For now, a teacher in Texas is allowed to keep a Charlie Brown Christmas poster displayed in her class. Kind of an odd precedent the school was trying to set. Were they also prepared to tell teachers to remove crosses, crucifixes, yarmulkes, and hijabs? Personally, I do not think personal religious items have a place in public schools.
I guess it would have been fine if it was just Charlie Brown dressed up as Santa Claus saying "Merry Christmas"? "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. ... That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown," the text read." The above is an overt endorsement of Christian theology, not merely Christmas celebration. If that's what Christmas is "all about" -- then maybe Christmas isn't a time of year for non-Christians to celebrate and enjoy? I'm OK with kids having personal items on their person that reflects their own religious beliefs. I think I'm OK for school employees as well. But putting up religious posters -- be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever -- on the wall of a public school seems clearly out of bounds.
When I thought it was a card, it seemed like a ridiculous bit of policing to object. But then I read the article and found out it was a poster, which changes the complexion a lot. Not that it should be taken down, necessarily, but I guess size matters.
Where's the religion(s) that teaches its followers not be be offended if people disagree with you or that not everything around you is trying to convert you or denounce your own beliefs?
You're an employee of the state and you're serving the entire community. Religious favoritism is a no-no.
I take it, then, that you'd be totally fine with a public school deciding to put up an Islamic poster instead of a Christian one? I wouldn't be OK with that either, but I can respect your position if you're at least consistent.
People fighting over a poster. Its really sad for all parties. Perhaps they all should be more offended by the quality of education they are giving and/or receiving.
Sounds like the objection though was putting a burden on the nurse's religion. If she were wearing a cross or had some other personal religious effect, saying you can't do that in a public school would be overreach and would trample her rights. Employees of the state should be able to have religious personal effects without imputing a state sponsorship of religion. So, when OP said it was a card, that sounded to me like a personal effect. A poster is more of a gray area. It's still personal but it is made to communicate with everyone in the room. I actually like the resolution -- add a tag to say the poster belongs to the nurse and not the school -- because it nudges the poster back into personal effects territory.
I admit I didn't carefully read the article before posting, which I should have done. I though this was a poster being placed on a wall in the public school, like in the hallway somewhere. I'm in agreement that as long as its clear that the poster is a personal item, I'm more or less OK with it.
Thank you. Parents upset over a poster (whether it's up or down) are probably not the parents working with their kids on homework and extra readings.
Should government employees be allowed to wear crosses or hijabs? what if the government employee has a tattoo of a cross on his/her hand?
Practically speaking everything goes sideways when you start having to separate fashion statements from religious statements.
A little religion here and there, doesn't hurt or harm anyone, especially if it's an expression by an individual, and not the school.
I found some more information in a Fox editorial. As it turns out, this poster is a full door decoration that faces the hallway that the nurse made as part of a school activity where everyone decorates their doors. So it isn't as private as, say, an inspirational poster one might put up inside their office. I looked for text of the court's decision, but found only Paxson's plea filing. It's one-sided of course, but I found it pretty convincing. Regarding the way Dedra Shannon leveraged the door decorations to evangelize, the state argues, They go on to argue that by policing this personal speech, the school essentially co-opts and takes ownership of all the speech on all the doors. It reminds me of the concerns social media platforms used to have with policing content for objectionable speech and copywrite infringement -- that filtering some content would put them on the hook for all of the content. When launching door decoration activities, schools are probably best off starting with a clear Terms of Service framework to define what is asked for (in a nondiscriminatory way, of course) and a big disclaimer that disavows any association with what is said.
Perhaps they are more offended by the quality of education. Perhaps they can hold more than one thought at a time in their heads. Perhaps you are made of straw.
Not the case here. If it is - it is fine. Of course if the poster show some alarming abusive message or pic, or the person acts that way, it crosses over to causing harm.
no because a school doesn't "believe" in anything. a teacher in their own room would be fine however.
