beagledave, it’s my understanding that John 3:16 is used to proselytize, which led me to use it as an example. It’s the proselytizing aspect that makes it an infringement of the student’s rights, not the religious content. So, the WWJD bracelet, which is inspirational to the wearer, would be OK. Similarly, a necklace saying “John 3:16” would probably be OK - it’s there for people to notice, not in your face and being used to proselytize. Same for the fish or for a rosary, or for a St. Christopher image, or for ashes on the head. None of those says to me, “Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior or be cast into Hell for all eternity”. (Not that John says that either, but, again in my experience, that particular verse has been used to convey that message.) Stickers or decals on a personal vehicle can’t easily be removed, although the extent and content of them might make that car an improper vehicle to take students anywhere on school business.
As for Christmas carols on non-Christian radio stations, while I am heartily sick of all of them, it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, or even “White Christmas”, which are or have become through airplay ad nauseum secular, and things like
Conclusion: a teacher may express her religious beliefs so long as that expression (a “John 3:16” necklace, rosary, St. Christopher) does not cross the line into proselytization. Where to draw the line is not easy, and maybe my T-shirt example wasn’t the best, but it seems to me that the right of the teacher to practice her religion should end (or at least be truncated) when it infringes on the right of the student to be free from religious coercion.
I think basically we’re pretty close in agreement, at least conceptually. I think the t-shirt example creates a slippery slope, which is why I suggested the other examples.
I was bothered by the notion of pepperlandgirls’ teacher making the comments she did about the radio station (that wasnt mentioned in her OP)…at that point, in my mind at least, the situation perhaps crossed from what I might sloppily call “environmental religion” to somewhat more overt proselytization…and yes I know that “environmental religion” is not specifically OK’d by the Lemon test…but I think the chances of a successful court suit change with overt statements like what the teacher said.