Sure. But the problem is that a satanist would not get the same treatment.

The best action on this kind of things is to allow it but keep a record of it. Then defend that Wiccan, Muslim or Secular Humanist who wants the same thing. When the Christians oppose it, they're the ones who will look like assholes.

(February 19, 2015 at 1:03 am)Godschild Wrote: As I read the posts I noticed a couple people said that the teachers Christian beliefs were not an influence on here as a teacher, why would you say something that you can't possibly know.

Nowhere has anyone said that she wasn't influenced by her own religious beliefs.

What has been stated is that her religious beliefs should be irrelevant to her being a good teacher, especially a secular teacher in a public school, just as being Jewish or Muslim or atheist should be irrelevant to whether one is a good teacher, and a memorial that honors her as a teacher would have been more appropriate than a memorial that exclusively references her religious beliefs.

Quote:If I'm not mistaken she was called "beloved," the use of that word alone IMO would show they were recognizing her for more than teaching skills she obtained through a secular education.

Hello pot, I don't think you've met the kettle.

Inferring that her religious beliefs are the cause of her being "beloved" is as much a stretch as anything you're claiming we're doing.

Quote:In any case the right thing to do to eliminate all this fighting would to be allowing all symbols on all public grounds, that way no one can say the government was supporting one over the other.

Or no religious symbols on any public ground.

(February 18, 2015 at 6:55 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The satanist example is used because it is the most "feared" in the community. Most of these "satanist" organizations are atheists using that term in order to prove exactly that point. So when the Gideons hand out Bibles at school, the "satanists" prove the point to the community by handing out coloring books with satanic themes. The result is usually what the "satanists" wanted in the first place---no one gets to hand anything out.

In other words they are just trolling...

(February 19, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 18, 2015 at 6:55 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The satanist example is used because it is the most "feared" in the community. Most of these "satanist" organizations are atheists using that term in order to prove exactly that point. So when the Gideons hand out Bibles at school, the "satanists" prove the point to the community by handing out coloring books with satanic themes. The result is usually what the "satanists" wanted in the first place---no one gets to hand anything out.

In other words they are just trolling...

If that's how you'd like to define it. They are going to an extreme to show people what the logical conclusion of their actions are. If you are wanting to hand out religious texts to children at a public school, then so can I.

The difference between trolling and what the Church of Satan does is that they have an end goal which is to get the community to take action and feel like they have won. It makes for lasting change, and in reality everyone wins.

(February 19, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 18, 2015 at 6:55 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The satanist example is used because it is the most "feared" in the community. Most of these "satanist" organizations are atheists using that term in order to prove exactly that point. So when the Gideons hand out Bibles at school, the "satanists" prove the point to the community by handing out coloring books with satanic themes. The result is usually what the "satanists" wanted in the first place---no one gets to hand anything out.

In other words they are just trolling...

No. With trolling, the point is just to annoy people. In this case, upsetting people is merely a means to an end, not the point of what they are doing.

This is analogous to the difference between someone cutting on someone because one likes cutting on someone, and cutting on someone to remove a splinter. There is a world of difference between these actions.

(February 18, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(February 18, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Chas Wrote: I am a staunch proponent of secularism, but if she was a Christian, I see no problem with the crosses being there. It's a memorial to her.

Graves in military cemeteries have religious symbols appropriate to each of the dead, and that is most certainly public property.

If we were talking about a cemetery, I would find that reasoning more compelling. Whether she has a cross on her grave or not is of no concern to me. What we are talking about is a secondary memorial at a school. And if a memorial to her belongs at the school at all, it should be about her qua teacher, not about anything else. It should have a message like, "She was a great teacher," not a message about her religion. Whether it is words or other symbols makes no difference for this.

That's a reasonable argument, but does that mean it can reference nothing but her as a teacher? No mention of her being a wife or mother, a hospital volunteer or musician?

(February 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 18, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: If we were talking about a cemetery, I would find that reasoning more compelling. Whether she has a cross on her grave or not is of no concern to me. What we are talking about is a secondary memorial at a school. And if a memorial to her belongs at the school at all, it should be about her qua teacher, not about anything else. It should have a message like, "She was a great teacher," not a message about her religion. Whether it is words or other symbols makes no difference for this.

That's a reasonable argument, but does that mean it can reference nothing but her as a teacher? No mention of her being a wife or mother, a hospital volunteer or musician?

My gut reaction is that it would be better to have nothing that is irrelevant to her as a teacher. (If we were talking about a school that was somehow connected to a hospital to which she volunteered, then it would be relevant to the organization as a whole, but otherwise, it is irrelevant to her connection to the school.) However, I have no strong objections to her school memorial including irrelevancies per se, as long as those irrelevancies are not otherwise objectionable. If, for example, she was a bigot, I would not want any bigoted opinions immortalized in the memorial, nor would I want it to mention if she were a member of the KKK. Nor do I want to know what her favorite sexual position was, if she was into bondage or whatever, or any of many other such things that have no place in a middle school setting. (Please don't misunderstand that; I think that sex education belongs in middle school, as well as grade school, but I don't think particular teacher's preferences about such things should be immortalized in memorials at the school.)

So we can divide everything into three groups:

1. Things that are relevant to her as a teacher (the presumed reason for the memorial in the first place),
   
2. Things that are irrelevant but otherwise unobjectionable, and
   
3. Things that are irrelevant but are, for whatever reason, objectionable for the memorial at the school.

Anything that would fit in 3 should be definitely omitted. Anything in 2 is questionable. So if there is any doubt whether something fits into 2 or 3, it should be left off.

I would recommend leaving off everything that fits 2, but I don't have strong feelings about it per se. However, as a practical matter, it would be better to omit everything that fits 2, as people are going to get confused about what is "objectionable" and what isn't. The problem goes away if one simply excludes all irrelevancies.

(February 19, 2015 at 4:50 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I don't have a problem with her memorial referencing her faith; under those circumstances it is not governmental endorsement, which is what the Constitution essentially forbids.

And yes, it was a poorly-chosen battleground.

1. I find it's more an issue if people don't AGREE to the religious reference so that it either violates First or Fourteenth Amendments for someone. If everyone AGREES to the expression then it's just free exercise/expression, and not seen as imposing or establishing it OVER people who believe otherwise.

I've pointed out that Justice is a faith-based concept, and you might see Lady Justice as a goddess type figure. But if people AGREE to that concept then it's not seen as "imposing religiously in a BIASED exclusive way"

2. I agree with GC that the Cross does not have to be associated with "advertising Christianity" but can be seen as a personal expression.

personally I feel that when people go to court complaining of "what this symbolizes" that is FORCING an interpretation to be recognized by govt. So that is equally messed up.

If a Cross causes people to congregate and obstruct someone's property, that's a physical issue. If it blocks one's view of the sky that is a problem just like a sign that a property owner didn't consent to and is affected by PHYSICALLY.

but trying to get the state to ENDORSE an interpretation as a religious imposition, how much is that in the mind of the beholder?

If you were going to be HONEST about imposing on people with other beliefs, why not look at the ACA mandates that violate the BELIEFS of people that health care should not be taxed on a federal level but that is a violation of beliefs in states' rights. the Belief in right to health care through govt should be treated equally as the belief in states' rights and keep this at a state level to be voted on; so both sides agree it meshes with their BELIEFS.

But here, there is clearly agenda if the beliefs of secular or atheists are defended in one case, on the level of "offending and excluding beliefs" but this is not even considered in the case of federal mandates on health insurance. which is not only an imposition on belief but a TAX.
so that is even more discriminatory against citizens who don't believe in federal regulations on choices of paying for health care.

if THAT isn't being considered excluding beliefs, when there is a financial penalty against someone's salary taken automatically,
what are we doing arguing over a cross on a memorial that isn't affecting half the American population?

(February 19, 2015 at 11:58 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(February 19, 2015 at 1:03 am)Godschild Wrote: In any case the right thing to do to eliminate all this fighting would to be allowing all symbols on all public grounds, that way no one can say the government was supporting one over the other.

Or no religious symbols on any public ground.

Why, we pay taxes shouldn't our beliefs be represented as well as those who have no belief at all, it's not the fault of religious people that some decide to have no belief. Don't come back saying churches do not pay taxes, I'm referring to individuals here.

GC