quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
court houses and public schools shouldn't be in the religion buisness in the 1st place. That is unless you want a theocracy instead of a representative democracy.
thats true, they shouldn't be in the religion business. but they also shouldn't be in the de-religion business (whose employees probably have the coolest looking cards!)

simplified example:

i have a problem with a teacher forcing his/her students to say a prayer. thats wrong. not just legally, but logically. god to one child is a different god to a different child, or a imaginary god to a third child.

however, i have a problem with a teacher forcing his/her student(s) to not say a prayer.

going further:

if a teacher has a crucifix on her desk (at a public school), thats not hurting anyone. however, we're at the point now where people (lawyers) are claiming that is hurting someone.

thus, teachers (or students, or employees, or whomever) are asked to remove said personal affects because it conflicts with the church/state ruling.

on her desk, she can still have a macintosh computer, a bic pen, a red lipstick, a marlboro cigarette, a dunkin donuts coffee, a cosmopolitan magazine, and a picture of her and her boyfriend.

but its the jesus cross is offensive and unallowed.

i find that grossly unfortunate.

please understand, i've not once made a theocratic statement, asking that any teacher or employee or whomever be given preferential and/or varied treatment based upon any religious perspective that they may have.

im just curious, and somewhat annoyed, that if a teacher wears a blue shirt with a crucifix on it its instantly taken as something different than just a blue shirt, or a blue shirt with a snoopy on it.

i can understand the ruling that the teacher (and im using teacher as my example here a lot, because its the easiest to point out) be unable to express or share or force or teach any sort of religious aspect to the kids. but i can't see how restricting her further is not an overbearing ruling with a gross confliction of freedoms.