Interview with a Jovo

[Longhorn]

The link doesn't work for me

Also, there are people trying to push creationism into schools to replace evolution, Drich. Fucking creationism. You're gonna have a hard time proving your delusions of persecution are anything more than your imagination.

[Drich]

The link doesn't work for me

Also, there are people trying to push creationism into schools to replace evolution, Drich. Fucking creationism. You're gonna have a hard time proving your delusions of persecution are anything more than your imagination.

Lol, so?

My understaning of creationism encompasses anything 'evolutionist' can come up with, so what does it matter to me and mine what is the official version taught in public schools?

[Longhorn]

The link doesn't work for me

Also, there are people trying to push creationism into schools to replace evolution, Drich. Fucking creationism. You're gonna have a hard time proving your delusions of persecution are anything more than your imagination.

Lol, so?

My understaning of creationism encompasses anything 'evolutionist' can come up with, so what does it matter to me and mine what is the official version taught in public schools?

'Lol so?' REALLY?

Creationism is a strictly religious idea, and it does not encompass the theory of evolution, it contradicts it directly. You have just asserted that a teacher wearing a cross would be frowned upon, yet chose to completely ignore that there are initiatives to teach children an entirely unscientific religious doctrine instead of actual science. No Drich, despite how much you want it to be true, christians are not persecuted or frowned upon, not in today's predominantly christian society.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

and indeed there is no legal grounds for citing discrimination based on religious grounds in either EU/UK based on the information thus presented.

Certainly a far more civilized and intelligent way of doing things than having to placate the farcical beliefs of morons like Drippy.

Anything that makes that guy angry makes me happy ^_^ Its good that the only emotion derived is happiness and a sense of nonchalance.

[Nope]

The link doesn't work for me

Also, there are people trying to push creationism into schools to replace evolution, Drich. Fucking creationism. You're gonna have a hard time proving your delusions of persecution are anything more than your imagination.

Here is the article. I broke it up into sections to make it a little easier on your eyes.

Teacher Fired For Wearing Christian Cross

Teacher's Aide Contesting One-Year Suspension for Wearing Cross to School Wednesday, April 23, 2003 GLEN CAMPBELL, Pa. "” A teacher's aide is challenging her one-year suspension without pay for wearing a cross necklace, which officials say violates a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb."I got suspended April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in," said Brenda Nichol, 43, of Indiana County.Officials at ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 wouldn't comment on Nichol's case specifically, but said their employee handbook is based on the school code and prohibits all employees from wearing religious garb.

ARIN supplies teachers aides and other services to 11 school districts and two technical schools in Armstrong and Indiana counties.Nichol acknowledges she was told of the prohibition as far back as 1997, and was warned twice since March that wearing the necklace was cause for suspension. Under the school code, she could be fired for a second offense."I think the public needs to know that there is a code out there that is against our freedom," Nichol said. She has enlisted the help of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Virginia-based public-interest law firm founded in 1990 by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson. The group plans, but has not yet filed, a federal court lawsuit."We get cases about teachers' rights to religious expression in school all the time, whether they can have a Bible on their desk or religious artifacts in their office," said Vincent McCarthy, senior counsel at the ACLJ's office in New Milford, Conn. "What usually happens is we send a demand letter and the case is resolved. They rarely if ever go to court.""Where the line is drawn is when what the teacher wears or has with them ... has reached the point where you could say it becomes an endorsement of a particular religion by the school," McCarthy said. He doesn't believe that happened in Nichol's case.

But ARIN's executive director, Robert H. Goad Jr., believes the school's policy is reasonable and based on firm legal ground.Goad said the law is meant to protect people of all faiths from being offended. The same law would prohibit a teacher from wearing a pendant or emblem related to witchcraft, for example."How would the people of our community deal with people wearing such things in a public school classroom?" Goad said.

The state's religious garb prohibition was passed in 1895 and incorporated into the school code when it was established in 1949. It has since been upheld by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Goad said.In that case, a Muslim teacher from Philadelphia -- backed by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- wanted to wear traditional garb including a head scarf and long, loose dress. The EEOC said that would have been a "reasonable accommodation" of her religious faith, but the appeals court disagreed in 1990, saying "the preservation of religious neutrality [in public schools] is a compelling state interest."A similar law in Oregon was upheld by that state's Supreme Court in 1986 for the same reasons, according to The First Amendment Center, a constitutional rights group that is part of the Freedom Forum.

Still, that group -- in "A Teacher's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools" -- suggests teachers probably still have the right "to wear non-obtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or Star of David. But teachers should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g., a 'Jesus Saves' T-shirt)."McCarthy thinks the whole question is ridiculous considering the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, signed into law in 2000 by then-President Clinton. Among other things, the law also protects the right of inmates to wear religious garb -- like Muslim skull caps -- in prisons that receive federal money."Under [that law] prisoners have more freedom to express themselves by their garb than school teachers," McCarthy said.

Interesting. Off topic, I suppose, but I think that teachers should be able to wear small crosses or other religious symbols to work.

I'm not a fan of World Net Daily but according to them, the teacher's aid got her job back and is allowed to wear her cross. That is what I would imagine would have happened. If the story is accurate then I was correct. A teacher can wear a cross to school.

http://www.wnd.com/2003/08/20537/

[Longhorn]

Drich and his shenanigans aside, what goes through the mind of someone who applies for a job knowing full well they don't meet the requirements by choice and still expects to get it?

It's also why I have a problem with discrimination laws controlling businesses: it gives way to suing anybody who doesn't want to hire you for discrimination. It forces employers to hire workers they don't want, for whatever reason. It's my business, and my rules, so I should be able to decide who to hire.

[SteelCurtain]

Drich and his shenanigans aside, what goes through the mind of someone who applies for a job knowing full well they don't meet the requirements by choice and still expects to get it?

Someone who is accustomed to everyone bending over backwards to accommodate their religion.

[Longhorn]

Thanks Nope. Interesting, haven't heard of similar situations before

I agree, the cross should be allowed as an expression of personal beliefs, and I think it's reasonable to prohibit proselytizing messages in schools, like the Jesus Saves tshirt mentioned, it's not the right institution for that sort of thing

[Tonus]

Drich and his shenanigans aside, what goes through the mind of someone who applies for a job knowing full well they don't meet the requirements by choice and still expects to get it?

Desperation, possibly. When the bills need paying, any job will do. And as I said before, the employer would be within his rights to grant her the exemption if he felt that it was worth it (ie, she was an exceptional employee and the rest of the staff could handle Sunday work without issue). But the OP explains that working on Sundays is an issue, and it's reasonable to worry that the rest of the workers could become resentful of one person getting special treatment for something that has nothing to do with the job. Hence why the laws Drich linked to speak of "reasonable" and "common" options that an employer "may" utilize; they are not required to offer scheduling exemptions if those exemptions would exacerbate the work situation.

"We can't hire you because we need people who can work the occasional Sunday" is perfectly legitimate. The only possible link to religion is that Sundays are difficult to schedule because religious observances made it a 'special day' to begin with, which ironically may be causing the shortfall that is hindering this woman's efforts to find work.

[robvalue]

That is really sad that she may have lost out on a job due to restrictions she feels she must impose on herself due to religion.