Oregon's Fashion Police

Oregon's teacher garb law was enacted nearly a century ago by sympathizers of the Ku Klux Klan for the purpose of suppressing Catholics.

According to the Oregon Blue Book, a state publication:

"The Ku Klux Klan enjoyed a warm reception from many Oregon communities in the 1920s as Catholics and minorities suffered both blatant and subtle bigotry. The Klan, FOPS, and Scottish Rite Masons sponsored a bill, passed in 1922 in the general election, to compel all children to attend public schools. The overtly anti-Catholic measure threatened to close all parochial schools and military academies. The state Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional in 1924 and the U.S. Supreme Court concurred in 1925. The Ku Klux Klan found a strange champion in the Oregon legislature. Kaspar K. Kubli, speaker of the House of Representatives, happened to possess winning initials and became a rallying point for efforts to drive through the Alien Property Act of 1923. The law prohibited Japanese from purchasing or leasing land in Oregon. The legislature also passed a law forbidding wearing of sectarian clothing, namely priestly vestments or nuns' habits, in classrooms."

Arguments about religious neutrality miss the point. Nearly every state in the country permits teachers to wear religious clothing in private adherence to faith because they recognize that there are more narrowly tailored ways of preventing religious indoctrination than categorically violating the civil rights of teachers.

Fundamentally, Oregon's teacher garb law is overbroad and antiquated effluvia from a racist past. It defies logic to understand why Oregon lawmakers have failed to bury the bones of the Ku Klux Klan, and it offends our morality to think that some might have tried to piece them back together. I think that's the point of contention.

Once they realize that this unfortunate, misguided, ridiculous "law" could be interpreted as banning the wearing of a cross in the form of a necklace, bracelet, ear rings, etc., the Oregon's Department of Education would be forced to either 1) withdraw the whole sorry bill, or 2) issue a special exemption to the Christian Cross, and then perhaps to the Star of David, then a Yarmulka, and so on. If they don't realize the folly of their actions by then, there is no hope. They might as well call themselves the Alabama of the NorthWest.

We have almost entirely lost the concept of "secular"--here's an idea. How about having cultures outgrow their various imaginary friends and thinking they have to make great public displays of these? Do it at home or wherever but not in the workplace. Any workplace. We cannot be neutral with all these competing "religions" fighting it out. Leave it at home. If you think your imaginary friend will punish you for not wearing/carrying whatever, then either find another imaginary friend or don't work in these jobs.

The law as it is worded is ridiculous. Let's say there are two teachers. One is an Orthodox Jewish woman, and one is a woman who is not religious. According to the wording of the law, the non-Jewish woman would be allowed to wear a long skirt, long sleeves, and a wig if she chose to for some reason, but the Jewish woman would not be allowed to wear the same outfit, simply because her reasons for doing so would be related to religion. Similarly, a Christian woman whose church requires or encourages women to wear skirts would be specifically prohibited from doing so, while a nonreligious woman would be allowed to if she just happened to like skirts.

I suggest Oregon teachers band together and start a church that specifically forbids the wearing of sweatpants and grubby old t-shirts to work. Seems like a good way to get around dress codes.

Your religious freedom stops where other people's freedom begins. That means that at school or workplace, out of respect for each other - and especially out of respect for children - nobody should wear religious hats, turbans, veils or other clothing or signs that pertains to religion. School in particular is a place where children of different creeds or no creed should meet in a religion-free environment.

It's sad to read that racism and religious bigotry are still alive and well in a state like Oregon which we usually think of as being at least moderately progressive. I suppose this also means a catholic priest can't wear even his collar, much less his cassock when he teaches in a non-tax supported private catholic school. Well, if Oregon's governor actually does sign it, the law will certainly be challenged in the courts. Of course, the five man majority of bigots and racists on the Roberts court appointed by GWBush will probably also uphold it, but eventually one of them will die, and then Oregon's newest bigotry law will also die.

Hoftiezer, you have a very good point, but let's accept that the world isn't perfect and we still have to move along some lines of common sense. What you do is define religious clothing and symbols, and what is an acceptable dress code, and stick to that - even though it won't cover absolutely everything.

Which means people will still be able wear unvisible "religious" undergarment or hidden crosses or David's stars.

If the little dears are being taught by someone who speaks American English clearly and distinctly and has a record of producing students who know more after than before experiencing said person, then what the teacher wears should be of no concern, as long as the clothes are clean and do not offend modesty. Naturally, foreign dress scares the bejesus out of provincials who see the headgear and think "This guy may be a terrorist!!!" More likely the provincials are offended that the teacher isn't a Born Again Christian, which is supposed to be some sort of guarantee that the teacher isn't a pervert.

This is a ridiculous law and some of the posted arguments are equally ridiculous.

Firstly, it is desirable to expose the kids to practices of different religions early on so that they internalize the message that people of all religions are equally human. Otherwise, the law will have to go to ludicrous extremes to outlaw necklaces and ear rings shaped like a cross or other religious symbols.

Secondly, how do you enforce this law? How do you define a religious symbol? I am not a Sikh; but I fancy wearing a headgear that resembles a Sikh turban (I might think it makes me good looking). Could I not wear it under this law? If I am allowed to wear it, why not anyone else? It's the same with the Jewish head cap. How do you even legally define a religious symbol? By its, size, shape, color, material? Unless you precisely define it, how the heck are you going to enforce this stupid law?

Heck, how do you even define a religion? I can start my own religion, with my own rules and I will be the only follower of that religion. I can even start a new religion every day, just for kicks. As far as I am concerned, my religion is as legitimate as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism or any other religion. How are you going to prevent me from wearing what my religion mandates me to wear?

The only thing that the state can say is, you can not wear any dress that limits your ability to discharge your duties as a teacher (or any other profession). This is a fully secular restriction, rooted in common sense and common good. Such a secular restriction can outlaw certain religious dresses such as the burqua, and certain non-religious dresses such as the KKK gowns. So be it. But, it is at least unambiguous, enforceable and does not get entangled with the messy business of religion.

Since I'm an atheist, I presume I could wear any garb I wanted, within reason.

I never thought of a turban as being religious; I certainly think of a cross as having religious significance.

I can imagine circumstances in which religious garb should be banned. Let's say that a local culture exists in which anyone not wearing a cross would be beaten up. Then I would certainly support banning crosses, to protect everyone. However, in the absence of special circumstance such as mentioned, I think that religious garb should be allowed.

The easiest solution is for schools to *affirmatively require* a uniform dress code for teachers: shoes, pants or a skirt, solid-color shirts or sweaters, zero visible jewelry, pins, hats or head coverings.

That's it. No robes, gowns, earrings, crosses, hats, skin markings, tattoos, ashes, T-shirts with clever messages while on the job --period. Doesn't matter if it's religious or not.

If you allow any *one* head covering (e.g. Sikh turbin) you cannot then prohibit a full-body covering Muslim burkha. The only fair, non-discriminatory policy is an affirmative --rather than prohibitive-- dress code.

Geneven wrote:

"I can imagine circumstances in which religious garb should be banned. Let's say that a local culture exists in which anyone not wearing a cross would be beaten up. Then I would certainly support banning crosses, to protect everyone."

I have to disagree. The hypothetical local culture in your argument is violating what we consider to be universal human rights (which are in turn are rooted in the idea of "common good" of the humanity). So, instead of banning crosses, we should handle the situation through vigorous law enforcement (beating up people for wearing crosses is a crime elsewhere in the society; so we can not make an exception to the "local culture") and proactive education and other social means to change the said practice of the local culture.

If we have to go by your logic, suppose there is a local culture to beat up those who refuse to eat live frogs. Are you going to force everyone to eat live frogs to "protect everyone"?

"Naturally, foreign dress scares the bejesus out of provincials "

Who are the provincials, really? I'd say it would just as well be the person insisting on wearing garments required by ancient tribe rules.

jjorde1,

You are wrong. Sikhism is not an ethnicity, it is a religion. One of the many found in India, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Muslim, etc.

I find it appalling that Oregon lawmakers let this bigotry get this far. The whole point of going to school is to learn. Learning about or exposure to all ethnic groups, religions, foods, customs, history, etc. helps us get along and respect one another and make choices that are best for us. If there were no differences then there would be no choices to make. No decisions to make, why go to school?

All that really counts is that the teacher is a good teacher and a good role model while in the presence of his/her students. I'd prefer that they are good role models outside of school too but that is different can of worms.

I am tempted to say: Let everyone wear what they want - freedom for all!

But that will mean we run into problems almost immediately, because some are bound to come in burkhas covering the whole body including the face, and others are bound (after a short while) to come in bikinis, mini skirts, jeans hanging below the buttocks, and so on.

Then you will have to begin writing a dress code anyway, pertaining safety and basic modesty - that is, freedom to not have to look into someone else's hairy rear end crevice.

Added proof that religion(and
it's inevitable accompanying
intolerance} is a classical
scourge on society.

Thank "providence" for Richard Dawkins !!!!!!!!

I'd be even more concerned if my kid's teacher came to school in f-me heels, a short skirt, and a big flash of cleavage

"...the First Amendment's Establishment clause, which tells government not to favor (or disfavor) one religion over another..."

Not so. The First Amendment told the Congress it cannot establish a religion.

This means no "Church of America" such as the parliament in England had adopted a "Church of England."

Suppose I am a Nudethodist. Can I teach naked?

Tommoran 1: Of course you can teach naked, if anything goes. God has asked you to not distort his creation by hiding it under clothing. That makes a lot of sense, as opposed to a lot of other things God is supposedly demanding and has demanded in the past.

I wonder if the dear folks in Oregon went on witch hunts looking for and removing Christian crosses on necklaces. Somehow I don't think so.

Say, what happens on Ash Wednesday? Are they pulling people aside and scrubbing the ashes off their foreheads? Or aren't there any Catholics in Oregon?

As others have pointed out, this is really not so hard. Have restrictions on proselytizing (which are already in place, I assume) and come up with a reasonable dress code. This would be based on standards of modesty and ability to perform one's duties, and would be applied equally. "No exposed midriffs" would cover nudity, low-rider jeans, and some variations of saris. Doesn't matter why you do it, as long as it's applied equally and for a good reason.

This whole thing is just silly. What kid is going to look at his Sikh teacher and say, "Wow, he looks so different from everyone else, I need to get myself a turban and be mocked by all my friends." If the guy starts holding Sikhism classes during recess, now we've got something to talk about.

I went to a state university where one of my mathematics teachers (the best one, actually) was Dr. Singh. His turban was in place every day. The reason I chose to attend a liberal university after 18 tortuous years in the hinterlands of Georgia was that I wanted to broaden my experience of this world, not narrow it. I was grateful for the presence of ethnicities, races, and cultures to which I had not previously been exposed.
At the beginning of the course, the teacher introduced himself and asked for followup questions. It was during this time that several students asked about his religion, dress, background, etc. The answers to their questions having been rendered, the topic turned to mathematics and only mathematics. It was all business for the next three months. The problems would arise if and when a teacher proselytized from the lecturn (never happened). The free practice of religion is not about dress, it's about words. In our country the speech of proselytization should never be allowed in a public classroom, only in a classroom sponsored by a religion. What a teacher wears, as long as it's within the bounds of public decency, is immaterial. Shame on you Oregon (the home of Lon Mabon of homophobic fame)!

Keep religious symbols out of public schools, just like the French do.

Yes, turbans and burkas are religious symbols.

Sikh men wear a traditional knife, called a kirpan, as a symbol of baptism. Traditionally, the knife can be used only for self-defense or in defense of those who cannot defend themselves. Should they be able to conceal it and have it on their person in the classroom? What if my religion mandated that I carry a Glock 9mm pistol. Should I be able to bring it into the classroom?

There are always reasonable solutions to problems such as the "Oregon Fashion Police" issue. Uniforms for all teachers is one. Something in plain brown, perhaps: brown shirt, pants and boots. Of course the outfit could be loose enough to cover any garments, though a head cover might be needed for those who wear special caps, turbans and such. Along with a face mask to cover those whose beliefs call for, or don't, facial adornment. All teachers would then become simply anonymous piles of cloth parading before children without any hint of personality or religiousity that might get in the way of real education.

I don't see the utility of this law. The "dress" is an indication of a person's spiritual or religious expression and as long as it is not accompanied by any promulgation of that belief to students it remain, IMHO, personal. Catholic schools are going to be really hit by this and while I am not Catholic that seems ridiculous to me. I wear a cross all the time and would think it silly to have to take it off every time I teach. As long as I don't try to promote a particular religious viewpoint I don't see the problem.

Meanwhile, as religious bigots continue their infighting, no one cares about the children.

I'm more concerned about the quality of education and qualification and performance of teachers than by what they wear.

This all boils down to the Huckabees who fear diversity as evil fear the light. Their poor, hapless children may learn something about another culture or religion and their small and shallow god of Abraham wouldn't like that at all.

Oregon can have poor, lazy teachers as long as they wear the proper "Christian" clothes.

Whatever happened to Oregon's stated commitment to diversity? Suddenly, when it comes to religion, everyone must look, act and dress alike? It's a pretty sorry rainbow that has only one color.

No one has any right to be shielded from the religious expression of another, any more than they have a right to see only white faces around them, or hear only one language spoken.

Religion is an essential part of cultural identity around the globe. This law is not only unconstitutional, it's blatantly intolerant.

It might simplify things if they just adopted a uniform for teachers. Some private schools do this already. I don't think Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans in the US army. Etc.

It's sad to read that racism and religious bigotry are still alive and well in a state like Oregon which we usually think of as being at least moderately progressive. I suppose this also means a catholic priest can't wear even his collar, much less his cassock when he teaches in a non-tax supported private catholic school. Well, if Oregon's governor actually does sign it, the law will certainly be challenged in the courts. Of course, the five man majority of bigots and racists on the Roberts court appointed by GWBush will probably also uphold it, but eventually one of them will die, and then Oregon's newest bigotry law will also die.
POSTED BY: DSROBINS | JULY 19, 2009 1:36 AM

And none more offensive than yours. You actually have the nerve to call others bigots then follow it with this statement " Of course, the five man majority of bigots and racists on the Roberts court appointed by GWBush will probably also uphold it" you must make your family very proud. LOL you are an id10t and probably the biggest BIGOT HERE. I also hate to break the news to you, but not all we’re appointed by Bush. Alito-Roberts we’re appointed by GW Bush. So it appears you’re nothing more than a bigot and a liar. WOW also the Supreme Court DECIEDS WHICH CASES it hears so there’s no guarantee that the case would even make it to the court. If they sign the bill and it becomes law then it would have to be repealed it just doesn’t die simplet0n. LOL Did you pay attention in school?????

Each country is free to impose their standards, if they are always in the universal declaration of fundamental rights.
U.S. and in any country it deems appropriate to fashion a sanction should be imposed and with religious connotations. Imposition of culture, no.

A beam of light is very small that travels through endless sites

Bluetwo1 wrote:

"Naturally, foreign dress scares the bejesus out of provincials who see the headgear and think "This guy may be a terrorist!!!" More likely the provincials are offended that the teacher isn't a Born Again Christian, which is supposed to be some sort of guarantee that the teacher isn't a pervert."
Provincials" like me are not Christian and do not see everyone with a beard as terrorists. We "provincials" believe that that public schools should be fair to all. That being said, the only way to achieve this is to deny any religious symbols in schools . Be those symbols, turbans, burqas or crucifixes.

I do not think the Oregan parents should worry about what the teachers wear to class. They are lucky they do not live where the teachers need be wearing combat garb and carry tear gas and a weapon in their briefcases!

I'm curious. How many of you would be okay with your children's teacher wearing a burqa covering her entire body and face? Would you draw the line at covering the face? Why? How about a rather large crucifix...say...10" long and about 5" wide. Too big? How big is "too" big?If one's faith demands a large crucifix, is that wrong? If one's faith demands covering the face, is that wrong? Wouldn't children learn more about the world we live in if they had a teacher whose face they never saw? After all, that burqa is part of life's rich pageant, isn't it? It's part of the s wonderful world we live in so why deny the kids that world? Correct?

Personally I don't care if the teacher arrives in a grass skirt or a pith helmey if he or she could inspire my child to learn.

Interesting. So, "religious dress" is anything other than the religious dress of Christian America?

I think it's easier to accept a turban than a burqa or headscarf, because the latter two are connected to degradation of women (even if many Muslim women prefer to deny it). To see those garments really hurt my feelings as a woman, because they remind me of the terrible situation for Middle East, Afghani and Pakistani women. (Many others are oppressed as well.) I don't want to be teached by a woman in headscarf - not because I fear she will try to indoctrinate me or because I believe she is not good at her work - but because I will sit there longing to see that darn piece of cloth go and the wind blow in her hair.

Can students in Oregon wear clothing of their faith in school?

The argument that teachers should not wear religious garb because of their unique position cannot be made because it can be turned on its head: By NOT wearing religious garb, teachers (in their unique position of influence) convey the message to their students that it is the norm NOT to be religious. Isn't it better to allow the wearing or non-wearing of religious garments, and use the fact as an example of our value of religious tolerance in a free nation?

Oregon's law makes great sense to me. There is nothing more disgusting to me than to see a woman dressed in a blanket with a slit for eyes. All that missing is the chains around her ankles! Protecting AMERICAN children from bizarre dress by the foreign multitudes who come here to make money is essential in my opinion. They should accept our culture if they want to live here. Enough is enough of wierd headdress and demands WE adjust to them. HOORAY FOR OREGON!

I'm as anti-religion (and anti government establishment of religion) as they come, but this law is unconstitutional and needs to be tossed out.

A personal, non-verbal expression of faith such as a cross, hijab, kippah, or turban is not establishment of religion. There is no need for any student to take an individual's personal embrace of any faith as being directed towards him or any other person.

Certainly there are rules on religion for any public servant. Leading prayer or proselytizing in any way are inappropriate and illegal. But restricting personal religious garb violates the 1st Amendment rights of teachers.

This law will be overturned.

There seems to be much confusion about the significance of the Sikh turban .. If you ask a Sikh why turbans are worn, he will tell you the truth: that they, Sikh, are a warrior-class and that the turban is a device designed for head protection in combat.. it is a HELMET, and not a religious item.. Would we allow teachers to work with our children if the teachers wore National Guard or Army protective headgear? I think not! If a turban is 'religious' , then so is the sword and shield and horse of the Great Crusades soldier!

Equipment designed for warfare and equipment designed for religious prosylitizing are out of place!

"observant Sikh Americans would still be barred from working as teachers in the public schools of Oregon because of their religiously-mandated dastaars (turbans), and observant Jews and Muslims would also be subjected to the ignominy of having to choose between religious freedom and a teaching career in the State of Oregon."

Well, boo-hoo. I'm in tears.

It is hardly ignominious to choose a career path in keeping with one's faith. If you don't want to dispense birth control, don't be a pharmacist. If you have to wear a turban, don't be a teacher. If you have to keep your face covered, you can't be a police officer. If you wear saffron robes, you can't work around machinery.

I could be disqualified from a position just based on how I dressed for the interview, for crying out loud.

Our Constitution is more important than the rights of religious individuals in garb to hold particular jobs. Find a line of work more compatible with your lifestyle: everyone else does.

To the person who is disgusted by the sight of a woman wearing a loose garment sporting slits for her eyes I would say " If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out" , Or for a less stringent remedy try telling yourself it's just a piece of material a woman is wearing with slits to see through to avoid crashing into the next person, picking out the outdated milk and collected the right child from nursery school!!

I should note upon reviewing all the various comments here, the religious zealots have the habit of extrapolating to the absurd. Whatever floats your boat and keeps your outrage fueled. The wording of the law seems clear enough to me despite your vain attempts to characterize it otherwise with your silly banter.

"Catholic schools are going to be really hit by this..."

Catholic schools are PRIVATE!!!!! You can teach there NAKED if you want. But I guess that'd be only for special tutoring sessions for the altar boys.

And this isn't the only post in this category --- I don't mean to pick on just you --- you have plenty of company: just plain goofy examples of wigs, collars, crosses, black-cat bones, shrunken heads...

What if a Rastafarian demanded to be able to smoke weed in the teacher's lounge? How absurd need we get?

We know you're doing this for effect -- you cannot be that ignorant.

Freedom of speech is essential and clearly a right for people here to express their views. However, those who so vehemently oppose the right to freedom of dress are clearly biased and more fanatical than those they accuse and criticise for quietly wearing their garments and headgear with pride.

Dear Sir,
I have yet to find a society which is highly liberal towards the religious philosophy of others. The reason being that we(western education) do not teach our children the philosophy or literature the literature which could inculcates the power of tolerance and acceptance. In oriental philosophy (western as well) wearing of cap/headgear/hat/or covering of head with a scarf is at times regarded as a symbol of respect. It has often been seen that a person wearing a hat takes it off on meeting his senior or a respectable member of the society (commonly seen in UK). There is hardly any difference between a hat and a turban used not only by Sikh community but by also followers of Islam in Middles East. Perhaps, over the years one fine day a Whiteman invented a hat by shortening the turban. If, a person can enter a classroom with a hat on why not with a turban? A Sikh would have certainly worn a hat had his religion not dictated him to keep long hair. No news is made when a father or a bother in missionary school enters the classroom with Burka like dress. Going deep into the subject one would find that the Sikh religion and other religions of the area come under the temperate zone with harsh summers (46 degree C) not only Sikhs wear a headgear but also people of other religions An Arab uses a headgear. Let us teach our students and ourselves that a turban is nothing but a different form of hat. Living in multicultural society a respect for the religious belief of others will pave way for a peaceful living.===lmsharma

Difficult situation. Well-intentioned people in a 'no-win' debate.

Kids in school are like captured audiences. They must be protected from religious influences -- direct or indirect. In today's America people from different countries are to be found in all states. While they should be free to practice whatever religion they believe in, kids at an impressionable age do not need to be exposed to teachers in so called 'religious garbs'.

There is something wrong about religions that makes it mandatory to wear specific items of clothing.

An unfortunate thing about these kinds of laws is that they are written so lousy politicians can pat themselves on the back for 'doing something to protect our children' while keeping society homogenized to their standards.

Newsflash: If someone with a turban, hijab, kippah, cross necklace, star of david or flying spaghetti monster symbol visible can effectively teach my child algebra, English (or any other language), physics, or biology, then they are more qualified than someone in "non-religious" clothing that cannot. As long as they are doing their jobs and not trying to convert, then let them dress professionally and let them teach.

Here's another newsflash: Children are going to run in to people in turbans, hijabs, kippahs, saffron robes and so on all over the world. The more they are exposed to a variety of cultural, ethnic, religious and social backgrounds, the more they will see them as people and not different or strange. They will be better equipped to operate in a 'flat' world.

Pols and citizenry that fight stupid laws like this are doing more to protect our children from ignorance and isolationism than our "concerned" politicians that can't keep their own affairs in order.

Teachers are role models. As an example, the religious head covering of a Muslim teacher might have no effect on a Christian child but might pressure the Muslim female student into covering hers, make a Muslim male student believe that all decent females should cover their hair, and perhaps even make a Jewish child think he/she was discriminated against. the examples can be multiplied infinitely. Sikh teacher, Hindu student; Shiite teacher, Sunni child; Born-again Christian student, Jewish teacher. In this globalized and increasingly fundamentalized world we must do all to protect the children.

We are losing sight of the fact that our secular traditions have saved us from the religious wars that convulse the rest of the world. We simply dont care that a Baptist lives next door; it is an irrelevant fact in our lives, rather than gnawing on us and causing us to burn down their house and kill the children. It is better for everyone that the knives, turbans, burlpa sacks and dead chickens be kept back at the home and the mosque and out of the public school.

How easily we slip from liberal to totalitarian . What are you afraid of ?

"To the person who is disgusted by the sight of a woman wearing a loose garment sporting slits for her eyes I would say " If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out" , Or for a less stringent remedy try telling yourself it's just a piece of material a woman is wearing with slits to see through to avoid crashing into the next person, picking out the outdated milk and collected the right child from nursery school!!"

-------

You wear it. For a day, a week, a year. It's not normal to cover up like that. It makes it hard to breathe, hinders movement, restrains you from doing what you like, it's warm, and if it covers the face, it is in the way of showing facial expression, which we use in normal human interaction.

Burqas' sole purpose is to imprison women.

France has the right idea, they do not allow any garb or dress that is not assimulating to their own culture, plain and simple, I am tired of looking at women who are dressed like witches and men walking around in their pajamas. Get dressed people and get a life.

good, religious dress is for barbarians

If you want to passively proselytize your religious beliefs, go teach in a private school. That's why private schools exist. Do not attempt to spread your religious beliefs using my tax dollars. It doesn't matter how passive a "turban" is, or a crucifix. All those symbols do is preach. You want to preach - start a church. There you can preach all day.

Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go before we abandon our silly obsession with God's supposed fashion preferences. Until then, it seems to me that in the interest of fairness we must accommodate - at least to a degree - our otherwise sane and productive fellow-citizen's religious delusions. I don't think a qualified teacher, someone who's worked hard and wishes to contribute to society, should be pushed aside because he or she wears a silly hat or a beard. It's the quality of their teaching skills that matters, not their appearance.

When I saw the lead on the main page I knew it would involve Sikhs.

If the ARMY could accomodate the Sikhs, by coming up with an official set of dress and fatigue turbans, Oregon can probably figure out how to accomodate them as well. Perhaps a bigger concern is the other article of clothing a Sikh man is supposed to always wear, the kirpān.

Given the particular conservative bent the Sikhs grow up in, including a basic sense of patriotism that led to lots of Sikhs wishing to serve in the military in the Viet Nam era, (and thus the accommodation for turbans, and daggers) perhaps Oregon ought to drop this outmoded law, asnd let those few Ultra Orthodox Jew, or Orthodox Hindus, or Muslims who are willing to put up with the travails of teaching in public schools do so. They needn't worry about priests or brothers in cassocks or nuns in habits, since the Church flatly hasn't any to spare to the public school system.

I think the opposite should be done. Allow everyone to wear their ethnic or religious garb if they choose to. This way children are exposed to different religions and cultures-it becomes a part of their education. In a rapidly shrinking world, this will reduce hate and animosity against anyone who just looks different. Come on! the civil rights movement was to overcome the struggles for people who looked different. There is increasing tendency to hide differences-the effect of which is the opposite of what it is supposed to achieve.

It may be an ethnic gown, but it is worn only by those of the Sikh religion. If this is a public school, then I certainly agree that this clothing is a violation of church and state and must not be worn. I'm sorry, but ours is a secular nation, and if we start rolling back the rules for one group, we will do the same for everyone else. Unfortunately, it will lead to a tyranny of the majority of Christians and particularly the extremists among them, the Right Wing Fundamentalists who are already using all legal means to usurp the foundation of our nation that provides for freedom of religion so long as it does not interfere in the affairs of state. I prefer the French Government's approach that bans all religious jewelry and clothing from public schools. Those are fine outside of school on one's own time, but rule of law must be respected to protect the pluralistic and diverse society that we now have.

Schools should teach students to be individuals, think for themselves, not be coddled and taught conformancy.

What are parents afraid of when someone wears a turbine? This smacks of bigotry. Stop being afraid! We already live in way too fearful society.

Oops i meant turban ... wearing a turbine would certainly be dangerous.

Every day the world offers up yet another example of how idiotic and moronic the entire concept of religion is.

How pointless must it feel if your job is to just talk about such nonsense or write about it? I always thought sports journalists were discuss games in the week between the events was a pointless endeavor. This beats them.

To PKRISHNA43:

Your regional prejudice is just as hateful & offensive as any being demonstrated by narrow-minded biggots that want to suppress religious expression. Not every citizen of the state of Alabama is a card-carrying,civil rights violating member of the KKK.

While there are some bad apples (as there are ANYWHERE), it is as unfair to paint the entire state with such a broad brush of prejudice as it would be to cast dispersions on people just because their skin is darker, or they are from another country, or they practice a different religion (all assumptions that could presumably made about you considering your posting name).

And, what's more, the type of biggotry that you are relegating to Alabamians exists all over the country. While I have returned to Alabama to acquire a PhD (Oh, yes, we have those down here, & thank God for full-funding) I have lived in the DC area for over a decade, & let me assure you, I have met MANY more overtly racist & otherwise biggoted people in the Mid-Atlantic than in the Southeast.

Your comment was ignorant, hurtful, & prejudiced, & I believe that it deserves an apology. It's the least that you would demand from a "Souther Racist".

To PKRISHNA43:

Your regional prejudice is just as hateful & offensive as any being demonstrated by narrow-minded biggots that want to suppress religious expression. Not every citizen of the state of Alabama is a card-carrying,civil rights violating member of the KKK.

While there are some bad apples (as there are ANYWHERE), it is as unfair to paint the entire state with such a broad brush of prejudice as it would be to cast dispersions on people just because their skin is darker, or they are from another country, or they practice a different religion (all assumptions that could presumably made about you considering your posting name).

And, what's more, the type of biggotry that you are relegating to Alabamians exists all over the country. While I have returned to Alabama to acquire a PhD (Oh, yes, we have those down here, & thank God for full-funding) I have lived in the DC area for over a decade, & let me assure you, I have met MANY more overtly racist & otherwise biggoted people in the Mid-Atlantic than in the Southeast.

Your comment was ignorant, hurtful, & prejudiced, & I believe that it deserves an apology. It's the least that you would demand from a "Souther Racist".

I find most of the comments to be irrelevant inasmuch as I get the impression that most of those who posted didn't bother to read the text of the bill.

It refers to employers of teachers and what these employers can't do vis-a-vis teachers' rights in the practice of the teachers' faith.

Also it says is that teachers cannot wear religious dress. BUT there is no definition of what "RELIGIOUS DRESS" is in this proposed act. And I suspect that that will be the root of this proposed act being declared unconstitutional if it gets that far. .

Regardless, as long as the teachers don't try to impose their religious beliefs on the children in their class then that's the critical matter at hand.

The only limits on religious garb should be when it become dangerous in it's use. A woman should not drive wearing a hijab nor burka, a Sikh should not wear a turban when working on a lathe, etc. Other than that we are enriched as a country when different countries/religions display their culture.

Isn't it odd that individuals and the collective alike in a "pluralistic society" must bow to so many demands imposed from all these mushrooming minorities?
What is there left in our democracy if the majority is always expected to give in to these demands?

The beauty of a public education is the eclectic nature of all who teach and attend those schools. It's a place where teachers, staff and students alike can come together to learn, not just reading 'riting and 'rithmetic, but tolerance and understanding for all people. A teacher or staff member wearing dress that is reflective of their faith is an opportunity for kids to learn that people like their teachers or the lunch lady are not to be feared, they're just like them. As long as religion is not taught along side the "3R's", there's no problem. I wouldn't want someone asking me to remove my crucifix that I wear as a necklace or have my son remove his St. Christopher's medal because we're in a school building. Tolerance, acceptance, no more fear-mongering... these lessons are needed and allowing individuals, including school employees, to abide by their faith by wearing their garments or jewelry is the first step. There's no need to remove all semblances of ethnicity, religion, culture from our schools. How can we relate and understand one another in our communities, in our places of work, in the world..if we defy the natural opportunities to learn in school, where questions can be asked and answered, and every one is an equal? And by the way, would students be prohibited from wearing their religious dress to school? If you were going to ban teachers, then students would be prohibited as well. This just further propagates a world of fear and suppression which promotes intolerance and hatred. I sincerely hope that the Gov of Oregon is a far wiser man than the legislators who sent him this bill to sign.

People so love to toss around words that don't actually apply. It's not bigotry if the law applies to everyone.

I personally am tired of religious exceptions to dress codes. Either we have dress codes, and they apply to everyone, or we don't have any dress codes at all. If the state of Oregon is going to create dress codes, they're allowed to determine what those codes should be.

Teaching in a public school is work at will. Like any other job, if people don't like the dress code, then they should look for a different job. Freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion in public places and state funded institutions.

What I find most absurd are the people screaming about freedoms as they apply to dress codes. If the religion mandates certain types of dress or head covering, then wearing those things is not an expression of freedom. Garments symbolic of religious oppression have no place in American public places. This is NOT a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, et al. Respect is not and should not be owed to ANY religion, just because it's a religion. If the individuals who subscribe to it want to take it seriously, that's up to them, but no one else, especially not the state owes any deference to religious intolerance and supression.

Wearing religious clothing in school isn't really any different than praying in school. It's just another way of expressing faith. It doesn't belong in a public place.

There is zero difference between anyone wearing a turban and nuns wearing a habit, or anyone wearing ridiculous crucifix jewelry. On the latter, when I see bikini wearers or wearing too tight clothing but adding a crucifix I really want to go up and rip it off their necks. They are offensive because there is no depth or meaning to the item. When women cover their heads or men wear turbans, it is a sign of respect to their faith.

A person should be judged solely by his/her qualification and skills for the job and not by the color of his/her skin, religious affiliation, national origin or anything not related to these factors. We are supposed to encourage exposure to diversity for our children

This bill is backward or reflects the past centuries of prejudice against "others".

Unfortunately when common sense ceases to exist, rules and laws are enacted to protect the rights of all. You wouldn't think that in the 21st century we would have to have a law that says it's okay for you to wear a crucifix to work as long as it's not a safety hazard (get caught in machinery, etc.) That we would have gotten past the boogey man in the closet, instilling fear of anyone who doesn't look like you, doesn't talk like you, doesn't attend your church or shop where you do. But we haven't. Why, a number of reasons. We need someone else to blame for our troubles rather than accepting responsibility for our own actions. I so wish that every person could have the opportunity to go thru the Holocaust Museum and see what this type of intolerance and hate can do to a group of people. And if you thought the Holocaust was just about Jews, guess again, many different groups were singled out. Kids were taught to fear. To be suspicious of anyone who didn't look like them. We are so doomed to repeat this terrible chapter in the history of mankind if we don't get our heads out of the sand. Celebrate the differences, don't be afraid to learn, to ask..

I agree with the Oregon law...if you want to live in the land of law then abide by it. If not start your own religious school.

Again I wonder, why or why must we continue to deal with religious issues in the public sector. Also why let the religious and non-profit continue to prosper without paying taxes. Tax them, please.

NLYNNNC-- for many people how they live their lives on a daily basis is an expression of their faith. Faith isn't something that happens only in the confines of a church or on a Sunday, Sabbath or any other day of observance. It's the fabric of their lives. I believe that this applies to the vast majority of all religions and belief systems in the world. It's not something that those who practice their faith turn off and on like the water faucet or the lights in their homes.

The minute you open the door and allow this they will demand moire and more concessions- that is their nature. If you want to be in America- follow our rules...and learn our language. We are not going to bend over and make tons of accomodations for you. NO OTHER COUNTRY DOES. We make it too easy for those who want to destroy our society, behead our citizens and conccoct plots to hurt us while they remain in our country and reap the benefits.

For many years, all throughout the 20th century, Roman catholic nuns used to wear habits that covered the head and partial face and no one ever said "terrorist". Some public school teachers should consider covering head and face for cosmetic reasons.

Only Christian religious symbols/clothing should be outlawed, especially the wearing of a crucifix. All other religions should be allowed to wear whatever they please.

Everyone knows Christians are evil, horrible people.

this law is ridiculous(sp)! we should be teaching and exposing our kids to different faiths, cultures not shielding them. there's more to this world than just being an "american". haven't we learned anything from these wars?

and also same folks that hated the french during the iraq war and started eating "freedom fries" instead of french fries are praising them for their stupid racist law. nice! very nice! what's next? for everyone to be white? or black? or brown? i wonder what the uniform skin color would be.

sikh turban is a religious garb. it is mandatory for sikh MEN AND WOMEN to keep their hair unshorn and cover it.

and yeah, this law as it is written should and probably does cover wearing crosses or any other religious jewelry.

If only I can get my tax dollars back from this nutty government and choose a school for my kid that is open to "learning".

Learning that there is a big world out there with people of different faiths, cultures, customs and traditions that speak different languages and wear different outfits than us.

We are indoctrinating kids going to public schools to a tunnel vision of the world -- the likes that create Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq wars. War with Iran is imminent -- not if, but when.

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | July 19, 2009 3:52 PM
--- SNIP ---

"If you want to be in America- follow our rules...and learn our language."

Conveniently for you, "our rules" and "our language" would start after you have wiped out the natives. How far back do you want to go?

Now, who wears bears for religious reasons? I'm starting to think your writers are intentionally inserting silly errors to get a laugh. I've been picturing brightly colored Care Bears pinned to the jacket as a religious symbol.

You want to weat relegious clothing that is part of your relegion? Then teach in a relegious school that is not funded by public funds. Public schoos have to right to set dress codes for teachers and students alike. Just like a code of conduct that is accdeptable behivior. This is not deneying anyone relegious freedom or impacting thier beleifs mearely protecting the young impressional minds from corruption of outside sources.

Religious dress communicates a non-verbal message, a message inappropriate where a public institution maintains a "captive" audience. Diversity is strength, keep repeating it until you believe it.

There seems to be a major oversight in this law and the much of the commentary posted here, other than the bigoted history of the teacher clothing restriction.
If schools teach tolerance for race and sexual identity, what reason is there that they should and may not teach tolerance for religion? If children are to encounter people in religious dress outside school, I see no reason they should not do so in a school setting where they can receive proper factual answers to questions about its significance and develop tolerance and civility toward the wearers. If we want to have racial diversity in our schools to teach children respect for other races, why should we not have visible religious diversity to teach children tolerance of other people's religion?
I would think that a teacher, asked why he wears a yarmulke or what it is, could properly answer, "I am a Jew, and my religion teaches us that we should cover our heads," providing simple, straight to the point information free of proselytization. The same sort of statement could be used in regard to turbans, burkhas, yarmulkas or any other religious dress or symbol, and might properly be used to introduce a lesson on various religions and their customs, and respect for the beliefs of others, something I believe should be part of school curricula. Let schools establish guidelines for such lessons, and for explanations of religious dress and symbols if they want, but don’t try to hide from children the fact that there are many religions with differing customs in our country. If we are to embrace diversity, let us embrace it totally. If we are to teach about racial history, if we are to teach about gender identity, should we not teach about the other great area of diversity in our country, religion?
Asoders22 writes that school should be a religion free environment. What does this mean to the idea of diversity and tolerance for others? What does that say about education children about our society? Surely it is a better lesson to children to expose them to people plainly of differing religions as well as all races so that they may learn the tolerance of religions found in our constitution and tradition. The Oregon law serves no good purpose, but rather hinders narrows the education of that state.

Posted by: jacksprat1 | July 19, 2009 3:44 PM
---SNIP---
"if you want to live in the land of law then abide by it. If not start your own religious school."

I'd gladly start one or go to one, if you give me back my money that I pay in property taxes to fund your "public" school. Yes, the same one that prepares most Americans to earn a little over minimum wages.

SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. Problem solved.

Problems people have with eachothers religions are not a fight that our gov $ should invest in. The gov has more than enough $ invested in bombs and soldiers in the countries that they come from

I am a public school teacher and it is beyond absurd to insinuate that because a teacher wears religious garb, they are proselytizing their faith to children. I have worked with several teachers for many years who wore a hijab. The only reason I knew they were Muslim was because of their garb. Never once did they bring up their religion to their colleagues or their children. If you follow the logic of the Oregon law, then children will be brainwashed into believing in a certain religion simply by looking at their teacher's clothes. Absurd! As someone who works with kids every day, I believe that the general public doesn't give kids enough credit. Kids might observe and note the clothing, perhaps ask a question or two, and the move on! In fact, in this day and age when school systems want more mutli-cultural teachers so children can "see themselves" in their teachers, seeing a turban or hijab may inspire some minority children. Teacher's professionalism is constantly being called into question and this is just one more sad example.

Teacher files with federal EEOC. No bona fide occupational qualification or business necessity for the proposed law. EEOC strikes down as plainly violative of Title VII and implementing regulation. Oregon pays attorney's fees. Hypocrsicy of supposedly liberal state demonstrated once again.

with what our children ARE NOT learning today.. I would much more concerned about a teacher's credentials than about what he/she wears on his/her head

There is more than likely much to be said on both sides of this complex issue.
However, if we are to maintain some kind of secular democracy in what up to now has seen us heading in the opposite direction, we need to shift gears.
My view parallels that of the Oregon Dept. of Education plus comments of several posters who recommended following religious dress practices only when away from school and workplace.
This, at least allows some bit of relief to those of us still yearning for a clear cut division between Church and State!

This story made http://detentionslip.org ! Check it out for all the crazy headlines from our schools.

If a turban is cultural and not religious, then my blue jeans are also cultural, and I should be allowed to wear them when I teach, but I am not allowed, by order of my county's dress code.

And by the way, I'd like to wear my jeans and I don't give a hoot whether the Sikh teacher across the hallway wears his turban, kaftan, or whatever he wants. Schools profess freedom of speech, allow students to wear clothes are express themselves as long as they don't express hate. So why can't I wear my frigging jeans?

The point should be, is this person an American citizen or isn't he? Does he espouse the United States Constitution or doesn't he? Then, let's talk about his apparel.

The same people who brought you Lon Mabon and the Christian Coalition are the same ones who love this proposed law.

Believe me, the last thing I would want is some towel head teaching my kid. But I also wouldn't want some knuckle smacking nun, or fellating priest either. I wouldn't want a straight person teaching my child since 90% of all sexual predators of children are straight evangelical men.

I wouldn't want an AMWAY distributor teaching my child or a Promise Keeper. I wouldn't want a Word Alone Lutheran or a tongue speaking Assembly of God imbecile anywhere near my child. I wouldn't want anyone who's been near a church, temple, synagogue, or ashram having any sort of authority over my child. EVER!

The only teacher I would ever want my child to have is sweet, loving, tender hearted, fair-minded, creative, intelligent gay man who's been thrown out of their religion. That, to me, is the only person I would ever want near my child.

It is not surprising that it is Oregon which has this law. Oregon is the least religious state, based on church membership and attendance. Ostentatious displays of religion do not go over very well here. The people who argue for religious dress are not arguing honestly. They want to indoctrinate, not educate.

I think the law is silly. I grew up in Texas and I remember I had this Christian teacher who used to always preach to us about religion. She even used to start the day out with a moment of silence. She got in trouble for that, but it didn't keep her from always talking about religion and putting down other cultures. You know what, though? She didn't wear any special outfit. I agree with the group that made the comment, it's how you act at work, not how you dress.

I grew up in a suburban county rich with many cultures, religions, ethnicities, and so on. I received a great education in a diverse high school where more than 50 nations were represented in an equally economically diverse student body; some of those kids wore Christian crosses or David's stars, some wore turbans, and some wore saris, hijabs, etc. A few of my teachers wore similar garb, but none of them pushed any religious agenda whatsoever. Ever. I was accepted at a highly-respected university where I graduated with honors, and I've gladly returned to teach in a community that's even a little more diverse than it was before.

The ignorant and hateful attitudes expressed in some of these postings--including "mibrooks27" there--are among the reasons that a lot of skilled and devoted teachers like me wouldn't consider working in a state that bars TEACHERS--and ONLY teachers--from wearing religious garb at work. This is not just about religious freedom; it also touches on workers’ rights. Do teachers have the right, within reason, to wear the same type of clothes that employees elsewhere do? The answer to that may affect who chooses to teach there in the first place. Oregon's loss.

As before, some of my fellow teachers wear religious and/or culturally-significant clothing (dreadlocks included), as do some of our students. No one is preaching, no one is trying to convert anyone, and no one's rights are being trampled on. We're teaching together and we're learning together. It's always been obvious to me that the intelligence, skills, and devotion of teachers here matters far more than what any of us wears. (Even at the age of 13, I was smart enough to tell my parents that an education in a diverse school was at least as good--if not better-than one at the pasty-white private school they were considering.) I have dear friends and respected co-workers from all sorts of traditions, nations, and faiths, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

To bar religious dress from public schools is a form of ignorance and discrimination, plain and simple, and I'll stand against it alongside my fellow professionals as well as the parents and students who've benefited from our work.

Someone herein said, ".. This is not a religuous argument. The garb warn by Sikhs is ethnic. The constitution does not seperate ethnicity and state..."

In AMERIC, a/k/a Good ole U.S. of A.;s, that ALL, EVERY & Any 'GreenHorn" ISLAMIC, a/k/a Muslom/Moslem/Mussleman/Womb in sweet sweet U.S. of A., KNOW that

Know that Advertising their Islamic Religion via BURKA's & Hijabs is an 'Affrtont' and a testy/sneaky way of promoting al Islam, which does-NOT insinuate ASSIMILATiON , in America or in Western Ideals or their CULT-ure and SECT-ions!

Note: Islam Had Zero (nada/Nothing) to do with Founding America! It was the JUDEO-Christian/Judeo-Jews/Judeo-Confucious/Buddha & Afrikans (Nature/Shaman/Voodoo folk) who Came here 1st-First. Not Islam; LAST!

So if their Religion is the Last Great Abrahamic Faith (Except for Mormonism which is the 4th great Abrahamic Realigion now) Then ISLAM can Admitt/Boast to the World That They are "LAST" to Discover the AMERICA's! Except for S.A. GUYANA?!!!!

PS: WE [i] Speaketh & Thinketh "AMERICAN" not English anymore! Islam; What are Ye Shy About!??? Koranic Mocho-Man & Lady's Sexual Guilt stories [Biblio or REALITY]????

Hey at least the Taliban were civilized enough to not butt rape that US soldier in their custody, I did not see any masks on him, or electrodes attached to his privys, or dogs mauling him, or a leash attached to his neck being dragged all around.

Whats up with these uncivilized Taliban, can;t they act civilized like the Americans in Abu Ghraib?

I mean damn, the guy was shown well fed, clean shaven, unlike the unshaven Saddam with his mouth being probed by a medic... I mean come on, propaganda video by the Taliban, wonder who they learnt it from????

Even Native Americans, a/k/a Ab-ORIGINAL, Indegenius Do Not Think that Wearing Burkas or Hajibs & Other Garbs of other IMPORTED CUSTOMS & surely Not Made In America is sort of Out of Vogue, not to U.S.A. Sysle nor Class!

We are an OPEN-SOCiETY; not a CLOSED [via Burkas/Hijab] SOCiETY!

Note: Try Walking in the Middle of Mecca or Riyahd with a Star of David & a Shoal or a Christian w/ a Cross in Saudi Arabia et al! See what the Religious Police , there, will do to Ye 'INFIDELS' [Non Musloms].!

VOTE: For The new "AMERICAN RELIGIOUS POLICE" to Prevent ISLAMICIZING U.S.A. & via Other "izing" Religions competing for a name for god(s) , "INSTAED OF G-D", Systems in U.S. of A. & Elswhere on S.S. Earth!, aka S.S. GAIA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!!

Many posters are commenting in favor of non-Christian teachers wearing clothing representative of their religion. Your tolerance would be commendable had you not gone out of your way to bash Christians worldwide and all "people of no color" form the southern regions of the Country. Obviously, you would be just as tolerant if your child's teacher came to school with a Confederate States of America flag sewn to his or her clothing. You probably even teach your children that the American Civil War was about states' rights issues, and that slavery was only one of many issues separating the North and South. Yeah, right! Well, if you don't like Oregon's ruling, get over it. Surely many of the people of Oregon would just as soon you go elsewhere.

Go wherever you wish in the Country and look around. The odds favor that the people you see will be mostly white Christians; in North Carolina, many will be Quakers whose ancestors were sympathetic toward the Negros (yes, I said Negros. Doesn't it just make your perfect PC blood boil?) Perhaps half in North Carolina will be Democrats and all of us will be proud of our Southern heritage. Until now, we have been tolerant of other people, other religions, and other political views. My advice to you is to enjoy YOUR bigotry while you can; our tolerance may not last forever.

VOTE:

Abolish "THEOCRACY" & "MONARCHY" in Middle East & Elswhere [Includes Europe & England] forever!

VOTE; To ABOLISH them, from S.pace S.hip Earth once & for ALL, This Decade (10 Years) or by Next Generation (25 Years)!

Goodbye Moses
Good Bye Jesus
Goodbye Muhammad
Goodbeye Vyasa
Goodbye Gautams
Goodbye Confucus..!

HELLO; The "RELIGION" of Everything before the "SCIENCE" of Everything"!

HELLO; Apocalyptic Religion; no more PRE-Apocalyptic Religion Systems!

@jameschirico I don't think you know what a hijab is, it in no way would hinder a woman from driving. (a quick google search should show you what it is).

As for the burqa, I am not aware of any actual Islamic scholar who would claim it was required, and all the countries with the largest populations of Muslims seem to agree with me (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc)

As for forcing people to not wear "religiously identifiable" clothing, that in itself is a religious attitude, since non-religion or atheism is itself a religion.

According to dictionary.com a religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

In this case the set of beliefs would be one: the non-existence of anything divine which could easily be represented by the complete lack of religious symbols...

My son had a teacher from Yemen who wore a hijab. She was a lovely young woman and her learned a tremendous amount from her, about life as well as about math. She also learned from him as he was her first Jewish student. I don't think I would feel as tolerant of a teacher in a burka because that would effect her ability to communicate with the kids, but the hijab was not a big deal. Later he had several Mormon teachers who wore their garments to school (and yes the kids knew because kids are kids and figure out how to tell.) My daughter, in a secular school, had an Orthodox teacher who wore a wig and left early on winter Fridays to get home for her Sabbath observance. My daughter became so close with this woman over 4 years that the teacher walked many miles to be present at her graduation, held on a Saturday. All of these religious individuals, who taught in religious garb, brought their full selves to the classroom without proselytizing and broadened my children's understanding of the place and purpose of religion and ethics. It is the proselytizing that is the problem, not the garb.

Using dress as an avenue of religious expression is something doesn't really belong in government schools or in any workplace. I don't go to work to have my curiosity satisifed about who practices what religion, and it's something that doesn't have anything to do with me performing my job. Allowing or not allowing someone to wear religious dress at work in in school has *nothing*, zero, nada, to do with freedom of religion.
Get it??

Hello , I believe there should not be a fashion police at any work place . It is within our rights to be dressed fully covered , modestly and as we please . In the U. S. communities we have all kinds of hats including Jewish hat , Muslim Scarf and hat , Gandhi or Nehru cap , Jinnah cap , Sikhs' Turban , Pashtuns' cap and Turban and many more . What is wrong with any of that ? We should recognize and reinforce diversity in our communities and make sure to forge unity and strengthen our U. S. A. Let petty differences not divide us . God Bless America .

People;forget about 'Religion';forget about 'Ethnic': we're talking about America; the good ol' US of A. When in Rome . . . .but when in the US, likewise, 'act' like an American (preferably a proud one !). Take a look at Australia, where the law is very simple and straight forward: IF you want to stay in Australia: 1: swear allegiance to the OZ-Flag; 2: Behave & Act like an Australia; 3: You may do anything you want within the privacy of your own home. If you don't like any of these rules ? Simply get on a boat or a plane and PI@@-OFF to where you came from ! ! !
How simple & fair do you want it ?!

I am a Dutchman living in Thailand (18 years already). Do you think Thai's would acept it if I would walk around in wooden shoes, while singing "Tip-Toe-Through-The Tulips ? ? Man; they would have fed me to the elephants for sure . . . . . .

Where does this end? What if my name is Mohammad, or Jesus, or Krishna, or other god names? Do we 'anonymize' that?

Raj

"What about "religious dress" that isn't at all apparent, such as undergarments worn by Latter-day Saints or long hair or bears worn by some for religious reasons?"

#########################################

Which religion requires you to wear a "bear"? The Pentacostal Church of Daniel Boone?

ZERO RELIGION IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS PLEASE.

This is crazy.
I have a better idea in defence of neutrality, why not allow allow all teachers to wear brown shirts to school.
Who doesn't comply can be shipped of to somwhere undesirable

Oregon didn't have to make this about religion -- a simple dress code would have sufficed for the school district. No head coverings or robes are to be worn in the classroom -- period. I worked in a casino for many years and there is no way an employee could have gotten away with wearing a hat, cap, turban or veil on the floor. The same should be true in a classroom.

This is a sick law.
Why not solve the problem by requiring all teachers to wear brown shirts?

Teachers should blend in with their subjects not stand out as some religious symbol that distracts from the learning process.

Dress codes for teachers and students help to limit distractions and levels the playing field with respect to status and wealth. Teach as equals, learn as equals. If teachers/students want to stand out from the crowd they should do so in a person's church, mosque, temple, country club or shopping center.

So Oregon is MANDATING that all employers (including the State) permit religious dress, EXCEPT for public schools where that aspect of practicing one's religion is banned by law. The State, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that the mere wearing of religious dress is proselytizing but only in public schools. Somehow religious garb in any other profession is not ministry but in teaching, it is.

If other public employees are allowed to wear religious dress, does that not cross the boundary of separation of church and state? The state seems to be saying that it does for teachers but not for any other occupation.

I've always thought of Oregon as a fairly progressive state. Obviously, I was wrong. The Supreme Court is going to have loads of fun with this one.

What I'd like to know is why the WaPo hosts a blog in a newspaper I pay for and yet allows the blog writer here to selectively edit out comments from the public?

Not fair.

(good luck to me getting THIS posted as well)

.

These types of laws have got things a*sbackwards. The whole point of separation of church and state is about TOLERANCE. Now in the name of keeping peace, we are catering to everyone who is INTOLERANT. Instead of tell people who are intolerant to change their ways, we are telling them we'll cater to their demands. So we are forcing conformity to the majority. How did our great society come to this?

I cannot believe our schools do not have more important things to spend their time on. It's most important that we make sure all of our teachers are competent rather than concern ourselves with the clothes they wear. America is a diverse place and by limiting religious attire we are reducing the 'teachable moments' of tolerance and diversity. As long as the teacher is not proselytizing, who cares?

Erm.. I'm no expert on comparative religions, but as I understand it the turban isn't a religious symbol. Sikhism forbids men from cutting their hair and the turban is a useful device for keeping one's hair out of one's eyes. If Oregon bans the turban will a Sikh teacher be allowed to continue to work with his hair cascading down his back or will that be construed as a religious symbol too?

In the UK, Judaism and Sikhism are protected under the Race Relations Act, because it was argued that the majority of adherents to these religions shared a particular ethnic background.

In practice, this means that Sikhs may carry a concealed knife, do not have to wear crash helmets when they ride motor cycles and are exempt from wearing specialist headgear should they decide to join the police force or armed forces.

The Race Relations Act came into force in the late 'Sixties and so far, Britain's secular traditions have not crumbled away or the country been engulfed in anarchy.

Messy. I suspect that before long those who initiated this move will rue the day they thought of it. I certainly hope that in defending this from the multi-million dollar legal costs that the bills go directly to whoever thought it up, not the taxpayers of the state.

I wonder who was behind it? And I wonder IF they realize that the next step will be banning ALL religious jewelry and insigniae, including Christian crosses, stars of David, the yarmulke (for male Jews); long modest clothes (many women, not just Muslim women, especially as we get older, wear long skirts and long sleeves out of needful personal modesty); turbans (which are a good double for the Muslim headdress, but are also worn by female cancer patients.)

Don't these people have something, ANYTHING, more important to do with their time? Were they on some kind of tax-payer's payroll the day enforcing this was dreamed up? Can the taxpayers arrange to have them all docked for a day's pay?

Come on people, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the original reason for the law, which was to reign in the Ku Klux Klan.

The ignorance of these people is simply jaw dropping.

I'm appalled by the amount of mud-stupid ignorance shown by so many people here. Posters who support this Oregon law seem to think that they can outlaw one religion (e.g. Islam) or ban all religions in schools.

Whatever these cretins may wish for, there's only test this law needs to pass, and it doesn't. The 1st Amendment 1) allows for freedom of religion and 2) prohibits the government from establishing religion in any way. Traditionally, in hundreds if not thousands of cases, this has been interpreted to mean that individual government workers can wear or display personal affirmations of faith so long as they do not use their government positions to proselytize their faiths.

This law doesn't have the slightest chance of passing constitutional muster. All you haters, whether of the redneck or "liberal" persuasion, need to come down to reality and stop trying to tell other people how to live already.

to marnie4bama - I am glad you so forcefully defended the state of Alabama. What do you feel about the proposed law in Oregon, which is the point de jour?

BTW, are the Ten Commandments still on the state courthouse?

Teaching citizens that the only way to handle diversity is to suppress it, is not progress. This country was founded on the ideals of freedom from religious persecution and freedom of expression. This law is religious persecution. This law limits the right to one's freedom of speech. If the students are learning what they're suppose to be learning, then a gold Cross, a St. Patrick medallion, a Star of David, a Turban, or what have you is of no consequence. Allowing the state to limit your freedoms and your right to express them is dangerous. Should Oregon allow this to pass, do not be surprised if the next thing they attack is political affiliation. If all state employees must suppress their religious expressions, then it only follows suite that they must suppress their political ideals as well. Otherwise, the state is having an influence on church, and the line between the two will become blurred. So, say goodbey to your bumper stickers, your right to have open debate, and say hello to communistic censorship.

As long as the law is applied equally to all dress or adornment I don't have a problem with it. However, I doubt Oregon is going to ban teachers from wearing crosses so I have a real problem with it. It has to be equally applied to all religions and cannot favor one religion over another.

This certainly lowers my opinion of the Legislature of Oregon.

Re: "Whoa Whoa. Slow down. This is not a religuous argument. The garb warn by Sikhs is ethnic."

I might argue with your understanding of Sikhs but let's ignore that.

The law refers to religious dress. So is it your argument that dressing as Sikh is exempt, i.e., Sikhs would be allowed to wear turbans as public school teachers because it's an expression of ethnicity, not religion.

I'd bet that as soon as the Oregon legislature understands that, they'll repeal/change the law.

Doesn't have to be a ruling for or against religious attire. That's a red herring being trolled in front of a school of large mouth bass, err, voters.

The sole point that should be discussed is whether a particular outfit, religous or otherwise, detracts from the learning experience of the majority of students. If your dastaar keeps falling off you head or unwinding in the middle of class, that's a detriment to learning. (I've never seen a Sikh lose his headgear, even in windy weather.) Same goes for nun's traditional headgear. More importantly, face and body covering by islamic women DOES impede the learning process by blocking important non-verbal communication, and should be prohibited. Not to single out islamic women, but full robes by nuns may also mute non-verbals to the point of inhibiting learning and may also need to be banned.

Interesting thought. How do school systems in the U.S. deal with fundamental islamic requirements to pray 6 times a day toward Mecca? Do they allow the teacher to stop in the middle of class, or do the teachers adjust their prayer schedule for 5 to 10 minutes between classes?

Some fundamentalist Protestant religions require women to wear long skirts, long sleeves, not to cut their hair, and to eschew makeup and jewelry. Should female teachers who practice this faith be required to wear slacks, tank tops, page boy haircuts, rouge, and bling?

Funny isn't it that if someone wanted to wear a shirt that offended some people "God hates homosexuals" it won't fly on freedom of speech grounds but then you try saying it's freedom of religion and suddenly things change. We need to get rid of the idea that divisiveness can hide behind religion and get rid of the idea of protecting religion.

Having said that, this law is plainly unconstitutional and will be struck down if passed. Clothing is not religious speech or teachings (which are justly banned in public schools) any more than private prayer during your lunch break. Public schools are not for discussing religion outside of a sociological, historical or anthropological framework so no teacher needs to go into depth about the details of their religion. They can simply say, I wear this because it's part of my tradition, and move on. Forget the slippery slope arguments of wearing a burkha or bikini in class. That won't happen and it's pointless to discuss it.

The real issue is that All religion is BS. Realize that, and your life becomes instantly better. Religion was invented by ignorant savages to explain the inexplicable. Admit that the inexplicable is as such, and move on, marveling at the wonder of it all without inferring irrational and unsubstantiated drivel like the virgin birth and other nonsense.

"How do school systems in the U.S. deal with fundamental islamic requirements to pray 6 times a day toward Mecca? Do they allow the teacher to stop in the middle of class, or do the teachers adjust their prayer schedule for 5 to 10 minutes between classes?"

Muslims are required to pray five times a day not six. The mid-day prayer fits comfortably into the lunch break - it only takes five to ten minutes. All a school needs to do is provide a quiet room for the prayer to take place.

Active proselytizing obviously has no place in schools, but does wearing one’s religious symbols constitute proselytizing in and by itself? It is not, unless deliberately misconstrued as such.
Some observant religious people are required to wear symbols of their faith, be they turbans, veils, yarmulkes, crosses or whatever, or choose to wear them. That is their prerogative and their right under the constitution. A good, law-abiding teacher, in whatever decent dress, is priceless.
A professional code of conduct in schools should be sufficient to control, or punish, as the case may be, any infringement. Enacting a law denying individual freedom for spurious reasons is illegal and an exercise in futility. Diversity in America is a reality.
Children are already exposed outside the classroom to a variety of religious symbols and ethnic dress, but we don’t see school children rushing en masse to convert in mosques, Jewish, Hindu or other temples.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”, particularly the learned knee-jerk “fear of the other”, a fear mostly borne of ignorance. The more we get to know the “other” and recognize our common humanity, the better. Again, diversity is here to stay, bigots and racists notwithstanding.

I am embarrassed and ashamed that some of you posters are my fellow Americans. How horrible that we feel we should dictate to others how to dress. Heaven forbid that our children should come in contact with those different from themselves. Oregon is taking a huge step backward.

Oh you know, how adult is this? Let's all argue about everybody's hats, why don't we. I hope that you can look in the mirror and see how stupid this is. You'd think people would have more constructive things to do with their time.

I thought America was better than this. Let's all move to France, where they have this very same argument annually and make a national sport out of it.

And let me just say again, thank you Fred Hiatt, for facilitating another thoughtful and illuminating discussion of the big issues of our day.

The worst dress is one you don't see, but the children are subject to on an every day basis: the biases of a poor teacher. The teacher who thinks that girls can't learn math and doesn't dedicate one-on-on or small group instruction to them; instead, always chooses and rewards the boys. The teacher who claims no racial biases, yet brings in his/her own beliefs and reflects them in the assessments and comments on a child's report card. If the teacher truly LOVES children, and LOVES teaching, then I EXPECT the activity to occur. Children are sponges; new textbooks are becoming more relevant and current. They ask questions, they EXPECT answers. Children learn -quickly- to get beyond the physical differences and readily accept the teacher for the person he or she is.

Shame on Oregon. Banning teaching of religion or recruiting kids to one shaman or another is not only permitted, but required by the First Amendment, but clothing or jewelry? I don't see how that law can stand any judicial scrutiny.

I suggest that everyone teach naked. There you go, no more conflicts.

France tells it like it is... if you're unable to shed the influence of your religion in your native country, you will not assimilate well in France....or the USA.

We've had it with men who come here for 'freedom' but drag their poor wives around in their coverings and then do honor killings if they don't obey.

The Muslim/Arab world has demonstrated they will use native/religious dress to further their hatred AGAINST this country, none should be allowed here if they cannot act like Americans once here.

See right answer by JAINR far below.

Or perhaps we should just have everyone in a public school wear a uniform and learn the same stuff from the same textbooks using the same teaching techniques. After all, freedom and thinking are big responsibilities, and not so easy.

How stupid can you get? Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion, for pity's sake! Maybe if the state worried a little more about what teachers were actually teaching (like the difference between OF and FROM and other niceties of grammar) they'd have less time to worry about what teachers were wearing! Oh dear, Johnny and Susie might learn that people with different beliefs can actually teach us something - horrors!! Must protect them from such evil contamination!

I wish some of my teachers had worn burqas, on account of their horrifying ugliness.

RE: quote from article ".....and the Free Exercise clause, which tells government to leave the religious alone."
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The U.S. Constitution does NOT tell the Gov't to "leave the religious alone."
It says about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

But as we've seen SCOTUS abridge Freedom of Speech before by restricting your ability to yell *FIRE* in a crowded theater, this is just another *REASONABLE* limitation on impressionable young children in the PUBLIC Schools!

If ya'll don't like it.....MOVE back to your country of origin, dontchya know?!

The most important point is not what a teacher wears but what they say and teach. I would be in favor of a teacher dressing neatly anyway they like in any none sexual exposure type clothing. But I would also be strongly in favor of the following rule. If a student asks a teacher why they are wearing whatever they are wearing, turbans, Kippah, hijabs, etc., the teacher cannot elaborate that it is religious garb. In other words, they must just tell students they are clothes period, and not mention any relationship their garb has to do with any religion! If they cannot accept this type of rule, then my feeling is they have no place teaching in public schools. What a teacher wears (religious or otherwise) is a private personal choice, and it should and must stay that way in a public school setting!

As far as the burqua is concerned, all other issues asside, there is no way for a hearing-impaired child to lip-read from someone whose face is covered completely.

I dont' have a particular problem with what people wear. However, I don't want morons teaching my children, and if someone is so stupid as to believe that their imaginary gods demand that they wear particular get-ups, then that person is a copmplete idiot and has no business in a 21st. century classroom. I want teachers who will competently lead my child to knowledge; I don't want some stupid religious accolyte who believes that a puffy, magical guy in the sky runs things on earth. Religious adherents do not think for themselves; they are mindless sheep following unscrupulous so-called holy men. They will believe anything they are told. Do you really want that stupidity passed on to your children?

My husband, who is Jewish, grew up in a mostly Jewish neighborhood and at least 95% of the students in his schools were Jewish. Nonetheless, come Christmas time, they had to participate in Christmas celebrations. No other religion's celebrations or holy days were acknowledged.

So it was no surprise that he found his 6th grade teacher's constantly wearing a belt with pictures of the Pope on it offensive and memorable to this day over 40 years later.

I have no problem with prohibiting public school teachers from wearing religious dress in school.

This law is so offensive its hard to know where to begin. I am always amazed at how the concept of Freedom of Religion is so easily trampled in this country by the so-called liberals. I would think a school where so many different people are free to live as Americans practising their different faiths while still participating and contributing to the community at large is EXACTLY the kind of lesson we want to teach our children! Having a Sikh teacher with a turban would be...what's that phrase...ah yes: A TEACHING MOMENT. First day of class teacher gets to answer questions, kids get to learn about a culture/religion and then... on to algebra, civics, or chemistry. My guess is the students forget its there after a while.

Diversity is one of the great things about the USA - this Oregon law is an insult not only to the teachers but to the students and their parents. It assumes that all are so weak brained they can't handle being in a room with someone a bit different. Which brings up another point... the students will grow up and live in a world where they will have to hold their own beliefs while respecting those in the community around them. I would think a school full of diversity would be a great training ground.

I'd be game for this law-- if it bans crosses, priest collars, stars of David, etc. But it's funny that crosses and "Christian" symbols are not mentioned.

How unfair. This isn't about being religiously "neutral" but about getting people to assimilate into what we believe they should be.

This is utterly ridiculous.

The real issue is that All religion is BS. Realize that, and your life becomes instantly better. Religion was invented by ignorant savages to explain the inexplicable. Admit that the inexplicable is as such, and move on, marveling at the wonder of it all without inferring irrational and unsubstantiated drivel like the virgin birth and other nonsense.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | July 20, 2009 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is one of the smartest comments I have seen all day. Yet this has more to do with it being a non-Christian issue. The United States of America is a Christian country. Look at the vacations for public school students , "Spring-Break" and "Winter-Break". Or should I say Christmas and Easter, do any of the other religions have their holidays recognized in such a manner. I don't even think I have ever heard of a non-Christian private academy in the US. Can anyone imagine hearing of "Word of Allah's Shiite Academy" in your neighborhood.

Hi, I was born into a Sikh family and I now consider myself more spiritual than religious. I want to put a few things into perspective with this new law:

1. Sikh's wear a turban as a symbol to others that they are of the Sikh religion (there are 4 other symbols). The last Sikh guru mandated this in a time of Muslim rule in India (where conversion to Islam were being forced or coercised). There are other reasons for these symbols, however they are secondary purposes.

2. Children will no doubt run into all types of people during their lifetime. Isn't it not to societies advantage if they have had some form of close contact with at least one person of a different faith to help broaden their horizons? What ill can come out this type of experience? What is the problem with having a teacher that you can see is from a different background than yours? Why do kids supposedly need 'protection' from this? What is happening here is the fear of the adults are being projected into the kids. People need to get over this ... or go and talk to some people of other faiths and get a grip on thier own fears before making up their minds on this law.

3. I do agree that once the teacher does start to preach about their religion then this is should be illegal unless it is a religious school.

Why are so many people so afraid of someone displaying the outward signs of another faith?

Who really cares if a teacher is wearing a cross, a Star of David, a turban or some other outward manisfestation of faith?

Are we all so shallow in our own faitht that we're araid of being "converted" or having someone we know converted to another faith?

What
It should be a non-issue.

Why are so many people so afraid of someone displaying the outward signs of another faith?

Who really cares if a teacher is wearing a cross, a Star of David, a turban or some other outward manisfestation of faith?

Are we all so shallow in our own faitht that we're araid of being "converted" or having someone we know converted to another faith?

It should be a non-issue.

"It is hardly ignominious to choose a career path in keeping with one's faith. If you don't want to dispense birth control, don't be a pharmacist. If you have to wear a turban, don't be a teacher. If you have to keep your face covered, you can't be a police officer. If you wear saffron robes, you can't work around machinery."

Not dispensing birth control as a pharmacist and not teaching because of what you are "required" to wear is completely NOT the same thing. If teaching a subject other than religion does not go against your religion or your beliefs, then why shouldn't you do it? Just because someone says you can't dress the way you do, even though you're not going against any other dress codes? It doesn't make sense.

This is clearly anti-Islamic, as these so-called "issues" have only come up since 9/11.

I grew up in New York, where Jews have always been free to wear yamulkas or if Orthodox, black hats and beards. Christians often wear a crucifix. But since 9/11 any one practicing their God-given right to religious apparel is suddenly "unpatriotic"?

This is a bad law and un-American. What is this, France?

I agree we need more dialog with and among Muslims in America, but banning their clothing is not the way to start that process.

I would find two elements of this discussion amusing were they not so frightening.

1) The degree of religious intolerance expressed by the supposedly "tolerant" and "superior" non-believers.

2) The notion put forth by some of those non-believers that they and others should somehow be shielded from the free exercise of religion by religious believers.

To the non-believers, I'd like to raise an issue -- who is harmed by permitting teachers to dress according to their religious beliefs in a classroom? Who is harmed if Mr. Cohen wears his yamulke or Mr. Gupta wears a turban? Indeed, doesn't allowing the wearing of religious garb promote tolerance and diversity?

We are guaranteed freedom OF religion...not freedom FROM religion. This law effectively bans certain religious groups the freedom to practice their religion if they wish to teach in Oregon. As long as they aren't teaching their religion, exposing children to faiths and cultures other than their own is part of a good education.

How is wearing a cross or a yamaka proselytizing? Is what way does that infringe upon another persons freedom?

Are these freedoms also violated when somebody is wearing a Nike T-shirt?

I'm all for the separation of church and state but this is taking things too far.

Let's stop all this foolishness. Employers are allowed to set the required dress code for their employees. Keep the government out.

If the legal aliens want to practice their religion, do it outside of the Public Schools, on their own time.
Or set up a parochial system that complies with State required curriculums so they can dress however they want. Or even private schools. But be aware that this option will probably promote the Wahhabi beliefs and more radical teachings from the already dislocated Muslim religions. Our primary focus should be to make (force, require, whatever you call it)these people to assimilate into the US. Don't bend over for them. They must learn our language. They must learn our History and culture. We are not asking to learn their culture or assimilate into their culture. Americans seem to forget that many of Muslims want nothing more than to disrupt our society and destroy the US.

Paco

Teaching as nuns dressed in the habit is done in Catholic (private) schools. The people who send their kids there want the exposure to that discipline.

But I do not want my kids in public school dressing as anything but an American. No native indians in full head dress, no hawaiians in grass skirts and no muslims in turbans or burkas.

This is America -- assimilate or GO HOME!

a terrible law. I can think of so many innocuous things that even the Judeo-Christian people wear that would have to be barred from the classroom.

If a Catholic can wear a cross, then why can't a Sikh where his dastaar? I really fail to comprehend the difference. Is it a factor of offense?

Well, let me just say, I was always offended by crosses in the classroom when growing up, but because I was a minority I had to put up and shut up.

I think teachers should be able to wear any religious dress they need to in order to feel comfortable. (Note, not all Christians need to wear a cross, and not all Muslims need to cover their head). I think it is highly beneficial for children to learn about religious diversity at as early an age as possible -- lest they learn it is acceptable to dissuade minority faiths from free expression.

A number of people on this forum (and others) have said, "the U.S. is a secular nation." That is true only in their dreamworld. We are most definitely NOT officially secular. We are, in fact, a pluralistic FREEDOM-OF-RELIGION society. That means we are officially free of any GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHED religion. We are also officially free to practice, PUBLICLY, any religion (or non-religion) of our choice, provided only that in doing so we do not violate other people's rights. There is a huge difference between a secular society and a freedom-of-religion society. The voters, the legislatures, and the courts have affirmed this over and over and over.

Yes, teachers are role models, but students have MANY teachers from K-12, and they have many other role models as well: parents, grandparents, siblings, other relatives, their peers, neighbors, clergy, camp counselors, coaches, youth organization leaders, and bosses, not to mention athletes, actors, writers, artists, musicians, and (dare I say it?) politicians.

A wonderful (or horrific) teacher can certainly exert a great influence on students, and may even on rare occasions make (or break) a particular student. However, we don't base general law on rare cases. It is absolutely stupid to think that any ONE teacher can routinely set into concrete the lives of students, in isolation from all other societal influences. Therefore, abridging the rights of public school teachers to practice their religions (or lack thereof) should be kept at the minimum necessary to prevent interference with their duties as teachers.

RhymesWithRight wrote: Who is harmed by permitting teachers to dress according to their religious beliefs in a classroom?

The children are harmed, that's who. Children deserve to be taught by the best and brightest minds we can offer. Anyone who truly believes that wearing head-to-toe religious garb will somehow fast track them straight to heaven with a bevy of virgins at their disposal is, well, really really stupid. Anyone who believes the ravings of 2,000-year-old ignorant shepherds who would have made me God Almighty if I had just flicked a Bic lighter, is more than loopy. They're called idiots and they have no place in our classrooms . We hardly need to pass this idiocy along from generation to generation.

Many posts have expressed the commendable view that tolerance for diversity is reason enough to condemn the proposed Oregon law.
What most of these views missed, some deliberately, is that diversity may have several adverse effects on society because of the way it is practiced. When it is used to demand special consideration or treatment it becomes offensive to others.
Tolerance has already been extended to any newcomers, their being different accepted,
their rights protected, sometimes their reasons for having come to America not questioned enough.
Must they have such special treatment, in the name of diversity, that others may feel offended? Must they project their religion, customs, unique identity onto everybody else?
But, above all, why do some minorities insist in staying different and why does a fringe of majority insist in keeping them just so?
I think these are valid questions we must ask of ourselves and then let us think of what sort of nation we want: divided in diversity or united in what should bind us together --true equality, national pride before religion and ethnicity, freedom enjoyed with respecting the freedom of others.
Finally, my view perhaps a bit too blunt:
Multiculturalism, the euphemistic derision of both the individual and the collective, is an amorphous totality of a multitude of minorities in a society which does not care anymore to preserve most of its unique binding elements while promoting the unique separating ones. It does this in the name of democracy and some sort of general welfare for all the minorities at the expense of the society as a whole, indeed at the expense of every individual who must bow to every one of those minorities.

How about Crocs?

But I do not want my kids in public school dressing as anything but an American. No native indians in full head dress, no hawaiians in grass skirts and no muslims in turbans or burkas.

This is America -- assimilate or GO HOME!

* * * * *

1) The Native Americans and Hawaiians are home -- and were here first.

2) YOUR kid can wear what he/sh wants -- but so can other kids.

BOBDOG3 wrote:

RhymesWithRight wrote: Who is harmed by permitting teachers to dress according to their religious beliefs in a classroom?

The children are harmed, that's who. Children deserve to be taught by the best and brightest minds we can offer. Anyone who truly believes that wearing head-to-toe religious garb will somehow fast track them straight to heaven with a bevy of virgins at their disposal is, well, really really stupid. Anyone who believes the ravings of 2,000-year-old ignorant shepherds who would have made me God Almighty if I had just flicked a Bic lighter, is more than loopy. They're called idiots and they have no place in our classrooms . We hardly need to pass this idiocy along from generation to generation.

* * * * * * *

In other words, you want to mandate atheism as a requirement for employment in a teaching position? How do you square that with the idea that government cannot establish a particular form of religious belief (and atheism is a religious belief system) -- and with the notion that government should not treat people differently based upon their religious beliefs and practices?

You, sir, are a bigot and a hate-monger -- and un-American to boot.

Argo: Your long-winded comment is best translated as "Why don't we require all those immigrants to become white Protestants as a condition of living here?"

I do not want my daughter being taught by a woman who wears a head to toe garment. What would that tell my daughter? That she is better not to be seen? The other garments, symbols, etc do not bother me.

I think teachers should be free to wear what they want to a ceritan extent. When it starts sending a negative message then the situation needs to be corrected. And, not I would not want my daughter taught by a woman in a short skirt and nine inch heels either.

This law, it is an example of «do as I say, not as I do». First, the law says that employers are not free to tell employees, they may not wear religious dress. Then, the law makes an exception, when the employer is a public school, not only is it free to tell employees they may not wear religious dress, it *must* tell employees they may not wear religious dress. What is dressing for the goat, is it not also dressing for the sheep, too?

This law, was it proposed by Christians as part of the wave of post-9-11 anti-Muslim sentiment? Or was it proposed by godless, atheistic, secular humanists who hate the idea of American children being taught (not «teached»!) by instructors who believe in a Higher Power?

If teachers are barred from wearing religious garb, then would students be banned from wearing religious garb too? I grew up in Canada, another "secular" society, and I went to public school with jewish boys who wore yarmulkas, sikh boys who wore turbans, and muslim girls who wore hijabs. I wasn't in any way traumatized by the exposure to people of other faiths, in fact in retrospect I found it a very culturally enriching experience. Heck, I remember in first grade we made latkes for Hanukah! I think the folks who came up with this law think they're trying to remove any discussion of different religions in public schools (because seeing another child wearing distinctly different clothing inevitably opens discussion from inquisitive youth) in order spare children any hurt feelings if the subject is brought up indelicately. If school is supposed to prepare children for the real world (a world full of spiritual people of different faiths and customs) then why sanitize religion out of public school? It makes no sense at all.

«I don't even think I have ever heard of a non-Christian private academy in the US.»

«Posted by: iH8dallas | July 20, 2009 11:56 AM »

Never heard of a non-Christian private academy in the US? Check out the following article from the Dallas Morning News:

«Yeshiva to be dedicated on Sunday in Dallas
«10:31 AM Thu, Nov 01, 2007
«Sam Hodges/Reporter

«The Texas Torah Institute is dedicating The Yeshiva and Mesivta of Dallas on Sunday, November 4, from 3:00 to 5:00 PM. The public is welcome. The address is 17738 Davenport Rd., Dallas.

«The Yeshiva is the first school of its kind in the Southwest. It's a religious high school for young men with a dual curriculum of secular classes and in-depth study of the Torah. The Yeshiva also offers full time Rabbinic training.»

Since when does someone wearing a religious article of clothing or some other adornment cause harm? By denying these individuals the right to wear their cultural/religious attire amounts to discrimination. America was established, in part, because of these restriction placed by other countries prior to our independence.
We are a nation of free individuals that are expressly permitted to excercise our freedoms within reason and without persecution and fear of reprisal. The religious garment is not dangerous or damaging to any individuals and is a form of free speech and religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment regardless of setting.

supersonic1: You're confusing a hijab (headscarf) with a burka. I'm a feminist, but I don't think there's anything misogynist about a woman who chooses to express her commitment to her faith by wearing a headscarf. I'd rather have my child taught by a woman wearing a hijab than watching a tv show hosted by playboy bunnies.

RhymesWithRight wrote: You, sir, are a bigot and a hate-monger -- and un-American to boot.

I am neither. I just don't want my children taught by people who fervently believe in fairy tales. Teachers can believe what they will; when they cross the threshold to the classrooms, those beliefs have absolutely no validity, in dress or in instruction. Children are there to learn so they grow up able to make their own decisions, not to be indoctrinated by someone who chooses to believe in fables. And, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a discussion about teachers in a classroom, not about patriotism. You seem to have merged the two into one topic, which it most definitely is NOT! I don't believe in religious fantasy, but that in no way impacts my patriotism.

BOBDOG3 - If you belive so strongly that religion is such a damaging to rational thought, maybe you should home school your kids.

kblowry: No need to. Thankfully there are still many schools that hire intelligent, thoughtful teachers who teach facts - not fiction - and who are able to lead secular discussions of those facts without the life-damaging influences of religious bigotry, hatred and intolerance. I want my children to love everyone, exactly for who they are and whatever they believe - not just those people who believe in whichever god has been shoved down their throats.

"All's Fair In Love And In War". We - free thinkers- are at war with the Islamic clerics because they want change our ways of life and they want to convert our children. In the hypothetical school having a large number of islamic teachers that are visible by what they wear, students may get the wrong impression that being a muslim is good for us.

BIGDOG3 wrote:

I just don't want my children taught by people who fervently believe in fairy tales.

* * * * * * *

That reminds me of certain other comments I've either heard in person or read about in textooks.

"I just don't want my children taught by people who believe in race-mixing."

"I just don't want my children taught by people who fervently believe in Communism."

"I just don't want my children taught by people who fervently believe in gay marriage."

"I just don't want my children taught by people who fervently believe human being descend from apes."

Oh, yeah, and this one:

"I just don't want my children taught by people who fervently believe there is no God."

What you need to do, BigDog3, is set up your own little private academy for yourself and other hatemongering religious bigots like yourself to educate your children.

By the way, you have yet to document a single harm to any child by virtue of a teacher being able to dress in accordance with the dictates of their religious faith -- which is not indoctrination of any faith, but rather the exposure of the children to the AMERICAN notion that all believers (and non-believers) are equal in the eye of the government and are free to practice their faith without government interference. On the other hand, you propose instead setting up a regime in which children are actively taught that there is something wrong with religious belief and practice, and that those who do believe/practice religion are inferior and ought to face active discrimination at the hands of government. And that, BigDog3, is inherently unAmerican and in complete opposition to the AMERICAN values expressed in our Constitution -- every bit as much as the sort of educational system proposed by your average Kluxer is.

BIGDOG3 wrote:

There are still many schools that hire intelligent, thoughtful teachers who teach facts - not fiction - and who are able to lead secular discussions of those facts without the life-damaging influences of religious bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

* * * * *

And none of them would ever consider you for a teaching position if they read the things you posted here, given that you appear to be the leading supporter of religious bigotry, hatred and intolerance.

Indeed, i wonder who will protect your children from your malign influence while they are away from school and in your custody.

If a jewish teacher can wear a yumulka, then a dude should be able to wear a turban...

We need to keep in mind that, if we claim the right to codify the clothing that people wear in the U.S. (citizens, visitors, visiting workers, exchange students, etc.), then we must be prepared and willing to follow the clothing codes of countries we visit, as well. Hence, as an American woman, I would have to submit to wearing a burqa or some version of a head covering while visiting many countries in the Middle East. This would be completely unacceptable to me, as I neither follow any religion nor accept any clothing dicta based on my gender.

It's a slippery slope down every side of the mountain if we start telling people what they must or cannot wear. For people whose clothing is religiously mandated, who are we to say they should change it?

Yarmulkes, turbans, and headscarves are worn to follow the specific tenets of individual religions. Full body covering -- including the face -- is not. Consequently, we can (and should) respect people's religious obligations without permitting the extreme practices that are forced on the citizens (usually women) of many countries by religious leaders acting apart from the civil law.

In the U.S., we do insist on seeing people's faces if they wish to drive a car, take money from a bank account, board an airplane, etc. And, certainly, overt religious display (e.g., wearing huge crosses) is inappropriate for many types of workers, public school teachers included.

But to make demands that go against what their theological beliefs (though not necessarily their religious leaders) require of them is wrong. If we seek to homogenize our society to make sure that no one looks "different," then we're teaching the lesson that ours is the only way and we are the only people who count.

Conversely, if a child comes home from school and says "My teacher has a turban!," it's a perfect opportunity to talk with the child about all the different peoples around the world and how they're different from us in some ways but not different in others.

Being an observant Jew/Muslim/Christian/Sikh/Hindu, etc., is not the same thing as wearing one's religion on one's sleeve. Quiet observance is for the self; flamboyant physical displays are outward-directed, intended to get attention as part of an effort to proselytize.

We really need to start paying attention to these distinctions.

The answer is SIMPLE:

ANY individual who is THAT devout DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CLASSROOM BECAUSE THEIR PERSONAL LIFE IS NOW INTERFERING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION OF STUDENTS IN AMERICA!

THE RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT KEEP THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE CLASSROOM!

Always a fascinating thing to watch: how the believers of one religion are so clearly able to see how ridiculous the dress, beliefs and behavior of the other-believers in other religions, yet are so incapable of seeing how ridiculous is their own.

Faith, worship, belief - the only thing that differs is the content of the doctrine, all other human behavior in this area is exactly the same. If you think these other believers are idiots for believing in their religion, why can't you see how much of an idiot you are for believing in your own?

Hmm, maybe you can. That's why you don't want these other wackoes wearing their religions garb in classes your children attend. Once they get in the habit of seeing how stupid it all is, they're going to see how stupid your religion is too.

To: RhymesWithRight

Touched a nerve, did we?

Your ID name choice reflects your opinion of rational opinions - and validates mine.

As long as it applies absolutely equally across the board I see no problem with it. There can be no exceptions. All religious symbols must be banned.

BobDog3 wrote:

To: RhymesWithRight

Touched a nerve, did we?

Your ID name choice reflects your opinion of rational opinions - and validates mine.

* * * * *

Hmmmmm.....

The phrase I use to teach my students and others how to pronounce my unusually spelled last name somehow indicates my opinion of rational opinions and validates yours? How, exactly? You know, since you have failed to offered a rational explanation of your position that seeing a religious person in a classroom somehow disrupts their education. Now it might undermine your teaching that religious people are inferior and somehow intellectually deficient -- but that is no different from Bubba Kluxer complaining about the presence of black teachers in his child's schools.

OneString wrote:

The answer is SIMPLE:

ANY individual who is THAT devout DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CLASSROOM BECAUSE THEIR PERSONAL LIFE IS NOW INTERFERING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION OF STUDENTS IN AMERICA!

THE RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT KEEP THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE CLASSROOM!

* * * * *

How, exactly, is that turban interfering with anyone's education? Or a yamulke? Or a crucifix?

And I trust, OneString, that you would agree that the teacher who cannot keep his/her belief that there is no God to him/herself is equally unqualified -- so the minute some science teacher says that God did not create the universe that teacher will be fired.

otherwise, you are just another religious bigot who has become unstrung.

"Those who wear religiously-mandated attire are not proselytizing"

That depends. The question being what is one "proselytizing" for. It matters little what one wears if one is clearly promoting the ability to learn. Also clothing irrelevant is preaching dogma. Unfortunately, teachers everywhere are commanded to preach dogma. That observation is supported by this experience in Oregon. These people fear the preaching of any dogma but their own. With good reason: maybe these children might actually learn to think and throw out all those who preach dogma.

I would definitely object to teachers' wearing "bears" in a classroom--just kidding! Seriously, as an atheist, I would not object to religious garb or hairstyles worn by teachers. Indeed I would welcome them. As long as safety, modesty, decorum, and personal hygiene are maintained, beards, yarmulkes, crosses, dreadlocks, scarves, turbans, etc., should be allowed. It's a free country, for goodness sakes!

Rhymeswithfright:
A speed reader and quarrelsome?

Argo:

Care to answer the questions?

How, exactly, is that turban interfering with anyone's education? Or a yamulke? Or a crucifix?

And do you agree that any teacher who says that God has nothing to do with the creation of the universe is equally pushing a religious view and merits termination?