Seperation of Church and State?

[Dune]

I heard about this case on the radio.  From KDKA TV

Teacher's Aide Suspended for Wearing Cross

Apr 24, 2003 10:16 am US/Eastern
(AP) (Glen Campbell, PA) A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb.

"I got suspended April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in," said Brenda Nichol, 43, of Indiana County.

Officials at ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 wouldn't comment on Nichol's case specifically, but said their employee handbook is based on the school code and prohibits all employees from wearing religious garb. ARIN supplies teachers aides and other services to 11 school districts and two technical schools in Armstrong and Indiana counties.

Nichol acknowledges she was told of the prohibition as far back as 1997, and was warned twice since March that wearing the necklace was cause for suspension. Under the school code, she could be fired for a second offense.

"I think the public needs to know that there is a code out there that is against our freedom," Nichol said. She has enlisted the help of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public-interest law firm founded in 1990 by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. The group plans, but has not yet filed, a federal court lawsuit.

"We get cases about teachers' rights to religious expression in school all the time, whether they can have a Bible on their desk or religious artifacts in their office," said Vincent McCarthy, senior counsel at the ACLJ's office in New Milford, Conn. "What usually happens is we send a demand letter and the case is resolved. They rarely if ever go to court."

"Where the line is drawn is when what the teacher wears or has with them ... has reached the point where you could say it becomes an endorsement of a particular religion by the school," McCarthy said. He doesn't believe that happened in Nichol's case.

But ARIN's executive director, Robert H. Coad Jr., believes the school's policy is reasonable and based on firm legal ground.

Coad said the law is meant to protect people of all faiths from being offended. The same law would prohibit a teacher from wearing a pendant or emblem related to witchcraft, for example.

"How would the people of our community deal with people wearing such things in a public school classroom?" Coad said.

The state's religious garb prohibition was passed in 1895 and incorporated into the school code when it was established in 1949. It has since been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Coad said.

In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia - backed by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf and long, loose dress. The EEOC said that would have been a "reasonable accommodation" of her religious faith, but the appeals court disagreed in 1990, saying "the preservation of religious neutrality (in public schools) is a compelling state interest."

A similar law in Oregon was upheld by that state's Supreme Court in 1986 for the same reasons, according to The First Amendment Center, a constitutional rights group that is part of the Freedom Forum.

Still, that group - in "A Teacher's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools" - suggests teachers probably still have the right "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)."

McCarthy thinks the whole question is ridiculous considering the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, signed into law in 2000 by then-President Clinton. Among other things, the law also protects the right of inmates to wear religious garb - like Muslim skull caps - in prisons that receive federal money.

"Under (that law) prisoners have more freedom to express themselves by their garb than school teachers," McCarthy said.

So what is your opinion?  She wasn't trying to convert anyone.  She wasn't spreading the Gospel.  She was just wearing a small gold Cross like who knows how many other people wear every day.  So, should she have been disciplined for violating the seperation of church and state clause, or is this PC run wild?

And if you feel that she should have been punnished, would you feel the same if she was a Muslim and wearing a Crescent?  Or Jewish and wearing a Star of David?  Or Bhuddist and wearing a small Bhudda?  Or Wiccan and wearing a pentagram?

[Saurdaukar]

I think a one year suspension for wearing a cross is just as ridiculous as her unwillingness to tuck it under her shirt.

[funkedup]

Wow, that's messed up.  So much for religious freedom.  

[Chairboy]

I don't want my child to have a teacher that advertises religious affiliation.  It has no place in the school system.  Kids are much more impressionable then adults.  

Please note, she had gotten warnings, so there's no room for outrage, she knew exactly what would happen.

In regards to your statement, funkedup, this nation enjoys the freedom to follow the religion of their choice.  Tell me, if a practicing Baalist teacher wanted to wear a necklace of human bones and smear ceremonial blood on his/her face while teaching, would you be as upset at his/her right to practice their religion being stifled?

[Saurdaukar]

You sure youre from LA?  

[midnight Target]

"Burn the Witch!"

The same law would prohibit a teacher from wearing a pendant or emblem related to witchcraft, for example.

I wonder if the ACLJ would be helping a devil worshiper.

[AKIron]

Hey, I got an idea. Maybe we could arrange for the government to return some of the money taken from taxpayers for education. Then these taxpayers could use their money to provide the sort of  education, religious or not, that they want for their progeny. I've even thought up a name, we'll call 'em vouchers.

Wonder why no one has thought of this?

[Arfann]

Originally posted by AKIron
Hey, I got an idea. Maybe we could arrange for the government to return some of the money taken from taxpayers for education. Then these taxpayers could use their money to provide the sort of  education, religious or not, that they want for their progeny. I've even thought up a name, we'll call 'em vouchers.

Wonder why no one has thought of this?

Hey, great idea! That will put our tax dollars into the hands of the Pat Robertsons of the world to be used for building big, gold plated, diamond studded schools! But first, tax the churches.

"Remember, there's a difference between kneeling down and bending over!"  
                Frank Zappa

[rpm]

Seems to me the Christian Church is always the one with the problem of Separation.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Arfann
Hey, great idea! That will put our tax dollars into the hands of the Pat Robertsons of the world to be used for building big, gold plated, diamond studded schools! But first, tax the churches.

"Remember, there's a difference between kneeling down and bending over!"  
                Frank Zappa

What's with the "our" tax dollars. I'd rather decide where mine goes and let you do the same with yours. Even if it means giving it to Pat.

[Chairboy]

Hey AKIron,

What about people who don't have kids?  Should they be able to withhold the amount of tax money that goes to schools?  That seems to be the logical extension of your idea.  

Religious schools are fine, as long as they are privately funded.

[Sandman]

First reaction is... what a load... it's just one small piece of jewelry.

On second thought... Christians would probably have a fit if the teacher was wearing a Pentagram or some other pagan religious symbol.

It's a weak point to make. As I understand it.. the teacher was suspended for failing to comply with a school policy. If she's dead set on being able to wear a visible religious symbol, she should consider going to work for a private religious school.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Hey AKIron,

What about people who don't have kids?  Should they be able to withhold the amount of tax money that goes to schools?  That seems to be the logical extension of your idea.  

Religious schools are fine, as long as they are privately funded.

Everyone must support the future of our country by paying taxes for education. Maybe those without school age kids should be allowed to pick an educational institution to which their tax dollars would go.

I'm not advocating theft here. Any school that wishes to receive this money should be required to meet state standards.

I think most private schools exceed state standards and probably provide a better, more in-depth education than public schools. Why deprive those unable to afford them that advantage?

[Frogm4n]

we can barely afford to keep public schools afloot, how are vouchers going to change that? what about the poor kids that get vouchers but cannot afford additional costs that the "better" private schools would charge.
Its a hoockey system that courts keep deeming unconstitutional.

[midnight Target]

I think vouchers are a slippery slope to the further seperation of the haves and the have nots.

1. Assuming that a voucher will completely pay for a private school education is folly.

2. The money that used to go to the public schools will be diverted to the voucher program.

3. We would reap much more from improving the existing school systems and mandating a challenging curriculum.