War on Christmas, 2016

[Chizzang]

I find the whole thing stupid
but
Is it a private school or a federally funded school..?
It is not a surprising that Gil can't quite grasp the situation

Can you please explain what I am missing versus condescending comments about what I am saying. Does the constitution not prevent the government (principal), from interfering with a person's practice of their religion?

I'm not surprised we are looking at this situation from two different view.

How is anybody stopping her from "practicing" her religion..?
As far as I can tell she is free to practice her religion

However:
She is not free to post an advertisement for her religion on government property
No part of being a Christian requires that you put up posters advertising your faith on government property



I can't find that in the scriptures anywhere...
Paul 3:666 Thou shalt create posters and attach them to Cesar's facilities

[Baldy]

I find the whole thing stupid
but
Is it a private school or a federally funded school..?
It is not a surprising that Gil can't quite grasp the situation

Can you please explain what I am missing versus condescending comments about what I am saying. Does the constitution not prevent the government (principal), from interfering with a person's practice of their religion?

I'm not surprised we are looking at this situation from two different view.

You're not missing anything, Gil.

According to the article, the lady who shredded the Constitution was a "staffer". Normally, staffers don't have the authority to make school policy or rules, much less have the ability to establish an official school religion.

[kalm]

Can you please explain what I am missing versus condescending comments about what I am saying. Does the constitution not prevent the government (principal), from interfering with a person's practice of their religion?

I'm not surprised we are looking at this situation from two different view.

How is anybody stopping her from "practicing" her religion..?
As far as I can tell she is free to practice her religion

However:
She is not free to post an advertisement for her religion on government property
No part of being a Christian requires that you put up posters advertising your faith on government property



I can't find that in the scriptures anywhere...
Paul 3:666 Thou shalt create posters and attach them to Cesar's facilities

[Gil Dobie]

Can you please explain what I am missing versus condescending comments about what I am saying. Does the constitution not prevent the government (principal), from interfering with a person's practice of their religion?

I'm not surprised we are looking at this situation from two different view.

How is anybody stopping her from "practicing" her religion..?
As far as I can tell she is free to practice her religion

However:
She is not free to post an advertisement for her religion on government property
No part of being a Christian requires that you put up posters advertising your faith on government property



I can't find that in the scriptures anywhere...
Paul 3:666 Thou shalt create posters and attach them to Cesar's facilities

We've been thru this before and we don't agree on the interpretation of the 1st amendment. From your statement, we don't agree on how people practice religion. I don't have a problem with that. -

Hanging a poster on her office door is a form of her freedom to practice her religion. The principal is stopping this kind of freedom. Her poster is not establishing a government religion, just expressing her freedom to express her belief without government interference.

[Vidav]

How is anybody stopping her from "practicing" her religion..?
As far as I can tell she is free to practice her religion

However:
She is not free to post an advertisement for her religion on government property
No part of being a Christian requires that you put up posters advertising your faith on government property



I can't find that in the scriptures anywhere...
Paul 3:666 Thou shalt create posters and attach them to Cesar's facilities

We've been thru this before and we don't agree on the interpretation of the 1st amendment. From your statement, we don't agree on how people practice religion. I don't have a problem with that. -

Hanging a poster on her office door is a form of her freedom to practice her religion. The principal is stopping this kind of freedom. Her poster is not establishing a government religion, just expressing her freedom to express her belief without government interference.

Except she is doing it as a school official on school premises.

[Chizzang]

How is anybody stopping her from "practicing" her religion..?
As far as I can tell she is free to practice her religion

However:
She is not free to post an advertisement for her religion on government property
No part of being a Christian requires that you put up posters advertising your faith on government property



I can't find that in the scriptures anywhere...
Paul 3:666 Thou shalt create posters and attach them to Cesar's facilities

We've been thru this before and we don't agree on the interpretation of the 1st amendment. From your statement, we don't agree on how people practice religion. I don't have a problem with that. -

Hanging a poster on her office door is a form of her freedom to practice her religion. The principal is stopping this kind of freedom. Her poster is not establishing a government religion, just expressing her freedom to express her belief without government interference.

Nope... Gil it's NOT opinion and no interpretation is required

Here's why:
anyone who works for the school district is considered an employee of a local government.
Public schools are funded by local taxes and are run by elected officials.

By all common definitions
She is THE GOVERNMENT
And THE GOVERNMENT shall favor no religion

The End

[CAA Flagship]

Just for clarification, would it be OK if any "government employee" wore any of these to work?

[Chizzang]

Anybody can wear this...

[Gil Dobie]

Just for clarification, would it be OK if any "government employee" wore any of these to work?

Employees are entitled to display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. So long as they do not convey any governmental endorsement of religion, religious messages may not typically be singled out for suppression.

(c) Employees generally may wear religious medallions over their clothes or so that they are otherwise visible. Typically, this alone will not affect workplace efficiency, and therefore is protected.

[kalm]

Just for clarification, would it be OK if any "government employee" wore any of these to work?

Employees are entitled to display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. So long as they do not convey any governmental endorsement of religion, religious messages may not typically be singled out for suppression.

(c) Employees generally may wear religious medallions over their clothes or so that they are otherwise visible. Typically, this alone will not affect workplace efficiency, and therefore is protected.

Certainly less imposing than the poster but if it were up to me, they wouldn't be allowed to wear these either while on duty.

[Gil Dobie]

We've been thru this before and we don't agree on the interpretation of the 1st amendment. From your statement, we don't agree on how people practice religion. I don't have a problem with that. -

Hanging a poster on her office door is a form of her freedom to practice her religion. The principal is stopping this kind of freedom. Her poster is not establishing a government religion, just expressing her freedom to express her belief without government interference.

Nope... Gil it's NOT opinion and no interpretation is required

Here's why:
anyone who works for the school district is considered an employee of a local government.
Public schools are funded by local taxes and are run by elected officials.

By all common definitions
She is THE GOVERNMENT
And THE GOVERNMENT shall favor no religion

The End

I looked it up and the Principal MAY restrict where the poster is displayed.

(b) An agency may restrict all posters, or posters of a certain size, in private work areas, or require that such posters be displayed facing the employee, and not on common walls; but the employer typically cannot single out religious or anti-religious posters for harsher or preferential treatment.

[GannonFan]

Employees are entitled to display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. So long as they do not convey any governmental endorsement of religion, religious messages may not typically be singled out for suppression.

(c) Employees generally may wear religious medallions over their clothes or so that they are otherwise visible. Typically, this alone will not affect workplace efficiency, and therefore is protected.

Certainly less imposing than the poster but if it were up to me, they wouldn't be allowed to wear these either while on duty.

Other than taste, what's wrong with the first two pictures? Neither one of them even indicates specifically a particular holiday. You can infer Christmas, but it's certainly not explicitly so.

[Ibanez]

Just for clarification, would it be OK if any "government employee" wore any of these to work?

Yes. From my time with the gov't, I saw people wearing all of those and much more (and tackier).



Btw, the link for the Yarmulke is " Jewish hat Yamaka". Jewish hat...

[CAA Flagship]

Certainly less imposing than the poster but if it were up to me, they wouldn't be allowed to wear these either while on duty.

Other than taste, what's wrong with the first two pictures? Neither one of them even indicates specifically a particular holiday. You can infer Christmas, but it's certainly not explicitly so.

Well done, GF. I chose those on purpose to get as close to the edge as I could for the sake of discussion.

[Ibanez]

Other than taste, what's wrong with the first two pictures? Neither one of them even indicates specifically a particular holiday. You can infer Christmas, but it's certainly not explicitly so.

Well done, GF. I chose those on purpose to get as close to the edge as I could for the sake of discussion.

The only outlier (sp?) you posted was the Yarmulke. That's treated just like a Muslims head scarf and NO reasonable principal would say a Jew couldn't wear that.

Actually, I don't see why the school would have a problem with a teacher wearing anything that explicitly depicts a Christian view UNLESS there is a written rule about professional dress. As long as the teacher isn't promoting his/her religion then I don't see the problem.

Also, as long as the local community as a whole has no problem with a school putting on a play like "Charlie Brown Christmas", I have no problem. Just as long as you don't force/punish any family that wishes to abstain.

[kalm]

Well done, GF. I chose those on purpose to get as close to the edge as I could for the sake of discussion.

The only outlier (sp?) you posted was the Yarmulke. That's treated just like a Muslims head scarf and NO reasonable principal would say a Jew couldn't wear that.

Actually, I don't see why the school would have a problem with a teacher wearing anything that explicitly depicts a Christian view UNLESS there is a written rule about professional dress. As long as the teacher isn't promoting his/her religion then I don't see the problem.

Also, as long as the local community as a whole has no problem with a school putting on a play like "Charlie Brown Christmas", I have no problem. Just as long as you don't force/punish any family that wishes to abstain.

What if the community "as a whole" ok'd promotion of Islam but not Christianity?

[kalm]

Certainly less imposing than the poster but if it were up to me, they wouldn't be allowed to wear these either while on duty.

Other than taste, what's wrong with the first two pictures? Neither one of them even indicates specifically a particular holiday. You can infer Christmas, but it's certainly not explicitly so.

I find nothing wrong with them personally and would be fine with it at my private business.

[CAA Flagship]

The only outlier (sp?) you posted was the Yarmulke. That's treated just like a Muslims head scarf and NO reasonable principal would say a Jew couldn't wear that.

Actually, I don't see why the school would have a problem with a teacher wearing anything that explicitly depicts a Christian view UNLESS there is a written rule about professional dress. As long as the teacher isn't promoting his/her religion then I don't see the problem.

Also, as long as the local community as a whole has no problem with a school putting on a play like "Charlie Brown Christmas", I have no problem. Just as long as you don't force/punish any family that wishes to abstain.

What if the community "as a whole" ok'd promotion of Islam but not Christianity?

BOOM

[Gil Dobie]

The only outlier (sp?) you posted was the Yarmulke. That's treated just like a Muslims head scarf and NO reasonable principal would say a Jew couldn't wear that.

Actually, I don't see why the school would have a problem with a teacher wearing anything that explicitly depicts a Christian view UNLESS there is a written rule about professional dress. As long as the teacher isn't promoting his/her religion then I don't see the problem.

Also, as long as the local community as a whole has no problem with a school putting on a play like "Charlie Brown Christmas", I have no problem. Just as long as you don't force/punish any family that wishes to abstain.

What if the community "as a whole" ok'd promotion of Islam but not Christianity?

That would be ok, Freedom of Religion.

[kalm]

What if the community "as a whole" ok'd promotion of Islam but not Christianity?

That would be ok, Freedom of Religion.

So you and Flaggy are "tyranny of the majority" guys...

[Ibanez]

The only outlier (sp?) you posted was the Yarmulke. That's treated just like a Muslims head scarf and NO reasonable principal would say a Jew couldn't wear that.

Actually, I don't see why the school would have a problem with a teacher wearing anything that explicitly depicts a Christian view UNLESS there is a written rule about professional dress. As long as the teacher isn't promoting his/her religion then I don't see the problem.

Also, as long as the local community as a whole has no problem with a school putting on a play like "Charlie Brown Christmas", I have no problem. Just as long as you don't force/punish any family that wishes to abstain.

What if the community "as a whole" ok'd promotion of Islam but not Christianity?

Is the production of a school play really a promotion of Christianity? If a school that is majority Muslim want to do something that celebrates Ramadan, then I don't see the problem.

I'm all for local control of the school system and allowing the community vice the Federal Gov't drive local school decisions.

[Ibanez]

That would be ok, Freedom of Religion.

So you and Flaggy are "tyranny of the majority" guys...

Majority rules. Sorry, life isn't fair. We should stop trying to make it so.

[CAA Flagship]

That would be ok, Freedom of Religion.

So you and Flaggy are "tyranny of the majority" guys...

Don't judge me, you labelist.
I'm just offering food for thought.

[Pwns]

Nothing makes donks sound like conks do on the gun issue more than religion in schools.

It's also interesting that a group of guys who generally aren't politically correct when it comes to bending over backwards to not offend people and are so adamantly against Christmas in schools. If you're argument isn't about sensitivity then you're an azzhole.

[Ibanez]

Nothing makes donks sound like conks do on the gun issue more than religion in schools.

It's also interesting that a group of guys who generally aren't politically correct when it comes to bending over backwards to not offend people and are so adamantly against Christmas in schools. If you're argument isn't about sensitivity then you're an azzhole.

I'm all for it. If PS693 in Brooklyn wants to have a Christmas show, then they should get the approval from the parents but also allow any Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc... to put on a show celebrating an important holiday when the time is appropriate.