Middle School Teacher's Memorial

[SteelCurtain]

A Religious Memorial Honoring a Middle School Teacher is Altered after Atheists Point out Constitutional Problems

In 2004, Ravenswood Middle School (West Virginia) teacher Joann Christy died in an accident. It was obviously devastating to the community and the school built a memorial in her honor.
The problem is that the memorial included several Christian crosses and images of angels:


The Freedom From Religion Foundation, when told about the problem, faced a tough dilemma: Should they ask school officials to alter the monument and remove the Christian symbols on principle, even if it led to emotion-driven backlash from people in the area?

I am torn on this. On one hand, I understand the issue here. You can't have Christian symbols at a school. The crosses were removed, not the angels as they're not really Christian symbols.

I just think this one is a little petty. It's a plaque for a beloved teacher and community figure on the sidewalk. I feel the same way about the roadside crosses that FFRF was asking to be taken down. It seems petty.

On the other hand, there are no degrees in this. You can't have religious symbols on school property. I am sure that a beloved teacher who was an satanist and whose family wanted to honor him with a pentagram sidewalk plaque would get rejected instantly. But that hasn't happened, so we can't really know, can we?

Torn.

[Metis]

Ok yeah, I don't want no desert books stuffed in my face as I'm walking down the street but this really is pathetic.

I see the issue, and I do think it is petty. The Angels might not be explicitly Christian but they are obviously Abrahamic so it seems odd they would be kept, if they're doing that just leave the cross. Pointless controversy.

[AFTT47]

This is a classic case of failing to choose your battles. All this does is make people despise us more. No gain for us whatsoever.

[bennyboy]

I don't think limiting free speech is the best way to support free speech. So there's a picture of an angel in the pavement where someone died. Big deal.

As for pentagrams, etc. I'm all for them. So long as images don't violate other cultural norms (like depicting child rape or some shit that someone decides to call "religious" but isn't), then I figure anything goes.

That being said, if someone hasn't done something VERY special for the community (i.e. a lot more than just being a likable teacher or something), I don't really support memorials in public places. I'd rather see kids' handprints in fresh concrete than death memorials.

[SteelCurtain]

I don't think limiting free speech is the best way to support free speech. So there's a picture of an angel in the pavement where someone died. Big deal.

Problem is that it's at a Middle School. And there were crosses that were removed.

I agree, though. Halfway.

[AFTT47]

The thing about religious symbols at a memorial - whether they are on public land or not - is that they represent the deceased. I don't see it as the government pushing religion.

I do have a problem with religious symbols on public land if they are part of a general memorial. I see those as downright disrespectful to the people being memorialized because it is a near certainty that some of them are not adherents to whatever religion the symbols represent. That's the government pushing religion and it's wrong.

[SteelCurtain]

I could get on board with that.

I see FFRF's point, though. Instances like this really stick out to people and the cost of legal battles will really make at least some decision makers think through a different lens when they are making decisions at the beginning of this process.

When this lady died in 2004 and the person was designing her memorial, they probably were thinking exactly what you said. Maybe in the future, they will think about where the memorial is going as well. To me, there is a small but discernible difference between "public space" and Middle School. I do not want ANY religious symbolism where I pay for my kid to go to school to learn.

[emilynghiem]

A Religious Memorial Honoring a Middle School Teacher is Altered after Atheists Point out Constitutional Problems

In 2004, Ravenswood Middle School (West Virginia) teacher Joann Christy died in an accident. It was obviously devastating to the community and the school built a memorial in her honor.
The problem is that the memorial included several Christian crosses and images of angels:


The Freedom From Religion Foundation, when told about the problem, faced a tough dilemma: Should they ask school officials to alter the monument and remove the Christian symbols on principle, even if it led to emotion-driven backlash from people in the area?

I am torn on this. On one hand, I understand the issue here. You can't have Christian symbols at a school. The crosses were removed, not the angels as they're not really Christian symbols.

I just think this one is a little petty. It's a plaque for a beloved teacher and community figure on the sidewalk. I feel the same way about the roadside crosses that FFRF was asking to be taken down. It seems petty.

On the other hand, there are no degrees in this. You can't have religious symbols on school property. I am sure that a beloved teacher who was an satanist and whose family wanted to honor him with a pentagram sidewalk plaque would get rejected instantly. But that hasn't happened, so we can't really know, can we?

Torn.

I would leave it to the family and community and not try to impose outside agenda that isn't within that community.

With smaller groups, it is easier to work things out and form a consensus on things like this.

if this nonsense continues, I am recommending that people organize their community groups to "buy out" their public school properties and start running their own district, where they can decide things locally.

These issues should have an agreed way to work out for the whole district, and have all residents agree to those rules. in cases of conflicts, decide how conflict resolution and mediation are going to work.

If nobody in the district complains, that should be recognized under free exercise of religion, since nobody within that community is being excluded.

People need to learn conflict resolution skills anyway. Especially if you are going to try to hold people to one policy, you need to agree how to accommodate the different beliefs within your community. Work it out locally, and there's no need to call in the feds to tell you how to settle it.

[Jenny A]

Military and other publicly owned grave yards have always contained religious symbols. The symbols represent the beliefs of those buried there (or their relatives beliefs). It's fine. What would not be fine would be prohibiting a particular kind of religious symbol on the graves, or graves without a religious symbol.

I think the memorial is almost the same. It represents the beliefs of those who want to remember the teacher (or the teacher). The memorial is in public space and it sounds like it was paid for by the school. But it's purpose is to represent the teacher, not to promote the teacher's beliefs. So as long as a Jewish teacher would be represented differently, and an atheist teacher also, I see no problem. The anti-establishment clause is about endorsing a particular religious belief. I don't think this memorial does that.

[robvalue]

I agree, this is a difficult subject and there's no easy answer.

I feel inclined to say leave it as it is, as it does seem petty and pointless to go so far. But then it's not easy to justify legally and exceptions may undermine future issues.

I'm really not sure what to say.