Thanks for you patience and understanding, SC. It's truly appreciated. It's true we will continue to disagree, but it's wonderful that we live in a nation where we can be free to do so, and neither of us risking imprisonment or worse. We are in agreement on many other issues, so one out of several shouldn't really cause us a lot of heartburn.
| QUOTE | School board members and public school employees usually aren't constitutional attorneys, they are everyday folks like you and I. Most have no idea what is, or is not, acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. We've already conceded (repeatedly) that Supreme Court rulings have been frequently misapplied. More often than not it isn't a case of "persecution", but rather it is an honest mistake on the part of well-meaning people.
This paragraph struck a nerve in me, but at the time I wasn't sure why. Then today it dawned on me the double-standard here. On the one hand, if teachers wear cross necklaces, or allow the children to have prayer before lunch, or allow the children to distribute religious literature to one another, or discuss creation vs. evolution, then they are in violation of the Establishment Clause because clearly, as employees of the government, they are seen as promoting religion. However, when it comes to their attacks of the same types of issues, then the government is relieved of any guilt of persecution because they are not constitutional attorneys. Is that about right? It must be, because you later said "My position is that Christians are not PERSECUTED by the government." So which is it, do teachers and other school employees represent government, or do they not? |
That the paragraph struck a nerve is actually a good thing. It shows you are really paying attention and putting a lot of thought into this debate. The thread has caused me to do the same, reexamining some long held feelings and attitudes. At the least it's caused me to acknowlege some of things about myself that I've long taken for granted.
We can address this paragraph from several directions. Let's start by putting it in context. I wrote that paragraph simply to show that honest mistakes don't necessarily equate to persecution. I've never advocating giving them a pass though. I've repeated stated that such events as you described should be challenged by those with the legal standing to do so. If they are not challenged then those behaviors won't be changed. It's pretty much that simple.
Let's take a look at which of behaviors have been challenged in the United States in the past, and the outcomes of those challenges. First off, teachers disciplined for wearing religious themed jewelry. There is a pretty good article that addresses this topic at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_clot1.htm
| QUOTE | teachers in public schools:
- May not promote a particular religion
- May not promote religion in general as superior to secularism.
In most school districts, regulations prevent teachers from displaying elements of their personal faith, such as a placing a Bible, Torah, or Qur'an on their desk top. The Pennsylvania Public School code, and similar regulations in other states, prohibits teachers from wearing religious garb. This includes the wearing of a necklace containing a cross, crucifix, Star of David, Wiccan Pentacle, etc, if the symbol is visible to students. They can wear a religious necklace if they wish, but the symbol has to be tucked behind clothing out of sight. Brenda Nichol, 43, has been aware of the regulation since 1997, and has been threatened with suspension twice for violating the code. On 2003-APR-8, she again refused to either remove the necklace or tuck in the cross. She was suspended for a year from her post as a public-school teacher's aide. She said: "I could not follow that code in my heart. I could not deny Christ." She is being defended by the Fundamentalist Christian American Center for Law and Justice. |
I found the resolution of this case in a news article at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11875
| QUOTE | Pennsylvania school agrees to retain cross-wearing teacher's aide
By The Associated Press
08.31.03
PITTSBURGH — A teacher's aide who was suspended without pay in April for wearing a cross necklace in violation of a school agency's ban on religious emblems will keep her job under a federal court settlement reached last week.
Brenda Nichol's attorneys settled with the ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, which provides teachers' aides and other services to 11 public school districts in Armstrong and Indiana counties. Nichol is a special education teacher's aide assigned to the Penns Manor School District, about 45 miles northeast of Pittsburgh.
The religious garb policy, which a judge ruled last June was likely unconstitutional, has already been dropped by ARIN, Nichol's attorney Joseph Luciana said.
.....U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab approved the agreement on Aug. 28. In June, Schwab issued a preliminary injunction saying Nichol should be reinstated and given back pay because the garb policy was "openly and overtly averse to religion."
By settling the case, the parties avoid a trial on the merits of the policy and the 1895 Pennsylvania law on which it was based.
"Our accepting the judge's preliminary injunction as permanent means that his ruling only affects us and our employee handbook. It doesn't affect other school districts and their handbooks — the state law is left untouched and still stands," said Robert H. Coad Jr., ARIN's executive director.
But Vincent McCarthy, northeast regional counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said Schwab's ruling and the resulting settlement make it unlikely similar policies will be enforced by schools or other state-funded agencies.
"It's doubtful that this (issue) is going to arise again because of the result of this case. Everything's going to be there in the public record, including the legal fees," McCarthy said. "So it would not make much sense for someone to go down this road again." |
Notwithstanding the outcome of the case above, the FAQ answer below from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/faqs.aspx?id=6246&#q6246 has this to say about prohibitions against public school teachers religious displays:
| QUOTE | Can a teacher wear religious garb to school provided the teacher does not proselytize to the students?
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.”
The teacher and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contended that the school should have allowed the teacher to wear her head scarf and long, loose dress as a “reasonable accommodation” of her religious faith. The appeals court disagreed, determining that “the preservation of religious neutrality is a compelling state interest.”
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.”
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)." |
I find it interesting to note that neither of the illustrative cases presented in this statement referred to a display promoting Christian beliefs. Not sure if they were cherry picking cases or not, as the site strikes me as being pretty much neutral in terms of promoting any specific religion.
Regarding the student behaviors you mentioned, case law indicates that teachers may not legally interfere in peer initiated religious activities such as prayer, Bible discussion, &c.
Again from First Amendment Center.org, we have this regarding prayer in public schools:
| QUOTE | The Supreme Court has made clear that prayers organized or sponsored by a public school violate the First Amendment, whether in the classroom, over the public-address system, at a graduation exercise or even at a high school football game. The same rule applies whether the activity is prayer or devotional Bible reading.
However, students are free to pray alone or in groups, as long as the activity is not disruptive and does not infringe upon the rights of others. These activities must be truly voluntary and student-initiated. For example, students are permitted to gather around the flagpole for prayer before school begins, as long as the event is not sponsored by the school and other students are not pressured to attend. Students do not have a right to force a captive audience to participate in religious exercises.
While a student’s right to pray is protected, the Supreme Court has struck down state-sponsored or state-organized prayer in public schools. The Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that government must be neutral among religions and between religion and nonreligion. This means that school officials may not organize, mandate or participate in student religious activities, including prayer. A moment of silence, however, may be led by school officials, as long as it does not promote prayer over other types of quiet contemplation. |
Regarding religious discussions, the same source provides this:
| QUOTE | The establishment clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit purely private religious speech by students. Students, therefore, have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activity. For example, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may engage in comparable nondisruptive activities. Local school authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of order and other pedagogical restrictions on student activities, but they may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech. Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. Specifically, students in informal settings, such as cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other student activities and speech. Students may also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop student speech that constitutes harassment aimed at a student or a group of students.
Students may also participate in before- or after-school events with religious content, such as “see you at the flagpole” gatherings, on the same terms as they may participate in other noncurriculum activities on school premises. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event. The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination does not include the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate. Teachers and school administrators should ensure that no student is in any way coerced to participate in religious activity. |
So, if teachers are preventing students from engaging in any of those protected activities then it should be challenged - "by those with legal standing" (i.e. the students or their parents/guardians).
There is no argument that the Government holds teachers and other school officials to a much higher standard than students or the general population. First Amendment Center . Org also addressed this issue, which I found of interest.
| QUOTE |
Why does the Supreme Court apply the establishment clause more strictly in public schools than elsewhere in public life?
The Court exercises special caution in the public schools due to the presence of impressionable young students who are at school as a result of compulsory-attendance laws. This combination of children and a captive audience distinguishes the school prayer cases from other situations such as legislative sessions or college graduations, where courts may be more lax in applying the establishment clause. As the caretaker for all the children in the community, a public school has the responsibility to protect the conscience of every student. This will include children of various religious faiths, as well as those of no religious faith. Only by maintaining a posture of neutrality can the school be fair to all. |
I agree strongly with that statement, so there probably is a double-standard in my opinion in that regard.
Swanny
|
of ideas.
. There are Christian who are way too aggressive in their approach, as there as those who view Jesus as a "fire escape" and never care enough to share their faith with others. Balance is a good word here.
Now THERE is a topic on which we can always agree. 