(February 19, 2015 at 4:41 pm)emilynghiem Wrote:(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 am an atheist, and I don't want memorials on public school property of dead atheist teachers referencing their atheism. If there is to be a memorial on school property (which is questionable), then it should have to do with being a great teacher. The personal, non-teaching related opinions of the teacher are irrelevant and do not belong in a memorial on public school property.
So, no, it is not merely a question of whether one "agrees" with the personal opinion or not. It is a question of what is appropriate in a particular context.
I also don't want references to the teacher's preferred sexual position, whether it coincides with mine or not. (I somehow expect that you will agree with me on this example.) Again, it is a question of relevance and appropriateness to the thing, not a question of agreement or disagreement.
Public school is not a place to be endorsing religion, nor imposing any particular beliefs about religion on people.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
