Also, I have to say something because nobody responded to this:

He doesn't have to look at them, and if he is free to leave the room they wouldn't be forcing him in that way either.

Is that honestly saying that children (repeat: children) who don't like having a cross displayed in the classroom should just leave the room? I hope I missed something and just misinterpreted that statement because otherwise that's just shameful.

Lastly, I love the argument from way back in the beginning of the comments that kids should be able to vote on whether or not they want a cross in the room. "No pressure or anything, but 25 of your classmates voted yes, are you sure you want to vote no?" Plus, there are very good reasons children are the responsibility of their parents and some decisions aren't left up to them.

Not mentioning religion is one thing. Banning anyone from mentioning religion is another. Trying to equate a ban with 'not mentioning it' is disingenuous. It's true that you wouldn't be verbally speaking out against religion in the case of a ban, but only because there would be no need since all the religious advocates would be silenced. And this begs the question. Why do people usually silence something? Because they are against it for some reason or another. So you are, in practical terms, speaking against religion by banning religious expression. The fact that 'irreligious expression' would also be banned is beside the point, since there would be no need for such expression in the absence of religious expression. Actions speak louder than words, they say. A ban is clearly a vote *against* something. You seem to be playing word games here, Thump. Either that or your thinking on this issue is muddled.

"Mounting them in his schoolroom would have that effect, don't you think?"

He doesn't have to look at them, and if he is free to leave the room they wouldn't be forcing him in that way either. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on things such as saying the pledge of allegiance, or having portraits of presidents mounted on the walls, or other things of that nature?

"What exactly does a Crucifix depict?"

A man being executed in a manner popular in ancient times. But without further explanation students would have no idea who he was, or why he was being executed. By itself it's just a depiction of a gruesome death. The religious significance has to be added to it later.

"It doesn't. Therefore, I have no problem if my son's school counsels him against expositing his views on religious matters. It simply is not the place for it."

If it doesn't, you should have no problem with others who wish to allow religious expression in school to any who desire it either. If your son doesn't want to have any religious symbols, that's up to him. If other students do, that's up to them. You'd have no problem with that, right?

Now, would you agree that barring all religious expression is showing partiality to an absence of religion? Just like barring all clothing in a certain establishment is being partial to nudity (or an absence of clothes, in other words)?

Yes, in that sense it is being partial to "no religion", but in a larger sense, which I pointed out, it is not, for it also bans irreligious disturbance. Simply not mentioning religion is not the same as speaking against it. Until you recognize this essential fact, your arguments are suspect.

They aren't forcing you or your son to look at the symbols, are they?

Mounting them in his schoolroom would have that effect, don't you think? And since all of our rights cannot trump those of others, itr stands to reason that we'd ougnot introduce such an irrelevant controversy into the classroom.

How do religious displays teach religious doctrine?

What exactly does a Crucifix depict?

Every person who pays taxes toward the school system has some say, some ownership. Why does your ownership trump theirs?

It doesn't. Therefore, I have no problem if my son's school counsels him against expositing his views on religious matters. It simply is not the place for it.

Now, would you agree that barring all religious expression is showing partiality to an absence of religion? Just like barring all clothing in a certain establishment is being partial to nudity (or an absence of clothes, in other words)?

"Now, if you're arguing that this is discriminating against the religious, I'd still disagree; the reason being is that atheists are not allowed to make demonstrations or displays in school that are prejudicial to good order."

I'm having trouble understanding this reasoning. You say atheists are not allowed to demonstrate or make displays-- atheists are discriminated against, in other words. But if the religious are discriminated against as well suddenly it isn't discrimination anymore? Is that what you are arguing? I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

"Palpably false. Every right in the Bill of Rights has adjudicated limits."

The rights exist independent of the Bill of Rights. I am talking here about moral rights, not about the shifting definitions of legal rights. Legal codes can be and often are corrupted and plain wrong.

"Explain to me why your right to a religious display should trump my right to raise my son free of religion."

There's nothing to explain. I don't think the right to religious displays trumps your right to raise your son how you wish so long as you raise your son using your own property or the freely given property of another. If you don't like some of the students at a particular school find a different school for your son. Why does your desire to raise your son free of religion trump the right of the religious to display what religious symbols they wish on themselves? They aren't forcing you or your son to look at the symbols, are they? Or keeping you from displaying your own symbols or going somewhere else? So long as you are as free to display what you wish, or to leave, and they have the same rights, I see no problem.

"The state is only interfering with what is presented at public school. It is not forbidding the teaching of religion, only the teaching of religious doctrine on public property."

How do religious displays teach religious doctrine?

"Finally, please explain again why my tax dollars should be spent supporting a display of medieval theology."

It's not just your tax dollars. Every person who pays taxes toward the school system has some say, some ownership. Why does your ownership trump theirs? Do you pay more in taxes than they do? But if you want to make your ownership proportional to the amount of taxes you pay there are probably a number of individuals in higher tax brackets that will have even more say than you. Unless you're Bill Gates or somebody else who is incredibly rich.

Thumpalumpacus, why don't you answer my question? [....] Do you care at all what the words meant when the authors used them, or not?

I do care. However, debating the constitutionality of the DoE would seem to be a massive derail of this thread. Out of respect for Ebon, I won't partake.

You must be joking. Barring all of them is still discrimination. Why not just call it what it is?

Because that is not what it is, to wit:

dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nā'shən)
n.
The act of discriminating.

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition

Now, if you're arguing that this is discriminating against the religious, I'd still disagree; the reason being is that atheists are not allowed to make demonstrations or displays in school that are prejudicial to good order. Again, the mission of the school is to educate and not to support religious, or irreligious, expression.

Limited to their own person and property, yes. But within that limit the rights should not be infringed.

Palpably false. Every right in the Bill of Rights has adjudicated limits. Whether they'd ought to or not is a different question. Explain to me why your right to a religious display should trump my right to raise my son free of religion.

Sure, but the responsibility for them should fall to the parents, not the state. The state interfering with the parents' upbringing of the kids is a violation of the parents' rights to be stewards to their children.

The state is only interfering with what is presented at public school. It is not forbidding the teaching of religion, only the teaching of religious doctrine on public property.

Finally, please explain again why my tax dollars should be spent supporting a display of medieval theology. I missed it the first time.

Oh, never mind; you avoided this question altogether.

@ Sarah Braasch

Europe will more or less have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights.

I so much wish I could agree with you Sarah, but I cannot. Compared to Thomas Jefferson's brilliant political innovation in the American Bill of Rights, the so-called rights of European citizens - which we now are - are paltry things, and do not include, for example, the most fundamental of all - the right to be governed by consent. The Irish, for example, agreed in our last vote to allow our constitution, which stated that "all power is derived ...from the people" to become subservient to the European Treaties in which, it seems, all power, in a singular circular logic of its own, derives from the Treaties. We have exchanged the spirit of democracy for its empty outward forms, leading to the charade that will be our "right" to vote for the photogenic, but powerless, European Parliament, while the institutions that will govern us proceed to unfold without our say-so and behind closed doors - as witness the recent selection of the European President and Foreign Minister at a select banquet hosted by a Swedish diplomat. We, the people of Europe have been disenfranchised mightily by the European Treaties, whose power, unchecked by the will of the governed will hold sway in every aspect of our lives.

As to the European Rights Charter, it is a very questionable document, and has already been used in Ireland for example, to promote the interests of the unfettered market above that of workers - holding that a foreign company accepting a contract to carry out work in Ireland does not have to adhere to Irish minimum wage laws or provide Irish entitlements to their own non-Irish workers. Its long term effects remain very much to be seen.

Thumpalumpacus, why don't you answer my question? Do you think the meaning of a document has any relation to the intent of the original authors or not? I ask because if you do believe you can import any meaning you want into a document then there is no point in discussing constitutionality since 'constitutionality' would merely be what you happen to approve of, or what the person 'interpreting' the document supports. If that is your view the constitution becomes nothing more than an ideological blank check that can be used for any and every possible purpose. Do you care at all what the words meant when the authors used them, or not?

"It's only discrimination if the school bars some but not all religious views. Barring all of them merely keeps religion private -- as it should be."

You must be joking. Barring all of them is still discrimination. Why not just call it what it is?

"All rights have limits, even those enjoyed by adults."

Limited to their own person and property, yes. But within that limit the rights should not be infringed.

"The rights of minors are more limited, as per case law, and with all due respect, your opinion doesn't change that fact."

I don't hold any reverence for the opinions of federal courts just because they are federal courts. Of course I realize the high-ranking state officials are going to try to do what they want no matter what I think. That doesn't change the fact that I think they're completely wrong.

"I personally think that, given the lack of experience and judgment generally prevalent in the young, this policy is correct."

Sure, but the responsibility for them should fall to the parents, not the state. The state interfering with the parents' upbringing of the kids is a violation of the parents' rights to be stewards to their children.

Steve Bowen:

"Only assuming a rational market place where parents did not see the teaching of evolution or similar as against their religion. In other words things aren't equal for the vulnerable children who will unfortunately find themselves in a faith school, deprived of critical thought and secular values."

How do you increase rationality by giving up rational discourse and using state coercion instead? Using the strong-arm of the state will not convince the skeptics. It will only harden them against being persuaded even more. It is a sign of weakness, after all, if you give up trying to rationally persuade someone in an open arena of ideas and instead resort to exclusion, threats of fines, and the other means of state violence and intimidation. Do you really want to use the same tactics that some oppressive religious and political groups have used and still use?

Thumpalumpacus, are you saying you don't care at all what the original intent behind the Constitution was[...?]

Are you honestly arguing that the Dept of Educ is unconstitutional based on the outlook of the Framers, or are you merely being obstreperous? And, as Sarah pointed out, this issue seems to be a red herring anyway.

A public school, since it is supposed to represent the public as a whole, shouldn't discriminate against any of them.

It's only discrimination if the school bars some but not all religious views. Barring all of them merely keeps religion private -- as it should be.

Well, I don't think rights are handed out from on high by the government. I think rights originate in individuals. While minors might not have much experience in using their rights, and would need some help in the beginning, I don't think the government should be responsible for them. Parents should be.

All rights have limits, even those enjoyed by adults. The rights of minors are more limited, as per case law, and with all due respect, your opinion doesn't change that fact. I personally think that, given the lack of experience and judgement generally prevalent in the young, this policy is correct.

The matter of abolishing public education is another thread, it seems to me.

Sarah:

Excellent summation.

Other things being equal, the best schools of the bunch would get the most students applying and all of the schools would have to work hard to improve themselves if they wanted to stay in business.

Only assuming a rational market place where parents did not see the teaching of evolution or similar as against their religion. In other words things aren't equal for the vulnerable children who will unfortunately find themselves in a faith school, deprived of critical thought and secular values.

No one brought up the constitutionality of public education. Not the topic of discussion.

When a teacher or administrator puts up a religious symbol on his or her classroom wall, this is coercive state sponsored indoctrination. You disagree, but this is what the Supreme Court has said. And, they are the final word on constitutional interpretation. When the SC engages in an Establishment Clause analysis, the SC takes into account the vulnerability of the audience. Public school children have been deemed especially vulnerable to indoctrination and impressionable, thus they receive particular attention when claims of coercive state sponsored religious indoctrination arise.

But, seriously, think about it for a second. Do you really want a public school teacher indoctrinating children? Really? How about teacher led prayer? How about outright proselytization?

The SC has said that what a public school teacher says and does in his or her classroom is government speech. You disagree. Again, I defer to the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation. And, I concur with their assessment.

Now, the speech of a public school child in the classroom is not government speech, necessarily; however, the Supreme Court has again said that if the government knowingly relinquishes its space and time for speech, which favors a certain religion or religion period, then that speech becomes unconstitutional government speech.

Public schools try to pull this one all the time. They'll have a "student led" morning prayer over the school intercom. If a student spontaneously prays in the classroom -- not unconstitutional government speech. If the school selects a student to lead the entire school in prayer over the school intercom each morning or at all -- unconstitutional government speech.

Now, a public school in the US can create a public forum for free speech for all of the students. But, if they do this, they cannot censor any opinions. They can not favor religion or a specific religion. If they do so, it becomes unconstitutional government speech.

So, in theory, yes, a public school could say that their classrooms are public forums for free speech (for the students only -- not the teachers or administrators).

They could let the students bring in whatever symbols they want.

But, then, they can't just allow religious symbols. Because, the government cannot favor religion over other viewpoints.

So, the student who walks into class wearing a t shirt that reads, " Religions are stupid. God does NOT exist. Christianity is false," would have to be allowed to sit next to the child with a t-shirt that reads, "Jesus died to save you from hell," with a big pic of a dying, bleeding Christ, or next to the child that put up a poster proclaiming the veracity of Islam or next to the child who put up a poster with one of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

Can you see how this would not exactly be conducive to an environment meant for educating all of our youth?

And, not to mention the fact that most of these children would just be aping their parents' viewpoints, if not forced to engage in these behaviors at the behest of their parents.

Thus, the SC has said that if the government has NOT created a public forum in its space and time, then that which occurs in that space and during that time may be controlled by the government as government speech, in order to ensure that no one's individual constitutional rights are being violated.

Reasonable religious accommodation is also required, i.e. the Muslim student who wishes to pray five times a day may be allowed to leave the classroom briefly to do so, etc., etc.. This is NOT the creation of a public forum. And, reasonable religious accommodation does not entail allowing students to proselytize one another. People have tried that in public schools as well -- "I have to proselytize my classmates, because it's part of my religion." No dice.

I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. This is the approach of the SCOTUS when they approach these issues. For the most part, I concur with their approach.

If you disagree, then you'll need to find a way to change the precedent on this issue via civil rights litigation, precedent that is considered as pretty well settled law, OR you'll have to change the Constitution of the US.

You'll probably have better luck with the former rather than the latter, but, regardless, I wish you much luck.

And, public school education is not mandatory -- I think it's something like 75% of home schooled children in the US live in Evangelical Christian homes. Their parents don't want them exposed to "atheist" public education. Parents who have a problem with their children not being allowed to proselytize their classmates are more than welcome to educate them at home or enroll them in religious schools. I feel badly for these kids. I think they are being ill served by their parents, but it is what it is.

I've said my peace. I'm not quite sure how else to explain this issue. I think it's pretty clear. Now -- feel free to rebut at will.

"How is limiting displays to the educationally useful approximate "quasi-fascist" behavior?"

Because this isn't about how 'educationally useful' they are but about respecting the religious liberty of the students. A public school, since it is supposed to represent the public as a whole, shouldn't discriminate against any of them. Banning students' religious expression is discrimination. When a school bans, discriminates, and so on it's acting more like a private school. But since the school would still be getting public funding it would then resemble the public/private partnerships that some forms of Fascism advocated. In other words, the schools are run privately by committees or other small groups, but paid for by the public at large. If the schools are run like private schools they should be paid for like private schools as well. If they want to be public schools they should be entirely public. Making school attendance mandatory is another bad trait of modern schools.

"Minors do not have the full panoply of rights, particularly in schools, as has been adjudicated through many cases, and such a display as you seem to support has the definite potential to be deeply divisive and disturbing to the school's mission."

Well, I don't think rights are handed out from on high by the government. I think rights originate in individuals. While minors might not have much experience in using their rights, and would need some help in the beginning, I don't think the government should be responsible for them. Parents should be.

I'd argue that a much better way to fulfill the mission of schools would be to make schooling an entirely private enterprise. Let private industry reform it, and get the government out of it. Then if you like you could open an atheist school that bans all religious symbolism, and the Christians and the Muslims and the Hindus and all the rest could open their own schools as well. Other things being equal, the best schools of the bunch would get the most students applying and all of the schools would have to work hard to improve themselves if they wanted to stay in business.

How is limiting displays to the educationally useful approximate "quasi-fascist" behavior? Minors do not have the full panoply of rights, particularly in schools, as has been adjudicated through many cases, and such a display as you seem to support has the definite potential to be deeply divisive and disturbing to the school's mission. No matter my outlook, this is an undesirable effect, and ought to be avoided.