Religious Banners in Class: Appropriate or Not?

[INTJRyan]

Math class. Public school:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

One California federal judge says yes based on the first amendment. What do you think? I think this guy is a proselytizing asshat, the banners have no place in school as they are obnoxious and distracting. I also think the 9th Circuit will reverse, which itself will probably be reversed by SCOTUS.

[SShack]

Well, isn't the second banner from the Declaration of Independence? And the first banner is lines from public references to God in songs and mottos.

Clever effort to circumvent laws against preaching in school. The mistake though is that none of these banners have anything to do with teaching math. The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with school lesson plans and guidelines for workplace "decoration." The school can order it removed on the basis that the posters have nothing to do with what he/she teaches.

And frankly, given our math scores, that real estate probably should be used for something that actually helps kids learn math.

[plotthickens]

The intent is clear. It violates the seperation of church and state. Take it down.

[INTJRyan]

Well, isn't the second banner from the Declaration of Independence? And the first banner is lines from public references to God in songs and mottos.


Indeed. Do you think that matters in this instance?

[Valiyn]

This is an endorsement of religion, take it down. I wouldn't mind so much if it was just "All men are created equal as endowed by their creator...." considering it would then leave room for that creator to be evolution, their parents, the Goddess, God, Satan, and so forth. But the size of the words indicates an emphasis on the creator, when combined with the others it becomes an endorsement on monotheism. I wonder if there is an off-chance that the teacher is Islamic and is secretly trying to slip Allah into the classroom...

In God we trust is an endorsement of religion and I think it violates the first amendment.

One nation under God is an endorsement of monotheistic religions and violates the first amendment imo, and the practice of forcing people to chant that line in public schools is good grounds for a rant on state enforced religion.

God bless America - I'm actually fine with. It's clearly an opinion, doesn't not endorse any religion in particular, and isn't much different then saying "May America be blessed." As much as I would rather the later be said, it's an expression of speech I don't think should be censored in it's phrasing. Kinda defeats the first amendment if you can't say what common phrases you want - you just can't do it as indoctrination or endorsement. A student can use their religion in school projects as much as they want, a teacher cannot on the grounds they have authority over young minds on public funds.

God shed His grace on thee - Same as before. And like before, none of them deal with math. Meaning it's up to the school district and if they want the possible legal mess that may or may not ensue by allowing the teacher to put them up in the class room.

[themuzicman]

Exactly which religion is being endorsed, here?

It seems to me, based upon the US Historical significance of these signs that we either have to acknowledge that no specific religion is being endorsed, or that the USA is really a nation of the religion to which these refer.

You can't have it both ways.

[INTJRyan]

Exactly which religion is being endorsed, here?

It seems to me, based upon the US Historical significance of these signs that we either have to acknowledge that no specific religion is being endorsed, or that the USA is really a nation of the religion to which these refer.

You can't have it both ways.

Why is it significant that "no specific religion" is being endorsed, as opposed to simply promoting religion in general? Is the law congress shall make no law establishing a specific religion? Besides, as Valiyn said, at a minimum, it is promoting a monotheistic god, which excludes quite a few people.

[ArtistTyrant]

i really have no problem with it, it's a silly banner, who cares?

[Synchronicity]

It's a public school and the classroom is public property, so the first amendment doesn't apply. That said, I still don't have a huge problem with it. The banners themselves would not make me uncomfortable. Being taught by a proselytizing teacher, on the other hand, probably would.

[INTJRyan]

It's a public school and the classroom is public property, so the first amendment doesn't apply.

You sure about that? :)

[Synchronicity]

You sure about that? :)

No, but I also know that if he were to put up banners featuring obscenities, that wouldn't fly. Why is that? Doesn't the first amendment protect him?

[INTJRyan]

No, but I also know that if he were to put up banners featuring obscenities, that wouldn't fly. Why is that? Doesn't the first amendment protect him?

"Congress shall make no law..." so if the government arrested him for putting up said obscenities, absolutely it would. (I won't get into the argument here as to whether or not the particular obscenities would be classified as protected speech.) Similarly, my boss can fire me for running around the office shouting "Hail Satan" and neither my right to free speech nor my right to freedom of religion would be infringed. However, if the government made saying "Hail Satan" illegal, then I would have a colorable argument under both speech and religion clauses. The Bill of Rights restricts the government, not interactions between citizens.

Besides, this case was decided under the Establishment Clause of the first, not freedom of speech.

EDIT TO ADD: I was wrong. It is indeed freedom of speech, not the establishment clause at issue here.

EDIT TO ADD #2: It is actually both. Should have read the whole opinion. :(

[Synchronicity]

Oh, so the court ruling was to save him from arrest? I figured it was his job that was at risk, not his freedom.

[INTJRyan]

Oh, so the court ruling was to save him from arrest? I figured it was his job that was at risk, not his freedom.

Actually neither! He was instructed to remove the banners. The court said they could stay.

[nacht]

You are leaving out some relevant details about the decision.

For one, in this school district teachers are given a great deal of leeway in personalizing their classrooms.

Second, the district told him to take them down, he was the one who sued. This is the reverse of many other such cases.

Finally, this is being argued as a freedom of speech issue, not just a freedom of religion issue. This is a critical and important distinction.

So one teacher has Tibetan prayer flags and images of the Buddha, another has a picture of Mahatma Gandhi and lists Gandhi's "7 Social Sins," another has posted the text of Lennon's "Imagine." Another has a poster of the Dali Lama, another a poster of Malcom X. Other examples are an LP party poster, anti-war posters, a navy poster that reads "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of All Who Threaten it," and a poster that reads "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

The decision (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) reads "By squelching Johnson’s patriotic and religious viewpoint 14 while permitting speech promoting Buddhist, Hindu, and anti-religious viewpoints, Defendants clearly abridged Johnson’s constitutional free speech rights."

In short: Since they don't ban other religious or political speech, they can't single out this example.

[Synchronicity]

Actually neither! He was instructed to remove the banners. The court said they could stay.

So the court decided the teacher's authority is greater than the administration's (assuming that's who gave him the ultimatum) on what gets placed in the classroom? That doesn't seem right. It might make more sense if it was his office, or someplace that belongs to him (perhaps not legally, but practically), but it's a classroom. He's not the only one who uses it.

[Causa Mortis]

The decision (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) reads "By squelching Johnson’s patriotic and religious viewpoint 14 while permitting speech promoting Buddhist, Hindu, and anti-religious viewpoints, Defendants clearly abridged Johnson’s constitutional free speech rights."

In short: Since they don't ban other religious or political speech, they can't single out this example.

An entirely reasonable position in my opinion. Its free speech for me, but not for thee. Annoying, yes, but not a serious issue.

[nacht]

Besides, this case was decided under the Establishment Clause of the first, not freedom of speech.

Sort of. The Establishment Clause is what the defendants were asking the case to be ruled on, but he had several claims for relief which included both establishment and non-establishment aspects. His first and fourth claims of relief are purely freedom of speech cases, his second, sixth, and fifth are establishment and California's "no preference" clauses, his third is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The judge found in favor of all of these.

To quote the decision: "Consequently, the Defendants’ explanation and justification for removing Plaintiff’s speech for fear of violating the Establishment Clause is unconvincing – especially among the cacophony of other First Amendment speech which remains in the high school classrooms."

So for example: it actually grounds parts its decision in speech cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines (1969, students with black armbands) rather than in establishment cases, beyond to indicate why the establishment clause does not apply as the defendants say that it does. So it is accurate to say that it was not strictly decided on freedom of speech issues, but it is not accurate to say that it was not decided on freedom of speech issues.

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 02:22 PM ----------

So the court decided the teacher's authority is greater than the administration's (assuming that's who gave him the ultimatum) on what gets placed in the classroom? That doesn't seem right. It might make more sense if it was his office, or someplace that belongs to him (perhaps not legally, but practically), but it's a classroom. He's not the only one who uses it.

More precisely: This particular school district allows the teachers to display political and religious images that are unconnected to the curriculum. It could ban these or broad categories within these, but since it chooses to allow them it must allow all of them and cannot distinguish based solely on the message.

[INTJRyan]

Sort of. The Establishment Clause is what the defendants were asking the case to be ruled on, but he had several claims for relief which included both establishment and non-establishment aspects. His first and fourth claims of relief are purely freedom of speech cases, his second, sixth, and fifth are establishment and California's "no preference" clauses, his third is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The judge found in favor of all of these.

To quote the decision: "Consequently, the Defendants’ explanation and justification for removing Plaintiff’s speech for fear of violating the Establishment Clause is unconvincing – especially among the cacophony of other First Amendment speech which remains in the high school classrooms."

So for example: it actually grounds parts its decision in speech cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines (1969, students with black armbands) rather than in establishment cases, beyond to indicate why the establishment clause does not apply as the defendants say that it does. So it is accurate to say that it was not strictly decided on freedom of speech issues, but it is not accurate to say that it was not decided on freedom of speech issues.

I know. I corrected myself. Twice. I think this will be reversed on establishment grounds. I also think all of the other stuff should come down too.

[SShack]

Ah, with further information, the decision itself makes sense.

Still, I'm annoyed at the issue of the schools letting the teachers use the walls of their classrooms for personal sounding boards. I'm not a fan of the public school system anyway, but if it doesn't have anything to do with the class subject matter, get rid of it.

Also, totally unrelated to the decision itself, those banners are stupid and ineffective. Like bumper stickers, they don't actually serve to persuade anybody of anything and are just "dog whistles" to find people just like you. Like some kid is gonna turn Christian because of a banner.

[Nightsun]

Every simbol of idiology (religions, politics, etc..) should be banned in public officies (schools, health care structures, etc..)

[Synchronicity]

Also, totally unrelated to the decision itself, those banners are stupid and ineffective. Like bumper stickers, they don't actually serve to persuade anybody of anything and are just "dog whistles" to find people just like you. Like some kid is gonna turn Christian because of a banner.

Very true. In principle, I'm not keen on forbidding these kinds of banners, since it would sort of make me a hypocrite. I know a lot of religious people who, though they love to see the commandments displayed at US courthouses, nevertheless proceeded to bitch and moan when a group of atheists paid for ads supporting their worldview on UK buses out of their own pockets. I don't want to be like that, so I'll let them parade their banners and slogans in front of me, so long as I'm not required to like it.

Personally, I'd rather people just kept their beliefs to themselves, sharing them with people who are actually interested.

[INTJRyan]

To quote the decision: "Consequently, the Defendants’ explanation and justification for removing Plaintiff’s speech for fear of violating the Establishment Clause is unconvincing – especially among the cacophony of other First Amendment speech which remains in the high school classrooms."


Having argued MSJ's in front of judges like this, it is very annoying. The judge is taking it upon himself to weigh the evidence inappropriately, allowing himself to be "convinced" the school's position is wrong. This is not the appropriate standard. This should have went to trial.

[True Rune]

Ah, with further information, the decision itself makes sense.

Still, I'm annoyed at the issue of the schools letting the teachers use the walls of their classrooms for personal sounding boards. I'm not a fan of the public school system anyway, but if it doesn't have anything to do with the class subject matter, get rid of it.

Also, totally unrelated to the decision itself, those banners are stupid and ineffective. Like bumper stickers, they don't actually serve to persuade anybody of anything and are just "dog whistles" to find people just like you. Like some kid is gonna turn Christian because of a banner.

Every simbol of idiology (religions, politics, etc..) should be banned in public officies (schools, health care structures, etc..)

That's a little too dangerous, in my opinion. While the issue on the whole isn't such a big deal to me, that would kill many harmless things too.

[Cooper]

The intent is clear. It violates the seperation of church and state. Take it down.

Exactly what I was going to say. If this is a school that gets money from the government, those signs do not belong there. There is a reason for seperation between chruch and state.

[SShack]

Exactly what I was going to say. If this is a school that gets money from the government, those signs do not belong there. There is a reason for seperation between chruch and state.

A quote from the Declaration of Independence doesn't belong in school? What if it were a history class rather than a math class? Would it be okay if it were a poster with the entire Declaration of Independence on there?

I mean, I know the guy's real intent here, but those kind of blanket comments don't work. Religious elements are a component of our history and culture, and we need to find a way to teach them without actively preaching them.

[nacht]

A quote from the Declaration of Independence doesn't belong in school? What if it were a history class rather than a math class? Would it be okay if it were a poster with the entire Declaration of Independence on there?

I mean, I know the guy's real intent here, but those kind of blanket comments don't work.


Actually, they do. The intent is looked at heavily in Establishment Clause cases. The first part of the Lemon Test is all about intent.

[SShack]

Actually, they do. The intent is looked at heavily in Establishment Clause cases. The first part of the Lemon Test is all about intent.

Sooooo if a teacher intends to use the Declaration of Independence to preach Christianity ... what's the solution? It seems like a Catch-22.

[LaoTzu]

'Endowed by their creator' is ambiguous enough for me... but then it's sexist ... so... :P

The other three banners are a plea for attention. Whoever hung them is just being a douche. Were I a student in that class, I would request to hang my own banners... from the church of Scientology or some other ridiculousness.... Wait for the teacher to protest, and slam him with his own arguments.

[Ray9]

In the United States the "Separation of Church and State" is generally discussed as a political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally; and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices are not restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."


Most people have no real understanding of what seperation of church and state means.
A lot of people, particularly liberals, think it means that even the mention of religion must be expunged from any public place having any connection to the government. This of course would make our national treasury, all of our paper money and most of our coinage illegal. A decorated classroom does not violate the seperation of church because it does not promote or require a "state" religion. It merely aknowledges the concept of religion in a general, historical sense.

[INTJRyan]

Most people have no real understanding of what seperation of church and state means.
A lot of people, particularly liberals, think it means that even the mention of religion must be expunged from any public place having any connection to the government. This of course would make our national treasury, all of our paper money and most of our coinage illegal. A decorated classroom does not violate the seperation of church because it does not promote or require a "state" religion. It merely aknowledges the concept of religion in a general, historical sense.

I know I'm wasting my time with this, but do you HONESTLY believe that the banners in the pics I posted in the OP are attempting to "merely acknowledge the concept of religion in a general, historical sense"? Yes or no.

This seems like attention whoring at its worst, on the part of all the teachers in fact. Is it new for teachers to be decorating their classrooms like this? What happened to a periodic table or a seasonally themed display made of different colors of construction paper and Elmer's glue?

[Ray9]

This seems like attention whoring at its worst, on the part of all the teachers in fact. Is it new for teachers to be decorating their classrooms like this? What happened to a periodic table or a seasonally themed display made of different colors of construction paper and Elmer's glue?

I see it as a clever example of using a permissive school policy to throw some shit on the law or what some see as the law. It's all pretty silly anyway and I doubt students are damaged by it.

[Causa Mortis]

I know I'm wasting my time with this, but do you HONESTLY believe that the banners in the pics I posted in the OP are attempting to "merely acknowledge the concept of religion in a general, historical sense"? Yes or no.

Its an innocuous expression of religious speech. Its no different from a teacher having a picture of Nietzsche on their desk, or liberal political ideals being spread. Its an innocuous part of who they are.

This seems like attention whoring at its worst, on the part of all the teachers in fact. Is it new for teachers to be decorating their classrooms like this? What happened to a periodic table or a seasonally themed display made of different colors of construction paper and Elmer's glue?

Atheists need to grow some much thicker skin. If they require your kids to write an essay on how great Jesus is, give me a call, until they, I say that atheists need to toughen up buttercup.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Other teachers have Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or political posters; this guy has monotheistic. If he has to take his down, so do the others. If his banners were the only ones that had a religious message, then I could definitely see it, but there is nothing inherently more offensive about monotheism than any other religion or lack thereof. These banners might even be more harmless, since they're from patriotic songs and the Declaration of Independence, but since I'm Christian, I'll admit that I might not be able to be objective on that one aspect. Overall, though, it's just common sense that if the God posters go, the Buddha posters go, too.

[INTJRyan]

Its an innocuous expression of religious speech. Its no different from a teacher having a picture of Nietzsche on their desk, or liberal political ideals being spread. Its an innocuous part of who they are.

Yeah. No different at all...Nietzsche...:laugh:

Atheists need to grow some much thicker skin. If they require your kids to write an essay on how great Jesus is, give me a call, until they, I say that atheists need to toughen up buttercup.

:laugh:I don't even like most kids, much less have them. This is not appropriate for a math class. Math has nothing to do with god or religion or getting thick skin. This guy felt threatened, like you do, that scary liberals and atheists are after "the children" and wanted to stand up for the oppressed christian minority.

[Causa Mortis]

:laugh:I don't even like most kids, much less have them. This is not appropriate for a math class. Math has nothing to do with god or religion or getting thick skin. This guy felt threatened, like you do, that scary liberals and atheists are after "the children" and wanted to stand up for the oppressed christian minority.

I am a militant Nietzschean agnostic. I ruthlessly cut these trolls out of my personal life. That said, they have the right to free speech, including reasonable expression (like a poster) in public employment. Annoying? Yes. Cause to restrict a peaceable political/religious expression? Hell no.

Its idiotic speech...its not threatening, its not dangerous, its just stupid.

I repeat, peaceable expression of differing religious or political views is part of free speech. Toughen up buttercup, free speech means its free.

[dogwoodlover]

Christianity is and has always been a huge part of American culture and history. I'm not sure if it's out of some sort of bitterness over having been dragged to church every Sunday that people get so riled up about teachers and the like alluding to their Christian beliefs or what, but it's ludicrous sometimes. I wouldn't get all crazy-eyed if I went to India and saw references to Hindu beliefs in a classroom, or if I went to Iraq or Turkey and saw references to Islamic beliefs, or Jewish beliefs in a classroom in Israel. And I wouldn't be perturbed to see references to Native American beliefs in an American classroom. Why people are so aghast in the face of Christianity baffles me. I don't know of any other place where it's so often taboo to publicly state that you are of the historically dominant religion of that country.

[Lucid]

How do you think people would react if they were atheist posters?

That's really my measure for whether or not those are acceptable.

[Ray9]

How do you think people would react if they were atheist posters?


I see your point. It conjures up pictures of life-sized posters of Madalyn Murray O'hare naked. No innocent student should ever be subjected to anything like that.

[aku chi]

Actually, they do. The intent is looked at heavily in Establishment Clause cases. The first part of the Lemon Test is all about intent.

1) The Lemon Test applies only to legislation concerning religion.
2) The first part of the Lemon Test reads, "The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose". This is not about intent, but purpose. Even legislation requiring all these slogans to be posted in public schools could be argued as having the secular legislative purpose of promoting patriotism (even if there was an intent to promote monotheism).
3) The Lemon Test's relevancy in modern judicial interpretation is unclear; it hasn't been used by The Supreme Court in a long while. As an aside, I think Lemon v. Kurtzman is one of the most reprehensible supreme court rulings.

I think this school's policy of letting their teaches preach political and religious views in the form of classroom decorations is unwise but hardly in violation of the 'establishment clause' of The Constitution.

[Causa Mortis]

How do you think people would react if they were atheist posters?

That's really my measure for whether or not those are acceptable.

A fair point, there'd be outrage and people would cave to that outrage.

I still don't think that because they'd cave to that outrage they should restrict the teacher's peaceable but idiotic speech. All its really doing is demonstrating to people how stupid religious zealots really are - its advancing our position. So yeah, I'd prefer he have free speech even if I don't get mine, and that he's indirectly advancing my position is just a cherry on top.

[Zombicide]

These education camps are an abomination to begin with but no misdeed is being done here. Also, I like it's potential for proselytizing, hopefully it'll work to that effect/put (metaphorical) warning labels on all the dunces exposing them for the benefit of the naturally irreligious so that they don't accidently breed with them. The Muzic Man is correct, no actual religion is being endorsed, it's just a decoration this teacher happened to put up in their classroom, teachers put worded decorations up all the time (the bold segment has been added). Like Causa Mortis said "If they require your kids to write an essay on how great Jesus is, give me a call"

Next thing you know, simply wearing crucifixes won't be allowed. People will say don't even so much as utter the word "God" in school or else I'll sick Stalin on you. First amendment hasn't been trampled on, except maybe on the part of the opposing party that told the teacher to take it down.

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 07:33 PM ----------

Not that I'm an adherent of the constitution.

[AnnoyingPony]

If it's a public school payed for by taxpayer dollars, then I am totally for taking the banners down.

[nacht]

The Muzic Man is correct, no actual religion is being endorsed, it's just a decoration this teacher happened to put up in their classroom, teachers put worded decorations up all the time (the bold segment has been added).

This is, of course, nonsense. If one puts up a "worded decoration" that includes quotes from the Christian Testament (say John 3:16), it is pretty clear that a religion is being endorsed above others. The fact that they "put worded decorations up all the time" is irrelevant: Just the fact that they have words on them shouldn't (and doesn't) make them all equivalent.

Similarly, the intent (which is, again, measured in these cases) is pretty explicitly clear. Claiming that it doesn't "endorse a religion" is just weasel wording: It is perfectly clear which deity is being talked about and which deity is being endorsed. It conflates--deliberately--the ruling in Lynch v. Donnelly with the one in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU. The later involved a display that was ruled constitutional, as it gave no preference to one religion over the other. The previous one struck down the display of an image with the latin words from Luke 2:14 ("Gloria in Excelsis Deo").

One of the major components of the judge's decision was that other religious and political messages were allowed, pretty much without restriction in other classrooms. This included, but was not limited to, Tibetan prayer flags. If one puts quotes from Lewis Carrol (who if they were once political, are now so far detached from modern politics as to render that connection irrelevant) they clearly cannot be considered in the same light as modern political or religious speech. One may be allowed while the other is banned.

The school would have been well within their rights to ban all religious posters, which would have successfully prevented these signs from being posted (their intent is clear, they are not merely "quotes from the Declaration," etc). The legal challenge was grounded in the selective restriction of speech based on content, but it is clear that categorical exclusion (beyond "written words") would be perfectly acceptable. This is extremely well established (see Bishop v. Aronov, 1991).



Next thing you know, simply wearing crucifixes won't be allowed.


Nice little bit of hyperbole and a classic slippery slope fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) frequently brought up to scare people with no basis in actual fact. Care to back it up with some actual case law?

Now, what the current prevailing wisdom is that they can forbid religious garb and overt displays of religion. They could theoretically prevent a teacher from openly wearing a crucifix by matter of local statute, but could not prevent one from simply being worn, and are extremely unlikely to forbid the open wearing of them through the courts.


People will say don't even so much as utter the word "God" in school or else I'll sick Stalin on you.


Again, hyperbolic nonsense. Students are allowed to have student-led prayer ("see you at the flag pole"), the problem is that it cannot be sponsored by the school (Santa Fe v. Doe, 2000). It has also long been thought that it would be perfectly permissible to hold a "comparative religion," "religious studies," etc class so long as it does not result in excessive entanglement.

[Antares]

Should teachers be allowed to publicly endorse a political candidate by displaying propaganda posters in the classroom? I once asked my favorite teacher where he stood on the political spectrum. He wouldn't answer me. But of course, silly me. Even if there is no school rule against it, he should not, in good conscience, tell me. The answer is pretty straight forward to me. In a comparative religion class, religious texts could be displayed, but only if no specific religion is favored. If you display one, you'd have to display all major religions.

[Causa Mortis]

Should teachers be allowed to publicly endorse a political candidate by displaying propaganda posters in the classroom? I once asked my favorite teacher where he stood on the political spectrum. He wouldn't answer me. But of course, silly me. Even if there is no school rule against it, he should not, in good conscience, tell me. The answer is pretty straight forward to me. In a comparative religion class, religious texts could be displayed, but only if no specific religion is favored. If you display one, you'd have to display all major religions.

Bollox. Do you need to explain Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints perspectives on marriage if you explain the catholic position?

Furthermore, who is really harmed by this idiotic speech?