Reply #16: First of all, DU is not a public school [View All]

That's the first point -- one assumes /sic/ we're all adults here and we can make up our own minds. This is not a public school supported by tax monies and dedicated to the education of the impressionable young. (And they must be impressionable, because that's what they're in school for.)

Second, I identified myself as an atheist so I wouldn't be accused of being some kind of anti-islamic christian or jew, since the child in question was muslim.

Third, I have twice now said and will say again that I don't care if people, including children, want to wear their religious jewelry, so long as they do so discreetly. A hijab is not discreet.

One of the arguments sometimes used in defending the removal of the "under god" phrase from the pledge is the same used in defending the abolition of school prayer -- if you really think it's all that innocuous, if it's just a couple of words, if it's just a piece of jewelry, then keeping it discreetly hidden won't matter. "'Under God' is just a rote recitation, it doesn't really mean anything," its defenders say. But they sing a very different hymn when someone says, "Then if it's so meaningless, you won't mind if we take it out, will you."

If it's "just" jewelry, why don't they wear a pearl drop or a plain round disk? No, they wear the cross or the crescent, the pentacle or the star of david because it means something. And what it means is "I am of this faith and I am proud of it." Who wants to take pride in something other than that which makes them better -- and better than what? Better than those who aren't?

I fear anyone -- Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Pagan -- who puts her or his religion before her or his humanity. When a parent demands that his -- or more rarely, her -- child have the RIGHT to display ostensibly religious symbols in a public school, I fear that parent, and I fear for that child.

Absence of religion is not the same as atheism. And atheism is not a religion. Public schools are a branch of the government, of the state. They should never been seen as supporting or condoning any religion. Making accommodations for one religion will almost undoubtedly lead to direct conflicts -- students who won't be allowed to participate in something because of accommodations that have to be made for their religion.

IMNHO, religion and its expression, including the wearing of specifically religious symbols, belong in the home and the hosue of worship. They do not belong in the schools.


Tansy Gold, who believes she is entitled to express her opinion on this thread without being labeled a bigot but apparently others think otherwise.