Middle School Teacher's Memorial

[Chas]

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.

[SteelCurtain]

On the contrary, as long as there are Christian symbols on display, and not symbols of other religions, there is a privileged place for Christianity. It is giving Christianity a privileged place for as long as there are no other symbols.

And if one wanted no religions to have a more privileged place than any other, there would have to be equal numbers of symbols for every imaginable religion. As that is impractical, as well as undesirable, it is best to keep religious symbols from being displayed by public schools. This is supposed to be the law of the land, and it should be followed. Those who violate the law should be punished, not rewarded, for their transgressions. (It would be different if the law were unjust, but as that is not in this case in this example, that hypothetical is irrelevant to this case.)

But is there cause to place the symbols for the other religions there? Were there cause, they would have to reject them for privilege to be shown. If what you said was the case, then every instance of FFRF or AHS or CoR using public space (like city hall) would be giving them privilege because they are the only group represented, whether or not any other group asked or petitioned.

Showing privilege requires unequal treatment. I don't think this qualifies as unequal treatment, because no one else has been denied.

Again, I agree with the fact that the memorial should never have been approved in its current state. And it has since had all the crosses removed, and the family is okay with that, and understands. The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is resolved.

But I'm still on the fence as to whether this was a "success" for FFRF.

[Pyrrho]

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.

[Faith No More]

But the FFRF always acts on behalf of a citizen in the community. If someone asks them to represent them on this, should they say no?

I agree the PR thing is important. But are we ever winning hearts and minds with this stuff? Is FFRF, by asking to have monuments, crosses, etc removed ever not going to be polarizing? And---ask yourself this: aren't instances like this even more impactful when it comes to future policy making? Next time that school board makes a decision about about book handouts or sponsors at the baseball game, don't you think they'll be a little more apt to take this into account, and by proxy and media attention, other school boards/districts?

I wasn't aware that that was how FFRF chose their cases, but I see no reason to tell someone no if it isn't the right battle to fight.

I just don't see how winning a bunch of tiny fights like this one by legal fiat is going to accomplish anything in the big picture, and I'm not sure that forcing people into secualrism isn't going to be counterproductive. The conflict between religion and the public domain is such a broad issue that I don't think taking such a narrow approach is going to prove effective.

We can either legally force them to remove monuments or we can convince enough of the moderately religious(who are really the people enabling this kind of thing) that the momuments should be removed, and I am unconvinced that the former is a better approach than the latter.

[Huggy Bear]

If you guys are going to argue " christian privilege", you should know, as atheists, that using the example of satanists is a terrible one (think about it).

[Pyrrho]

On the contrary, as long as there are Christian symbols on display, and not symbols of other religions, there is a privileged place for Christianity. It is giving Christianity a privileged place for as long as there are no other symbols.

And if one wanted no religions to have a more privileged place than any other, there would have to be equal numbers of symbols for every imaginable religion. As that is impractical, as well as undesirable, it is best to keep religious symbols from being displayed by public schools. This is supposed to be the law of the land, and it should be followed. Those who violate the law should be punished, not rewarded, for their transgressions. (It would be different if the law were unjust, but as that is not in this case in this example, that hypothetical is irrelevant to this case.)

But is there cause to place the symbols for the other religions there? Were there cause, they would have to reject them for privilege to be shown. If what you said was the case, then every instance of FFRF or AHS or CoR using public space (like city hall) would be giving them privilege because they are the only group represented, whether or not any other group asked or petitioned.

Showing privilege requires unequal treatment. I don't think this qualifies as unequal treatment, because no one else has been denied.

Again, I agree with the fact that the memorial should never have been approved in its current state. And it has since had all the crosses removed, and the family is okay with that, and understands. The issue, as far as I'm concerned, is resolved.

But I'm still on the fence as to whether this was a "success" for FFRF.

No matter how you slice it, as it was originally, it was advertising Christianity, without also having advertising for other religions. That is an endorsement of one religion.

Also, there is a difference between using public space for meetings, and public space being used to display permanent memorials.

[SteelCurtain]

If you guys are going to argue " christian privilege", you should know, as atheists, that using the example of satanists is a terrible one (think about it).

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.

---

No matter how you slice it, as it was originally, it was advertising Christianity, without also having advertising for other religions. That is an endorsement of one religion.

Also, there is a difference between using public space for meetings, and public space being used to display permanent memorials.

But the point wasn't comparing the two things, but rather showing the legal definition of "privilege."

And again, "endorsement" is a word that really needs to be legally defined. Is the cross what endorses the religion? What if the family who donated the memorial had Joann's favorite Bible verse engraved on it? Again when we're talking about a memorial I think we're not talking about the school's statement on this, but rather the person being memorialized.

I'm with you, though. I agree that the crosses should have been removed. I just don't agree that this was a worthwhile battle to undertake.

[Godscreated]

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.

How are children's hand prints not death memorials. They do not live forever, thus the purpose of the hand print, reminding those that come of those who went before. They may not be as specific, but they are memorials. Not trying to upset the apple cart, just see it differently, I guess.

GC

---

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.

Crosses are not exclusive to Christianity.

GC

---

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. 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. By the way the cross was a revered symbol in Egypt long before Christianity adopted it. The fish symbol was the most recognized Christian symbol in 1st and 2nd centuries AD.

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. Paul didn't go into Greece and complain about all the idols to different gods, he focused on the one to the unknown God and went from there.

GC

[robvalue]

Could the memorial be moved to somewhere else so that it's no longer a violation? Is that an option?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.