Teachers wearing religious garb

[aprilchem]

Personally, I wouldn't have any issue with someone wearing a cross, or hijab, or a Star of David necklace in the workplace. But yesterday I saw a person at an amusement park wearing a shirt that basically said "My religion is the only way" (not in those exact words, but you can probably guess what it said). I would have an issue with a teacher wearing that in the classroom.

In the schools that my kids go to the teachers can wear a necklace or other piece of jewelry or clothing that is religiously-required, but no t-shirts with sayings on them.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

I wasn't saying it was right but the point would be that if you say you need it because your faith says you have to versus I need it because it represents my faith but it isn't a requirement that is 2 different things. A turban doesn't represent the faith it is a part of it. Same with a hijab. It is not an arbitrary representation but rather part of the practice. So a school could not ban all scarfs or head coverings with out some exceptions for those that are religiously required. So for jewlery if they said no jewlery I can't thing of a religion off the top of my head that requires specific jewelry (maybe Hindu not sure if my friends bracelt is custom based or faith based I just know she can't take it off).

The problem with that is that you are separating between tradition and beliefs.

Where do you draw the line? Or do I get to draw the line, since it would be my religion?

For example many of my faith wear a scapular. Most of the time, they are worn under clothing. But often, it can been seen. It is a person devotion. Would that be okay? Or wouldn't it, because it is not required by my faith.

With whom do you check?

 

[wilkeliza]

The problem with that is that you are separating between tradition and beliefs.

Where do you draw the line? Or do I get to draw the line, since it would be my religion?

For example many of my faith wear a scapular. Most of the time, they are worn under clothing. But often, it can been seen. It is a person devotion. Would that be okay? Or wouldn't it, because it is not required by my faith.

With whom do you check?

No clue. That's one reason it is very hard. I guess it would be up to the pope since he is the final say in Catholicism. I could see a a rosery or scapular as being fine as they are both very different then a cross necklace. It is a hard line to draw and again I personally am fine if you want to wear whatever as long as answers to children are simple like I wear it because I'm Catholic or I wear it because I'm Jewish etc.

 

[Mom2FiveKidz]

To me, one place to draw the line is whether the person needs to wear the item every day, or on certain days specified by their religion, or whether it's something they expect to be allowed to wear once in a while.

Most people who wear things as part of a religious observance, whether that's a Mennonite head covering, or a hijab, or a Mormon undergarment, or a kippah, wear them all day every day. Or they might wear them all day every day unless there are specific circumstances (e.g. a Muslim woman might remove her hijab when alone with her immediate family). Asking people to take them off would be a violation of their religious freedom. On the other hand, a religious T shirt that you wear once a week, is a different thing. it's hard to argue that you have a protected right to wear a t shirt that says "My religion is the only way", when yesterday you wore a t shirt that said "I love labrador retrievers".

Would this solve every problem? No, but it would certainly cut down on them.

 

[piccolopat]

I wasn't saying it was right but the point would be that if you say you need it because your faith says you have to versus I need it because it represents my faith but it isn't a requirement that is 2 different things. A turban doesn't represent the faith it is a part of it. Same with a hijab. It is not an arbitrary representation but rather part of the practice. So a school could not ban all scarfs or head coverings with out some exceptions for those that are religiously required. So for jewlery if they said no jewlery I can't thing of a religion off the top of my head that requires specific jewelry (maybe Hindu not sure if my friends bracelt is custom based or faith based I just know she can't take it off).

I think it should be left to the individual whether a garment, piece of jewelry, etc. represents their faith. I don't think it is for others to decide what is required by a religion versus what is an optional but individual representation of their faith. I do believe some limits are warranted, like disallowing a burka that hides the identity of a person, but that is mostly due to security concerns. I also think it is pretty easy to disallow any message tees.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

No clue. That's one reason it is very hard. I guess it would be up to the pope since he is the final say in Catholicism. I could see a a rosery or scapular as being fine as they are both very different then a cross necklace. It is a hard line to draw and again I personally am fine if you want to wear whatever as long as answers to children are simple like I wear it because I'm Catholic or I wear it because I'm Jewish etc.

I didn't explain myself very well.

My point is no one can tell me what my religion is, or what is required. No one, save me.

And certainly the government can't tell me.

 

[bcla]

I didn't explain myself very well.

My point is no one can tell me what my religion is, or what is required. No one, save me.

And certainly the government can't tell me.

However, there are reasonable limits one what expressions one is allowed to do given the venue. I've come across people who genuinely felt that they religion required them to proselytize at every possible opportunity. However, a teacher doing so in the classroom or even with coworkers could rightly result in discipline or even termination.

 

[scrhsa]

Meh - this question, as worded, should be a non-issue in real life. I wear a cross pendant (not a crucifix) every single day. I'm not a teacher, but I have never once in 40 years been asked anything by anybody about it. It doesn't rouse curiosity or prove to be a springboard for evangelism - nor is it intended to. I get that it's a pretty mundane symbol in our culture, but I also expect that in 2017 even less mainstream items like hijab, turbans and/or kippah are not so unfamiliar that they evoke a lot of attention, even amongst children. And I'd imagine that most young children, if confronted with what they might consider an oddity, would probably bring it up to their parents who could then frame it however suited them.

That's interesting cuz I wear a Miraculous Medal and I get asked about it more than I expected. Maybe cuz its different than a crucifix or cross? Maybe just from protestants because it's different and they are curious? But yea, when I wore my cross, then crucifix, I didn't get much.
I think that there are so many people wearing so many different things( anything goes now a days ) that kids don't really comment anymore. Plus with tv/internet they are exposed to so much more or have access to information if they are curious.

 

[bcla]

To me, one place to draw the line is whether the person needs to wear the item every day, or on certain days specified by their religion, or whether it's something they expect to be allowed to wear once in a while.

Most people who wear things as part of a religious observance, whether that's a Mennonite head covering, or a hijab, or a Mormon undergarment, or a kippah, wear them all day every day. Or they might wear them all day every day unless there are specific circumstances (e.g. a Muslim woman might remove her hijab when alone with her immediate family). Asking people to take them off would be a violation of their religious freedom. On the other hand, a religious T shirt that you wear once a week, is a different thing. it's hard to argue that you have a protected right to wear a t shirt that says "My religion is the only way", when yesterday you wore a t shirt that said "I love labrador retrievers".

Would this solve every problem? No, but it would certainly cut down on them.

There was the Sikh male requirement in some sects to wear a kirpan, which is a ceremonial dagger meant to represent a duty to protect the weak. We had an issue in California over two decades ago about whether or not they would be allowed in schools counter to a general policy against students possessing weapons. They even got the to the point where those wishing to wear them offered to make sure they were dull, or even sewn in to a sheath to ensure they couldn't actually be drawn. I believe eventually a court ruled that it was OK if it was purely ceremonial and incapable of being used as a weapon.

I also remember one passenger on Amtrak who was arrested for wearing one on his person. During the entire arrest procedure he never got violent, but he was absolutely clear that it wasn't to be touched by anyone else. Since he was arrested and booked, I doubt that he was allowed to keep it, and someone obviously took it off of him.

 

[Westcoastwild]

There was the Sikh male requirement in some sects to wear a kirpan, which is a ceremonial dagger meant to represent a duty to protect the weak. We had an issue in California over two decades ago about whether or not they would be allowed in schools counter to a general policy against students possessing weapons. They even got the to the point where those wishing to wear them offered to make sure they were dull, or even sewn in to a sheath to ensure they couldn't actually be drawn. I believe eventually a court ruled that it was OK if it was purely ceremonial and incapable of being used as a weapon.

I also remember one passenger on Amtrak who was arrested for wearing one on his person. During the entire arrest procedure he never got violent, but he was absolutely clear that it wasn't to be touched by anyone else. Since he was arrested and booked, I doubt that he was allowed to keep it, and someone obviously took it off of him.

To me that's different, though. You aren't arguing about free speech or freedom of religion at that point.

Some people try to extend gun rights to schools and public transit, and that's a no go for me. I don't care what it represents; the fact it can be used as a weapon takes precedence.

Same idea behind whether or not you can wear a niqab or burka for ID photos. The point of ID photos is to ID you, and either would impede that. I agree with the accommodations they make- there's no reason to force the individual to unveil in front of the full waiting room- but expecting to wear anything that obscures the face in that photo isn't going to fly with the DMV.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

That's interesting cuz I wear a Miraculous Medal and I get asked about it more than I expected. Maybe cuz its different than a crucifix or cross? Maybe just from protestants because it's different and they are curious? But yea, when I wore my cross, then crucifix, I didn't get much.
I think that there are so many people wearing so many different things( anything goes now a days ) that kids don't really comment anymore. Plus with tv/internet they are exposed to so much more or have access to information if they are curious.

I wear one too. And yes, I get asked about it much more than anything else I wear.

 

[bcla]

To me that's different, though. You aren't arguing about free speech or freedom of religion at that point.

Some people try to extend gun rights to schools and public transit, and that's a no go for me. I don't care what it represents; the fact it can be used as a weapon takes precedence.

Same idea behind whether or not you can wear a niqab or burka for ID photos. The point of ID photos is to ID you, and either would impede that. I agree with the accommodations they make- there's no reason to force the individual to unveil in front of the full waiting room- but expecting to wear anything that obscures the face in that photo isn't going to fly with the DMV.

The claim is that the ceremonial dagger is purely ceremonial and will never really be used as a weapon. However, it's still a weapon, so policies against weapons clearly serve a purpose beyond simply keeping someone from possessing a religious item. One can make all the claims about something being of a ceremonial nature, but in the end it's still a potentially dangerous item.

There have been some controversies over the Amish submitting to photos to get ID. It's frankly more a cultural issue than a religious one. It's become an issue because some Amish will fly or take other transportation where ID may be required. I think one Amish man sued the federal government because he wasn't allowed to purchase a gun with a state-issued ID that contained no photo.

 

[tinkerbellandeeyor]

Kids ask about everything and
I mean everything I remember when we were doing yoga poses right before nap time and my wedding ring stood out like a sore thumb so it lead to a discussion about wedding rings and how you get one