Seperation of Church and State?

[AKIron]

Looks like they have made version 3 free now. Can't vouch for the validity of this being non-pirated.

http://www.activeworlds.com/products/truespace.asp

It downloads from the caligari site, looks legit.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by midnight Target
OK Arlo, despite the walls of text you are throwing down, your entire argument boils down to this...

"...its just a cross on a necklace, it ain't no big thang!"

Why is this your entire reason? Because you and I both know that there is a point at which even you will agree, that the religious expression of a teacher has gone too far.

The gist of the matter is then boiled down to this - Who decides?

Do we create the ARLO commision to decide what is a big deal and what is not? Of course not. I doubt even you would want to be on that committee!

So leave religion out of the schools, and teachers are part of the school.

Why is it that you insist that the wearing of a cross by a TA represents the state endorsing Christianity as a state religion? That in what is going too far. Crazy talk. And that's all you got. Yes there's a reasonable line. No she wasn't the one that crossed it. Common sense can dictate and no, it doesn't require the Arlo commission.

Reminder:Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You may rationalize that she was using the cross to subliminally gain converts to Christianity but I don't see anything rational about that. It's not a case Congress endorsing a state religion. It is a case of a school board infringing on her rights. It doesn't matter if it's something worn on a voluntary or manditory basis. It's no different than telling a Hindu they're fired because of the bindi.

Period. Clear cut. Thank you.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Arlo
---snip--- Yes there's a reasonable line. No she didn't cross it. Common sense can dictate and no, it doesn't require the Arlo commission. ---snip---

Forgive the snips...

I'm glad to see you agree with me. So who should decide Arlo? Who do you trust to make common sense decisions regarding your children?

Period. Clear cut. Thank you.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Fine, have it your way. If you use the rhetoric then you're a stooge of the anti-Christian movement. Be offended. Be very offended.

I don't use any rhetoric, only because you don't like what I say do you resort to lumping me in with other people. If it makes it easier for you to label me something, or what I say, so be it. I'd label you something to, but I don't want to resort to your childish antics.

I think you meant "Christian, Jewish and Muslim" although Mulsim's prefer to call God "Allah".

Obviously you read nothing of what I said. I think, wait!, I did mean Christian, Catholic and Jewish. They all have the same God. Muslims do not have the God refered to in the pledge or on our money, they praise a seperate God which you properly named: Allah. Saying God does not equate to Allah, it's only a stretch by those who want to retain the "God" in the pledge and the money. Christian, Catholic and Jewish share the same God, that's where the ability to say that "God refers to any god" ends and a whole new can of worms opens: Muslims, Buddhists, etc do not worship the same god.

By your own admission you've just said that the Government does not endorse one single religion as a state religion.

No, by my own admission the government endorses religion. They should not in any way, shape or form. Period.

I believe if you ask Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses if they were Christian the answer you get would be a univeral, "Yes."

No, I do believe if you ask them if they are Catholics you will get a universal, "Yes"... Christians, not really.

If people are so insecure to not want mention of religious ideals by the government, state or federal, then what are you if you are so afraid to have it removed? Super insecure? Yes, yes you are.

It was stifled for the TA of that school system.

No, no it was not. The only thing stifled was her advertisement of it by wearing the cross outside of her blouse. Still aren't catching on I see. She's free to excercise her religious practice: She can pray when she is not teaching. She can worship her invisible buddy when she's not on the tax payers dollar. She is still free to worship. She is not allowed to do it while supervising/teaching children. Just the same as you aren't allowed to wear whatever you want to your workplace against your employer's code.

"No you can't wear a necklace sporting a symbol of your religion" when the constitution says specifically that the school board is breaking the law if they do that - at least with taxpayer money.

Okay, one more time since you seem to be a little slow. She was not told she could not wear a necklace sporting a symbol of her religion.

She was not told she could not wear a necklace sporting a symbol of her religion.

She was not told she could not wear a necklace sporting a symbol of her religion.

Three times, you should be able to grasp it now: She WAS TOLD SHE COULD NOT WEAR IT OUTSIDE HER BLOUSE/SHIRT.

As for the violation, I have repeatedly stated that the rules the public school systems run by are voted on by school boards. Those school boards are heavily influenced by the community. Apparently the community/communities do not want teachers/teacher's assistances exposing jewelry endorsing/advertising a religion.

Expression is part of the exercise. Freedom is freedom. As long as she doesn't make it a part of her time to explain to her students why she wears a cross, what it means to her and how they can benefit from doing the same, she/the school/the state is not endorsing squat. Fear and paranoia cause extreme measures. That was an extreme measure.

Public school teachers aren't allowed to express their ideals/prinicipals to students. Can, and will, get them fired. May wanna look up what public school teachers can and can not do before you continue to argue.

So one day, a kid sees it and asks. She explains it. Kid tells their parents. Whole toejamstorm brews. Has happened before, seems to me it makes a lot more sense to circumvent the issue now rather than wait for the tax dollars to be wasted on a lawsuit.

"Hindus wearing bindis must wear a hat that covers their forehead or cover the offending religious mark with makeup to be allowed to work in our public school district as to not offend or brainwash the non-Hindu students into accepting their faith." Does that sound just as reasonable to you? Bear in mind that the phrasing in the constitution does not deal with manditory or voluntary clothing, jewelry or adornment. Actually, I wouldn't put it beyond the "Pro-Stupidity movement" .... but I sure hope you wouldn't go that far. And in doing so, reassess your convictions that you're supporting something righteous.

Damn, I mean damn. How many times do I have to repeat myself before you catch on?

Certain religions REQUIRE certain things. Muslims REQUIRE full dress on their women, unless they are married. Hindiis(whatever plural is) REQUIRE bindis.

Christians DO NOT require ANYTHING other than to follow the ten commandments, worship God in church on sunday and live according to Jesus' teachings.

You can in no way compare things REQUIRED by certain religions to a necklace cross.

But lets face it, had the TA just put the damn thing behind her blouse in the first place NOTHING would of happened.
-SW

[Shuckins]

Let's stand this incident on its' head and look at it from another angle.

Pretend for a moment that the administrators of the school in question had called in a student for wearing a crucifix necklace.  After patiently explaining to the student that the wearing of said necklace might be offensive to student's with different religious faiths the student is given one last chance to remove it...and the student refused to do so.

What would the administration do?  Given that many administrators are gutless wonders who are scared spitless of students, their parents, and potential lawsuits...what do you THINK they would do?

Go to any typical large school and look at the types of clothing and jewelry that the kids there are wearing.  Read some of the vulgar and pornographic statements on their caps and t-shirts.  Note how the gang-bangers are wearing their pants down around their knees as they flaunt their studliness.

Then tell me again why it's a big deal for a teacher to wear a crucifix.

Save the arguments about the separation of church and state.  The first amendment makes two statements about religion;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

As a citizen, the teacher in question has a right to wear any clothing or jewely of a religious nature that she wishes to.  Any school regulation  that attempts to restrict her right to do so is unconstitutional.  

If she were proselytizing well, that's another matter altogether.

Regards, Shuckins

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Go to any typical large school and look at the types of clothing and jewelry that the kids there are wearing.  Read some of the vulgar and pornographic statements on their caps and t-shirts.

[/b]

Any school worth a spit would require their students to remove it.

I'm not quite sure what school you are talking about, been to inner city and rural both... maybe you watch too much Boston Public?

Then tell me again why it's a big deal for a teacher to wear a crucifix.

She's in a position of authority, public school teacher's can be dismissed for offering their opinion about religion or beliefs to students on the public's dime.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

The first part says "congress shall make no law..."

Congress didn't make the law for public schools, the local school districts do and this is at the hands of the public who pay for these schools.

As a citizen, the teacher in question has a right to wear any clothing or jewely of a religious nature that she wishes to.  Any school regulation  that attempts to restrict her right to do so is unconstitutional.  

You have right to free speech, you say something out of line to your boss- bet yer bellybutton you're gettin' fired. Doesn't touch on unconstitutional either.
-SW

[Shuckins]

You're wrong AK...the rights listed in the first ten amendments were considered by the founding fathers to be absolutes...unless the exercise thereof endangered the lives of one's fellow citizens.  That is not the case here.

How many of the students at that school do you think wear crucifixes openly?  They're a pretty popular item.  Or pentagrams?  How much of an effort is made to keep the students from wearing such items that might be offensive to someone else?  

By all means, we must make certain that our sensitive and naive children are never exposed to ANYTHING that might OFFEND them.  A little diversity can be a scarey thing and they must be shield from it as much as possible.  There is plent of time for them to develop a little tolerance AFTER they graduate into the "Adult" world.

Shuckins

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Shuckins
You're wrong AK...the rights listed in the first ten amendments were considered by the founding fathers to be absolutes...unless the exercise thereof endangered the lives of one's fellow citizens.  That is not the case here.

They are absolutes.. there's a time and place for everything, public schools are run for the public and paid for by the public. It's up to the public to declare dress codes and what is and is not appropriate in public schools. I AM right about this. A cross, or profession of religion, is not something guaranteed by the constitution on someone else's money and time. Practicing your religion (ie: worshipping, going to church, celebrating Christ) on your own time is guaranteed by the constitution.

How many of the students at that school do you think wear crucifixes openly?  They're a pretty popular item.  Or pentagrams?  How much of an effort is made to keep the students from wearing such items that might be offensive to someone else?  

I try not to presume things without concrete evidence that they do or do not do those things. All of that is second hand conjecture with no grounds for being true.

By all means, we must make certain that our sensitive and naive children are never exposed to ANYTHING that might OFFEND them.  A little diversity can be a scarey thing and they must be shield from it as much as possible.  There is plent of time for them to develop a little tolerance AFTER they graduate into the "Adult" world.

Hmmmm, I actually think it's that the parents don't want their kids to be influenced so that they can be free to teach them how they want about faith or beliefs. If you want your kid exposed to Christianity, send them to a Christian school and/or take them to church, want them exposed to Judaism, send them to a Jewish school, and so on.

As for diversity and tolerance, you aren't very tolerant of those who do not want their kids to be exposed to religious ideals while they are supposed to be educated in things that will actually help them to succeed in life.

It's a two way street, you expect people to be tolerant of you and your advertisement of your faith... while you aren't tolerant at all of their wishes to not have their kids be exposed to it.

Anyway, the TA is on the public's dime. The public decides what is and is not appropriate dress and what is to be taught to their children. Same deal as freedom of speech, free to say what you want... right up to the point you get your pink slip.
-SW

[midnight Target]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

Allowing any particular religious symbol to adorn anything or anyone that represents the Government is a violation of the first part of that amendment. IMHO.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Allowing any particular religious symbol to adorn anything or anyone that represents the Government is a violation of the first part of that amendment. IMHO.

So next you'll be petitioning against chaplains in the military, who not only wear official religious symbols on their uniform but also carry out a religious function within it. It also would be ... interestingly enough ... infringing the rights of servicemen (and women) to freely exercise their religion. Your opinion just failed the litmus test imho.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
[
Obviously you read nothing of what I said. I think, wait!, I did mean Christian, Catholic and Jewish. They all have the same God. Muslims do not have the God refered to in the pledge or on our money, they praise a seperate God which you properly named: Allah. Saying God does not equate to Allah, it's only a stretch by those who want to retain the "God" in the pledge and the money. Christian, Catholic and Jewish share the same God, that's where the ability to say that "God refers to any god" ends and a whole new can of worms opens: Muslims, Buddhists, etc do not worship the same god.

No, I do believe if you ask (Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses) if they are Catholics you will get a universal, "Yes"... Christians, not really.

Ok .... I know I brought up the aside which started this off-track discussion about what religion is what but I think you need a lesson about it.

Religion 101

The three mainstream world religions that share the same God are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Judiasm (the oldest of the three) was unique as compared to most religions of it's day in that it had but one God and not a whole pantheon. It requires adherance to Judaic Law and has  strict dietary requirements. Jews must go through elaborate rituals of sacrifice and ritual cleansing.

Christianity is an offspring of Judaism. It came from the belief that Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) fulfilled the prophesy of the return of the Messiah. Jews reject the validity of this. Christianity has many denominations. The oldest denomination that still has a wide following is Roman Catholicism. Other denominations arose from followers who didn't agree with (protested) some or all of the doctrines practiced by the Roman Catholic church - hence "Protestant." Some of the many Protestant denominations include: Mormans, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehova's Witnesses. The many denominations share one main commonality and that is belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. However, most of the denominations vary greatly in their doctrine and some of them even claim to be the one true faith and that all other denominations are not true Christians.

Most religious historians view Islam as having been founded in 622 CE by Muhammad the Prophet . He lived from about 570 to 632 CE). The religion started in Mecca, when the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) read the first revelation to Muhammad. (Mohammed and Muhammed are alternate spellings for his name.) Islam is the youngest of the world's very large religions -- those with over 300 million members -- which include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Muslims traditionally acknowledge respect for Muhammad, Jesus and other prophets.

As mentioned, Mohammed, at the age of 40, (610 CE), claims he was visited in Mecca by the angel Gabriel. He developed the conviction that he had been ordained a Prophet and given the task of converting his countrymen from their pagan, polytheistic beliefs and what he regarded as moral decadence, idolatry, hedonism and materialism.

He met considerable opposition to his teachings. In 622 CE he moved north to Medina due to increasing persecution. The trek is known as the hegira . Here he was disappointed by the rejection of his message by the Jews. Through religious discussion, persuasion, military activity and political negotiation, Muhammad   became the most powerful leader in Arabia, and Islam was firmly established throughout the area.

By 750 CE, Islam had expanded to China, India, along the Southern shore of the Mediterranean and into Spain. By 1550 they had reached Vienna. Wars resulted, expelling Muslims from Spain and Europe. Since their trading routes were mostly over land, they did not an develop extensive sea trade (as for example the English and Spaniards). As a result, the old world occupation of North America was left to Christians.

Believers are currently concentrated from the West coast of Africa to the Philippines. In Africa, in particular, they are increasing in numbers, largely at the expense of Christianity.

Many do not look upon Islam as a new religion. They feel that it is in reality the faith taught by the ancient Prophets, Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus. Muhammad's role as the last of the Prophets was to formalize and clarify the faith and to purify it by removing foreign ideas that had been added in error.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Oh well, I was wrong about those religions having the same God.

Still can't account for the rest of the world religions that do have practising members in the US, which do not share the same god or have multiple gods.
-SW

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Oh well, I was wrong about those religions having the same God.

Still can't account for the rest of the world religions that do have practising members in the US, which do not share the same god or have multiple gods.
-SW

I don't have to. It's already established that the slogan "In God We Trust" does not endorse or promote any single religion. Hence it's appearance on currency does not represent the establishment of a state religion. The case has no basis. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money. And, apparently, none of that matters to the person or persons involved in bringing the case to court.

Still .... as stated, that was an aside involving how far some people will go when they have an agenda controlling them and not visa versa.

The school system violated that TA's rights as stated in the first amendment of the portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. Their rule is unconstitutional hence illegal. If she attempted to lead the class in prayer that's something else. Even your example of a student being curious and asking what the cross means and the TA telling them doesn't apply. No more than the student being curious about a Hindu's Bindi and asking about it and in return recieving an honest reply without proselytizing.

Midnight asks time and again where the line is and who determines it. The line is the active institution of a specific religion by the state that requires participation by the citizens of it's nation. Prayer in public schools came close enough to cause concern behind the bench. It's not precident for the state to persecute anyone on their property or in their employ due to their religious beliefs or practices, voluntary or otherwise.

 Going after one sets precident for going after them all, voluntary or involuntary practices being of no real concern. Even Atheism can be classified as a religious belief but since it has no actual symbology or practices (to my knowledge) then it can survive the actions taken on other religions. And if the end result is squelching everything except Atheism ... then guess what (you're bound to see it coming) .... that's the state endorsing one single religious belief - Atheism.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Arlo
So next you'll be petitioning against chaplains in the military, who not only wear official religious symbols on their uniform but also carry out a religious function within it. It also would be ... interestingly enough ... infringing the rights of servicemen (and women) to freely exercise their religion. Your opinion just failed the litmus test imho.

A Chaplain represents his religion and happens to be in the Armed Forces. A little different than a teacher  in a school, but point taken. Descrimination in that case would exist if all religions were not represented for the soldiers.

Soldiers are adults Arlo, but you knew that.

The line is the active institution of a specific religion by the state that requires participation by the citizens of it's nation.

A perfect description of the Pledge of Allegience.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by midnight Target

Soldiers are adults Arlo, but you knew that.

So, to you, it's all about the subliminal threat that glancing at a cross on a necklace on a daily basis presents to the young impressionable minds that get a greater daily dose of sex and violence on the TV after they finish their homework and not actually about the wearing of a cross by a person "representing the state" being unconstitutional.