Unholy wars

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Are you absolutely sure of this assertion?

When religious leaders under the umbrella of Shia or Wahabsim call for suicide bombing, it’s not being asked by a major religion? Since it’s clearly being asked by a religious leader, are you just defining them as “not major”? Heh, they’d probably hate to hear that.

What about Shinto kamikaze pilots with the religious scarf tied around their heads, diving into American carriers for the honor of the ancestors – a very Shinto concept?

I don’t think the line is quite as clear as you would draw it.

Sailboat
[/QUOTE]

It is certainly not a clear cut issue. Still, on both those cases, religion provides a framework that makes possible a call to the suicide attack. It doesn’t call to it. The call comes from a political leaders for political reasons.

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
I’m a bit late for the thread but…
What is the motivation of one child to inform another that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? True, probably to be a jerk but still, why shouldn’t he?
[/QUOTE]

are you validating or contradicting me?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Spending money to remove existing ones? sorry, not worth the hassle. If we ever need to change those floor tiles, the statue of the bleeding prophet doesn’t get put back; until then, it waits. They are there as a part of history. Reality is, that there is a strong christian tradition in the US. Moving away from it is not only a noble, but an urgent task. History, though, cannot be rewritten.
[/QUOTE]
While I am also for the removal of any religious symbols in court houses anyway, I’d like to point out that it isn’t just old things that people would like removed. One of the more recent cases involved a monument that had been put up in 2001.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Questions for the religious. Would you support:

A sign on public property that said: “There is no God”?

Time set aside at graduation for a representative of the Atheist community to talk about the inspiration he feels by knowing there is no God?

Changing the Pledge of Allegiance to say “one Nation, without God”?

A school sponsored event each day where students and teachers gather around the flag pole to celebrate the fact there is no God?

Tax breaks for Atheist clubs, but none for religious ones?

Organizations that exclude the religious (or require them to acknowledge there is no higher power) having access to public buildings?
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure I qualify as religious but I think these are good questions.

1. No

2. I think if the valedictorian should be allowed to speak about their own feelings but should probably not witness to others. for or against religion. My question on these issues is how much control or influence the federal government needs to exert over local events and issues.

3. One nation under surveillance seems more appropriate these days but to your question “No”

4. No but again, federal vs local questions arise

5. Don’t some non religious non profit organizations qualify as tax exempt? I think a church should support their local community and pay sales tax on what they buy.
   The worse offense is government grants that Bus has now aimed at faith based organizations. If any part of your purpose is witnessing then you should receive NO federal money.

I don’t get the last question. No citizen should be examined for religious faith or lack of it to access public facilities. What example were you thinking of?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
While I am also for the removal of any religious symbols in court houses anyway, I’d like to point out that it isn’t just old things that people would like removed. One of the more recent cases involved a monument that had been put up in 2001.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think Sapo has a point though. Isn’t our Supreme Court building covered in religious symbols? I know the pledge and the money issue is not actually a tradition as much as something done to appease the religious. I see no reason not to change our official stance.

The hard question for me is how do we defend the freedom of worship for government employees? I don’t think people should have to surrender or suppress their beliefs just because they work for the government, but neither should they use their position as a platform to witness. It seems a tricky balance to find.

[truthpizza]

Originally posted by Sapo
I would like to hear your reasoning as to how humanity would be better off without religion

In addition to the many problems created by those who want to force their beliefs on others, and encouraging poor thinking, like the idea that believing things without evidence is actually something to be proud of, I don’t think religion provides the benefits people claim it does.

People without religion seem to behave just as well as people who believe, and although apparently much of the population of Europe ignores religion, there doesn’t seem to be any problem with moral decay there. I don’t see religion being responsible for moral behavior, which is mainly part of the culture as a whole. We all benefit from people caring about each other, so there is lots of incentive to keep this in the culture even if religion is gone.

People often talk about the comfort religion gives them, but from what I’ve seen, atheists handle tragedies as well or better than believers, who may freak thinking they are being punished or tested.

More importantly, how do you propose we work towards that goal.

This is obviously very difficult, although for some reason religion has declined in Europe apparently on its own. It would be helpful if atheism was more respectable, and public figures like Dawkins, Penn Jillette, and George Carlin are a help when they make it clear they’re not religious. Promotion of critical thinking is valuable, especially if it encourages people to question authority. Finally atheists need to present their case more effectively. Less attention should be payed to the faults of religion and more to the reasons people believe it, which in my opinion is mainly because they believe what they are told by others who don’t know the truth themselves.

[Sage_Rat]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
are you validating or contradicting me?
[/QUOTE]

I’m just saying that while it may be being jerkish to deprive people of their fantasies, on a website devoted to “fighting ignorance” it’s hard to say that being a jerk isn’t still the more moral.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8192935&postcount=2

[MEBuckner]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Isn’t our Supreme Court building covered in religious symbols?
[/QUOTE]

Not really, no. The Supreme Court building is covered in depictions of lawgivers throughout history, including from times when religion and law or government weren’t separated the way our Constitution separates them (Moses, Muhammad) as well as periods when lawgiving was a much more secular activity (John Marshall, Napoleon Bonaparte). Among the allegorical depictions of law and legislators, Moses figures pretty prominently, as a well-known metaphorical stand-in for One Who Brings the People Law, but he shares pretty equal billing with those heathens Confucius and Solon. There are also lots of representations of the familiar “Justice personified” with her scales and blindfold and so on, which owe more to pagan Greco-Roman depictions of the godesses Themis or Justitia (PDF file).

So, the Supreme Court building is covered in symbols of law and justice, many but by no means all of which are taken from various religions/mythologies, but in a way which is a heck of a lot more truly ecumenical than some Ten Commandments monument on a county courthouse lawn with the Mayflower Compact and a couple of snippets of the Declaration of Independence plastered on the side to make it into a “historical display”. To me, the SCOTUS decorations clearly have no intent to promote any particular religion, or even religion in general over non-belief, but rather to promote Law over Lawlessness (sort of a no-brainer concept for a courthouse).

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree. I think Sapo has a point though. Isn’t our Supreme Court building covered in religious symbols? I know the pledge and the money issue is not actually a tradition as much as something done to appease the religious. I see no reason not to change our official stance.
[/quote]
I honestly have no knowledge of whether the Supreme Court building is covered in religious symbols. Assuming MEBuckner is correct, though, I don’t see a huge problem. It would mean that no particular religion is established, and while there probably isn’t a statue for anyone, there’s no clear “group” of religions being pushed.

The hard question for me is how do we defend the freedom of worship for government employees? I don’t think people should have to surrender or suppress their beliefs just because they work for the government, but neither should they use their position as a platform to witness. It seems a tricky balance to find.

I don’t see why they have to surrender or suppress their beliefs at all. Why would they? We are all free to think and say what we want. I don’t think removing a symbol of their religion from their place of work removes their freedom of worship, especially considering all the people that work at places with no religious symbols at all and seem to be fine.

In general, a religious person can worship anywhere (excepting those people who need to perform some physical ritual, like Muslims), in their heads. And holy buildings like churches are the main place to worship; I have never heard an atheist say they’d like to outlaw them or strip symbols off of them.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
Not really, no. The Supreme Court building is covered in depictions of lawgivers throughout history, including from times when religion and law or government weren’t separated the way our Constitution separates them (Moses, Muhammad) as well as periods when lawgiving was a much more secular activity (John Marshall, Napoleon Bonaparte). Among the allegorical depictions of law and legislators, Moses figures pretty prominently, as a well-known metaphorical stand-in for One Who Brings the People Law, but he shares pretty equal billing with those heathens Confucius and Solon. There are also lots of representations of the familiar “Justice personified” with her scales and blindfold and so on, which owe more to pagan Greco-Roman depictions of the godesses Themis or Justitia (PDF file).

So, the Supreme Court building is covered in symbols of law and justice, many but by no means all of which are taken from various religions/mythologies, but in a way which is a heck of a lot more truly ecumenical than some Ten Commandments monument on a county courthouse lawn with the Mayflower Compact and a couple of snippets of the Declaration of Independence plastered on the side to make it into a “historical display”. To me, the SCOTUS decorations clearly have no intent to promote any particular religion, or even religion in general over non-belief, but rather to promote Law over Lawlessness (sort of a no-brainer concept for a courthouse).
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Thats very helpful. I like the cross cultural figures of justice much better. I’ve gotten a few things via Email about our Christian heritage in the US and it always irritates and saddens me to see how people who supposedly revere the truth will eagerly embrace dishonesty to cling to the image they desire.

They selectively showed the Judeo Christian images on the building and ignored the rest when, seeing hat PDF, it is perfectly obvious that the images are not inttended to make a religious statement.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I honestly have no knowledge of whether the Supreme Court building is covered in religious symbols. Assuming MEBuckner is correct, though, I don’t see a huge problem. It would mean that no particular religion is established, and while there probably isn’t a statue for anyone, there’s no clear “group” of religions being pushed.

[/QUOTE]
That appears to be correct and I prefer it. I completely support separation of church and state. I find it telling and often ignored by those who insist we are a Christian nation founded in Christian principles, that although those who founded our nation were predominantly Christian there was an obvious conscious effort made to make this a secular government that protected the religious freedom of all. Even the term “Christian principles” annoys me. What principles are there that can claim being uniquely Christian?

I don’t see why they have to surrender or suppress their beliefs at all. Why would they? We are all free to think and say what we want. I don’t think removing a symbol of their religion from their place of work removes their freedom of worship, especially considering all the people that work at places with no religious symbols at all and seem to be fine.

I agree that removing religious symbols from public buildings does nothing to inhibit religious freedom. The problem I see in reading different reports is protecting the rights of believers, especially those employed by state or federal agencies, have? I read of a teacher who was asked not to wear a cross to school. Could a teacher read the Bible or the Koran openly during a study hall. What happens when a student goes to a trusted teacher for help or guidance and the teacher invites the student to pray? Can the valedictorian talk of her faith at graduation? I even talked to someone whose son was reading the Bible as literature and carrying it in school when some dufus teacher said “that violates separation of church and state” There’s lots of questions still about where the lines are drawn when it comes to people expressing their faith. That is also protected by the 1st amendment.

In general, a religious person can worship anywhere (excepting those people who need to perform some physical ritual, like Muslims), in their heads. And holy buildings like churches are the main place to worship; I have never heard an atheist say they’d like to outlaw them or strip symbols off of them.

Except worship does not remain only in the head. There’s also freedom of speech.
Can federal employees preform their religious rituals at work? As the discussion continues we’ll find all kinds of specific details that need examining. I think that examination is a good necessary thing.

[Apos]

cosmo, I’ve never really understood what’s so hard about the questions you pose. Even for government employees, anytime anyone has to speak freely, as a person, they are free to speak about their religious beliefs. It’s only when they are officially acting AS the office they are occupying that there is any problem with being non-neutral towards religion.

To that, we, and the courts have traditionally held, a reasonable accommodation of religion beliefs, such as special times allowed off the clock for daily prayer, special personal symbols necessary to their beliefs or clothing, etc. Obviously this standard can’t prevent being slightly overzealous or slightly too permissive, but by and large I think it’s one that makes most of the outrage and debate look a bit silly. It’s really not so hard.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I agree that removing religious symbols from public buildings does nothing to inhibit religious freedom. The problem I see in reading different reports is protecting the rights of believers, especially those employed by state or federal agencies, have? I read of a teacher who was asked not to wear a cross to school. Could a teacher read the Bible or the Koran openly during a study hall. What happens when a student goes to a trusted teacher for help or guidance and the teacher invites the student to pray? Can the valedictorian talk of her faith at graduation? I even talked to someone whose son was reading the Bible as literature and carrying it in school when some dufus teacher said “that violates separation of church and state” There’s lots of questions still about where the lines are drawn when it comes to people expressing their faith. That is also protected by the 1st amendment.
[/quote]
Well, obviously a student should be allowed to take a Bible in to school, even if it’s because they’re Christian and see it as a good luck thing. They could even hold some kind of prayer meeting, as long as it isn’t endorsed by the school over other religions (that is, a teacher couldn’t do it, and if Christians want a room to pray in other groups should too).

I don’t really see a huge problem with drawing the line with freedom of speech with teachers. Why not just say they can say whatever they want when they’re acting as private citizens, but not when they’re acting as representatives of the school?

Except worship does not remain only in the head. There’s also freedom of speech.
Can federal employees preform their religious rituals at work? As the discussion continues we’ll find all kinds of specific details that need examining. I think that examination is a good necessary thing.

Who’s saying it isn’t?

My opinion would be that religious rituals and beliefs should be accepted on a federal level if they are necessary for that religion. So for example, a Muslim needs to pray during the day, so that should be accomodated. A Sikh should be allowed to wear a turban and kirpan. But should a religious symbol be not mandatory, it should be foregone. Same for religious rituals - if your religion requires you to pray so many times a day, that’s fine, but if you stand up in the middle of a meeting and start praying, that’d not be ok (and probably a breach of etiquette ).

Obviously i’m not saying all religous requirements should be accepted. Carrying an automatic rifle at all times? No. But I think generally the law can be followed with regarding actual criminal behaviour. So I think “If it is necessary” would be a good line to draw.

[DanBlather]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m not sure I qualify as religious but I think these are good questions.

I don’t get the last question. No citizen should be examined for religious faith or lack of it to access public facilities. What example were you thinking of?
[/QUOTE]
I was thinking of the Boy Scouts who often meet in schools and other public buildings, but require their members to acknowledge belief in a supreme being.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Apos]
cosmo, I’ve never really understood what’s so hard about the questions you pose. Even for government employees, anytime anyone has to speak freely, as a person, they are free to speak about their religious beliefs. It’s only when they are officially acting AS the office they are occupying that there is any problem with being non-neutral towards religion.
[/QUOTE]

Thats where the problem is alright. When people are at work at their state or federal level job they are also citizens. It isn’t as easy as you think to draw a line between acting in their official capacity and making a personal comment or expression. Per the examples I cited and others.

To that, we, and the courts have traditionally held, a reasonable accommodation of religion beliefs, such as special times allowed off the clock for daily prayer, special personal symbols necessary to their beliefs or clothing, etc. Obviously this standard can’t prevent being slightly overzealous or slightly too permissive, but by and large I think it’s one that makes most of the outrage and debate look a bit silly. It’s really not so hard.

Well I’m not outraged but I am occasionally silly. I don’t buy into the war on religion or Christianity thing. I’m only pointing out that it isn’t as obvious as some think.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Well, obviously a student should be allowed to take a Bible in to school, even if it’s because they’re Christian and see it as a good luck thing. They could even hold some kind of prayer meeting, as long as it isn’t endorsed by the school over other religions (that is, a teacher couldn’t do it, and if Christians want a room to pray in other groups should too).

I don’t really see a huge problem with drawing the line with freedom of speech with teachers. Why not just say they can say whatever they want when they’re acting as private citizens, but not when they’re acting as representatives of the school?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not presenting this as a huge issue or problem. I’m only noting that the lines are not always clear and confrontations occur.

Are you saying that if a Christian teacher is asked by a student about her beliefs he or she should say, “I can’t talk about them” Should atheists be instructed to respond the same way? Let’s just not mention any beliefs about God at school because it’s a whole can of worms.

Should teachers be allowed to wear the religious symbols of their faith? Read the Bible openly in study hall?

My opinion would be that religious rituals and beliefs should be accepted on a federal level if they are necessary for that religion. So for example, a Muslim needs to pray during the day, so that should be accomodated. A Sikh should be allowed to wear a turban and kirpan. But should a religious symbol be not mandatory, it should be foregone. Same for religious rituals - if your religion requires you to pray so many times a day, that’s fine, but if you stand up in the middle of a meeting and start praying, that’d not be ok (and probably a breach of etiquette ).

I’d agree that an expression of faith is acceptable until it becomes disruptive in some way. I’m not so sure on the mandatory thing. If Muslims can pray five times a day and Sikhs can wear a turban I should be able to wear my thumbs up Jesus T. How about a nice cross on a chain?

I heard on NPR there was a discussion going on in parts of Europe because Muslim woman wanted to go to work wearing the whole veiled face get up and some employers objected. Lot’s of little details to iron out.

Obviously i’m not saying all religous requirements should be accepted. Carrying an automatic rifle at all times? No. But I think generally the law can be followed with regarding actual criminal behaviour. So I think “If it is necessary” would be a good line to draw.

Okay. Who gets to decide what is necessary? Our courts? Over and over and over as people file their lawsuits most likely.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m not presenting this as a huge issue or problem. I’m only noting that the lines are not always clear and confrontations occur.

Are you saying that if a Christian teacher is asked by a student about her beliefs he or she should say, “I can’t talk about them” Should atheists be instructed to respond the same way? Let’s just not mention any beliefs about God at school because it’s a whole can of worms.
[/quote]
Well, let’s be fair. It’s not that teachers shouldn’t talk about religion and beliefs; they can. The problem is if a teacher talks about one particular religion as being superior (or inferior) to others. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to have any kind of religious education in schools, and that’s an important subject.

Should teachers be allowed to wear the religious symbols of their faith? Read the Bible openly in study hall?

I’ve heard of “study hall” before, but didn’t know what it meant. Assuming Wikipedia gives a good definition, I would say that yes, they could read the Bible openly, but not to students. Doing their own thing is fine, it’s when students get involved with them in their official capacity (as I understand teachers are acting as supervision in study hall) that I would have a problem.

Religious symbols I would say come under the “only if it’s necessary” idea. I don’t know what the actual law on the matter is over here, let alone over there.

I’d agree that an expression of faith is acceptable until it becomes disruptive in some way. I’m not so sure on the mandatory thing. If Muslims can pray five times a day and Sikhs can wear a turban I should be able to wear my thumbs up Jesus T. How about a nice cross on a chain?

The difference is that Muslims have to pray five times a day; to not do so would make them bad Muslims. I’m less clear as to whether turbans are mandatory for Sikhs, or whether they’re just useful to maintain the kes and kanga, but again I think it would still count under the “necessary” rule. However, you aren’t required to wear a cheesy Jeezy t-shirt, or a cross. It’s trickier to put clothes and symbols into free speech; i’d say you could wear such items under clothing, but openly would probably be proseyletizing.

I heard on NPR there was a discussion going on in parts of Europe because Muslim woman wanted to go to work wearing the whole veiled face get up and some employers objected. Lot’s of little details to iron out.

That’s another problem though; it’s not a matter of establishment of religion, but whether wearing the veil means your face is obscured, leading some people to object on the grounds that for a lot of jobs it is helpful to be able to see someone’s face. Tricky ground, but not an establishment of religion problem. And remember, most European governments do not have a similar law; hell, our head of state isn’t allowed to be Catholic or married to a Catholic.

Okay. Who gets to decide what is necessary? Our courts? Over and over and over as people file their lawsuits most likely.

Probably. Wasteful and annoying and it means the rules would be ever-changing. But as much as a cliche as it is, it’s the best system we’ve (well, you’ve) got.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Well, let’s be fair. It’s not that teachers shouldn’t talk about religion and beliefs; they can. The problem is if a teacher talks about one particular religion as being superior (or inferior) to others. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to have any kind of religious education in schools, and that’s an important subject.
[/QUOTE]

It seems you slipped the question. I’m not talking about a class. I’m talking about a situation where a teacher is asked for a personal view, or a situation in which a student goes to a trusted teacher for help or advice. Is that teacher allowed to express themselves honestly even if it means speaking of their religious faith?
No big deal really. I just remember reading of several instances where people disagreed over where the line is drawn and I don’t think it’s all that obvious.

I’ve heard of “study hall” before, but didn’t know what it meant. Assuming Wikipedia gives a good definition, I would say that yes, they could read the Bible openly, but not to students. Doing their own thing is fine, it’s when students get involved with them in their official capacity (as I understand teachers are acting as supervision in study hall) that I would have a problem.

While reading their Bible in in that supervisory capacity a student comes up and asks, “Why do you read the Bible so much?” What then? Can they express themselves openly and honestly?

Religious symbols I would say come under the “only if it’s necessary” idea. I don’t know what the actual law on the matter is over here, let alone over there. The difference is that Muslims have to pray five times a day; to not do so would make them bad Muslims. I’m less clear as to whether turbans are mandatory for Sikhs, or whether they’re just useful to maintain the kes and kanga, but again I think it would still count under the “necessary” rule. However, you aren’t required to wear a cheesy Jeezy t-shirt, or a cross. It’s trickier to put clothes and symbols into free speech; i’d say you could wear such items under clothing, but openly would probably be proseyletizing.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. I think wearing a cross falls under freedom of worship. It seems far less disruptive than Muslims stopping to pray 5 times a day and the mandatory thing shouldn’t matter. Any denomination can make anything mandatory so I don’t think that’s a good separation point.
Wearing a cross probably says “I’m a Christian” but that statement by itself isn’t proselytizing. If people are so sensitive that they are somehow offended by the sight of a cross on someones clothing then they need to get a grip. IMHO.

OTOH, I read about a teacher who was fired for talking to his students about Jesus. The Christian presentation was sympathetic to the teacher and a bit of “See, We told you Christianity was being persecuted”
When I read more details it turned out the teacher was a math teacher who witnessed in class repeatedly, even after complaints by students and parents and warnings by school officials. He deserved to be fired. Now that’s disruptive.

That’s another problem though; it’s not a matter of establishment of religion, but whether wearing the veil means your face is obscured, leading some people to object on the grounds that for a lot of jobs it is helpful to be able to see someones face. Tricky ground, but not an establishment of religion problem. And remember, most European governments do not have a similar law; hell, our head of state isn’t allowed to be Catholic or married to a Catholic.

I don’t think attire should have a different status because it’s related to religious tradition. If someone makes a conscious choice to wear only certain clothes based on their religion that’s up to them. If that attire somehow inhibits their ability to do their job effectively then they need to find other work.

Probably. Wasteful and annoying and it means the rules would be ever-changing. But as much as a cliche as it is, it’s the best system we’ve (well, you’ve) got.

As I said. As societies iron out the details it there will be lots of interesting confrontations. A necessary evil I suppose.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It seems you slipped the question. I’m not talking about a class. I’m talking about a situation where a teacher is asked for a personal view, or a situation in which a student goes to a trusted teacher for help or advice. Is that teacher allowed to express themselves honestly even if it means speaking of their religious faith?
No big deal really. I just remember reading of several instances where people disagreed over where the line is drawn and I don’t think it’s all that obvious.
[/quote]
I think there’s a simple question; is the teacher acting as a teacher or a private person? In study hall the teacher is acting as a teacher in a supervisory capacity, so it would be a no-no. If a student made an appointment to see them in their office, though, that would be fine (as long as the teacher didn’t mix subjects; “You’re doing badly in math? I suggest more prayer!”)

While reading their Bible in in that supervisory capacity a student comes up and asks, “Why do you read the Bible so much?” What then? Can they express themselves openly and honestly?

“I’m a Christian”. It’s open, it’s honest, and it avoids the extremes of “I’m reading the Word of God, as should you!” and “The Bible is no more or less relevant or acceptable than any other book”.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. I think wearing a cross falls under freedom of worship. It seems far less disruptive than Muslims stopping to pray 5 times a day and the mandatory thing shouldn’t matter. Any denomination can make anything mandatory so I don’t think that’s a good separation point.
Wearing a cross probably says “I’m a Christian” but that statement by itself isn’t proselytizing. If people are so sensitive that they are somehow offended by the sight of a cross on someones clothing then they need to get a grip. IMHO.

I don’t like this meme that anyone who objects to wearing religious symbols openly is somehow “offended” by them. It’s a way of making any objections seem petty, as indeed you appear to be doing here. I am not offended by someone wearing a cross, star of david, pentagram, or whatever.

It’s not offense that’s the problem, it’s the pushing of one religion over others. I would suggest that anyone who complains about not be allowed to wear a religious symbol openly when wearing it concealed is possible has proseylatizing as their goal.

OTOH, I read about a teacher who was fired for talking to his students about Jesus. The Christian presentation was sympathetic to the teacher and a bit of “See, We told you Christianity was being persecuted”
When I read more details it turned out the teacher was a math teacher who witnessed in class repeatedly, even after complaints by students and parents and warnings by school officials. He deserved to be fired. Now that’s disruptive.

I agree.

I don’t think attire should have a different status because it’s related to religious tradition. If someone makes a conscious choice to wear only certain clothes based on their religion that’s up to them. If that attire somehow inhibits their ability to do their job effectively then they need to find other work.

I agree, too. If you are required to wear some religious clothing that makes you ineligible for a job, the employers shouldn’t be forced to accomodate you. As I pointed out earlier, though, this is an entirely seperate point.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I think there’s a simple question; is the teacher acting as a teacher or a private person? In study hall the teacher is acting as a teacher in a supervisory capacity, so it would be a no-no. If a student made an appointment to see them in their office, though, that would be fine (as long as the teacher didn’t mix subjects; “You’re doing badly in math? I suggest more prayer!”)
[/QUOTE]

This conversation we’re having is just a hint of the kind of details that will be argued one way or the other. That’s why I don’t think it’s that simple.

“I’m a Christian”. It’s open, it’s honest, and it avoids the extremes of “I’m reading the Word of God, as should you!” and “The Bible is no more or less relevant or acceptable than any other book”.

The point I’m trying to make is the other two examples you give are just as honest an answer to the same question. I think people need to use some common sense when their job puts them in contact with the public and perhaps extra caution when dealing with peoples kids but I’d hate to see laws passed or guidelines so strict that they suppress an honest expression of opinion because certain words become taboo.

I don’t like this meme that anyone who objects to wearing religious symbols openly is somehow “offended” by them. It’s a way of making any objections seem petty, as indeed you appear to be doing here. I am not offended by someone wearing a cross, star of david, pentagram, or whatever.

Point noted. Some are and others are what? Trying to uphold the constitution?
Okay. I’ll consider that.

It’s not offense that’s the problem, it’s the pushing of one religion over others. I would suggest that anyone who complains about not be allowed to wear a religious symbol openly when wearing it concealed is possible has proseylatizing as their goal.

I really fail to see how wearing something that is an expression of your own faith is somehow pushing it on others. Saying “I’m a Christian” doesn’t have to imply “and everyone else should be one too” Wearing a cross doesn’t even automatically mean that person is a Christian. Even if someone’s goal is to get people thinking about religion and God by wearing a cross I don’t think that constitutes actively trying to convert. We don’t need thought police.

I agree. I agree, too. If you are required to wear some religious clothing that makes you ineligible for a job, the employers shouldn’t be forced to accomodate you. As I pointed out earlier, though, this is an entirely seperate point.

The point was if the clothing somehow inhibited the persons ability to do the job effectively, not just them owners whim vs. the employees.