particular religion. It is only antireligious because a certain group of morons has decided for themselves that evolution is opposite to christ.

Thats their fucking problem and not mine. pz's photo of earth could just as easily be considered antireligious, if the religious person in question is a complete nut.

Mageth

If anyone knows about this, I would like to hear. Thanks.

Greeks, Romans, etc. used the fish symbol for various purposes before the early Xians adopted it. The primary purpose was as a symbol for fertility or, more specifically, the female genitalia!

One reason the Xians adopted it may have been that it didn't particluarly attract attention, since many had seen it elsewhere before.

GaryP

I have to disagree on that. If I want to wear something that celebrates the advancement of science and knowledge, it makes no difference how others perceive it.

Anti-Religious to me would involve some sort of disrespect. I don't think simply displaying a non-obscene symbol does that.

And as I said, it is completely within that teacher's rights to wear it.

Mageth

I disagree completely. The key is the intent of the person displaying it, not the errors of perception made by palpably stupid people.

I have to disagree with this. Extrapolate this to some other, admittedly more inflammatory symbols, say the swastika or the confederate flag. Should a teacher wear a swastika in a classroom with Jewish students, even though the intent of the teacher is not to promote anti-Semitism, or the confederate battle flag on a t-shirt in a classroom with African-American students, even though the intent of the teacher is not to promote slavery? The perception of others is very important in what symbols are allowed in schools. If the Darwin Fish is causing distress in some students, then the teacher should be thoughtful enough not to display it, whether it's allowed or not.

To many, both atheist and Christian, the Darwin Fish is equivalent to saying "The creation account of Genesis 1-3 is a myth." That's a religious statement. A true statement, but still a religious statement.

As far as it being "anti-religious" instead of "religious", I think this argument is a bit pedantic. Whether it's making a pro- or anti-religious statement, it's still making a religious statement. A judge posting a sign in the courtroom saying "god doesn't exist" is making a religious statement just as much as a judge posting the Ten Commandments in the courtroom; neither should be allowed in that setting.

Thus, IMO, legally, if the school allows religious or other symbols to be worn by teachers/administrators, they should allow the Darwin Fish to be worn. If not, they should not allow the Darwin Fish. But if a teacher knows the symbol is causing or may cause distress to some students, the teacher should be thoughtful enough to not display it. Displaying it knowing it's causing distress in some students is counterproductive to the classroom environment.

Mageth

I have to disagree on that. If I want to wear something that celebrates the advancement of science and knowledge, it makes no difference how others perceive it.

So, if you were a teacher, and knew that your classroom had several students that believed the Genesis creation account to be fact, it would really make no difference to you how they perceived the Darwin Fish on your t-shirt?

These kids need to be reached with the "advancement of science and knowledge". Alienating them by wearing a symbol they might very well find offensive is counterproductive to that cause, IMO.

Feather

I think you raise some good points to consider, Mageth. I'm more inclined to believe the darwin/evolvefish should be allowed, but I don't view it as an attack on the account of creation. I can see where such a perception in the majority of students might be detrimental or disruptive.

But there's still the matter of degree of disruption and "tyranny of the majority" to consider.

The swastika is a symbol of hatred and death to Jews and many others, too. I think this is significantly different from a symbol representative of established scientific fact. I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Similarly for the Confederate flag.

Mageth

The swastika is a symbol of hatred and death to Jews and many others, too. I think this is significantly different from a symbol representative of established scientific fact. I'm not sure it's a fair comparison. Similarly for the Confederate flag.

I agree. However, I included those examples not as direct comparisons to the Darwin Fish, but rather as examples where pz's statement "The key is the intent of the person displaying it, not the errors of perception made by palpably stupid people" doesn't hold. One could argue, as I did for the school setting, that the perceptions of others sometimes should be taken into account, even for something as innocuous (to most people, anyway) as the Darwin Fish.

GaryP

I don't know if I could ever KNOW that it would be offensive. But if I did suspect, I would consider that issue. And then, I hope I would have the Kahunas to go ahead and wear it.

How can people know that non-believers can be decent, productive people if we are forever afraid of offending the majority?

Do you think that a Christian teacher should refrain from wearing WWJD bracelets and such? These are, after all, indisputedly of a religious nature. Whereas the Darwin fish is simply a secular item, IMO.

Megusic

If the Darwin fish was completely secular, the design wouldn't be drawn from a clearly religious symbol, IMO.

If the teacher had worn a shirt that said "Evolution Rules" or something, that would be great. The use of the fish in the Darwin/Evolvefishies clearly places these beliefs over the Christian idea of creationism.

gsx1138

Ok, this may be off the topic but I have to ask. What if the teacher had worn a shirt with a five pointed star in a circle (Wiccan pentacle)? This is a symbol used by xians to identify satanic cults. While they are obviously wrong would this be considered offensive? It is originally a pagan symbol that they stole to identify one of "their" gods.
I would equate my wearing a pentacle necklace to someone wearing an evolve fish shirt. Both symbols are seen as offensive by xians but I don't see them taking off their crosses despite the fact that I find them offensive. I guess I'm rambling now but I have far more tolerance for atheists than xians. You guys haven't been trying to convert me.