Quick update...

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association is saying that Oregon's governor has signed the bill discussed yesterday as of the 16th. I've so far been unable to find another source saying so, as the bill signing seems to have been kept fairly quiet.

The angle of news on the bill has largely been about the issue discussed yesterday, wherein public school teachers are prohibited from wearing religious symbols or garb. But I do want to give balance on what proponents feel the bill does. From the NRLA's press release:

"What this Act does is clarify the responsibility of employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holy days, or for the wearing of religious apparel in the workplace unless it poses a “significant difficulty or expense” to their business(es).

More specifically, it restores the original federal Title VII legal standard involving religious discrimination which obligated employers to demonstrate that they reasonably attempted to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of their employees before claiming that such beliefs and practices posed a “significant difficulty” and “expense” for their business(es). [Emphasis theirs.]"

Religious Expression - A Public Concern?

A law is on the books in Oregon, which says:

"No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.”

Now, a bill called the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, also known as SB786, among other things, maintains that law. Pennsylvania is the only other state with such laws.

Which begs the question: why is the wearing of a kippah, a turban, a hijab, or a crucifix a problem in a public school setting, provided the teacher is not proselytizing?

Not being a parent myself, I admit that I probably can't appreciate the difficulty of explaining the religious practices of others to a child, much less my own. But I would hope parents would have enough faith in their teachers to be able to maturely and simply discuss differences in the classroom, be they religious, racial, or otherwise, without proselytizing.

Moreover, the law sends a mixed message to students with regards to civil liberties. Reading the ACLU's guide on freedom of expression for students makes it clear that students may wear religious garb and speak relatively freely, provided there is no interference in the education of other students. Not to afford the adults who teach them the same right seems, to me anyhow, rather strange.

Since the bill has already passed the Oregon legislature, Sikh and Muslim groups are encouraging the state's governor to issue a veto.

You can read the bill in question here.

So do you think that a teacher's wearing of religious items imparts religious value to their students? Is it a matter of keeping religion out of the classroom, or is it more vital that children and their parents use this as an opportunity to understand the diversity of the world we live in?

photo by jane in santa fe