Well, the issue is simple. As an employee of a public school, she is a government employee. Her posting of overtly religious material means she is practicing her religion (and attempting to influence students to accept her religious beliefs) on government time. Would we tolerate a similar practice from a Muslim teacher? I think not. Religion belongs in the home and in the church NOT within a public classroom which is paid for by tax dollars and to which students are required by law to attend.

So, a quote from the President of the US, Ronald Reagan, has to be censored, #1? Reagan was a government employee at the time. Can any President or any elected official make any religious reference or will that be overtly practicing their religion? And what does religion belongs in the home mean? Religion is meant to be practice openly, not hidden. It´s not that simple. Finally, I have only heard of Christians being told to stop, never other people of other faiths.

I wonder if the same threats have or will be made to teachers who openly display quotes from the Koran in their classrooms.

Bet not...

And we should continue to pay the exorbitant cost of government schools .. why??

#1 you are privileging your own religious point of view, namely that God doesn´t matter, which is a point of view in itself. You are privileging yourself and not recognizing it; you are authorizing and encouraging the expression of only your own values. Silence about God is not a neutral position; it is more like being against almost everybody on Earth. I have no problem with Muslim teachers who want to put up their symbols, nor with Buddhist, Bahai, or Maoists or whatever. Go Ahead. I have a huge problem with efforts to shut up all of them. The ´Rats really do not have an instinct for freedom.

Is posting a mention of God or a Bible verse "establishing" a religion? The purpose of the First Amendment was to keep the government from establishing a church, like the Church of England. Where does this stop. If she wore a cross pendant, would that be prohibited, too? I can practically guarantee that if a Muslim posted a verse from the Koran, he or she would not be asked to take it down.

The First Amendment partially reads that the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What this teacher did does not violate those words in anyway. Until the early 1960s (Engle v. Vitale) prayers were regularly recited in public schools. Article 1, section 8 prohibits the courts from even hearing this type of case. Indeed, #1, religion does belong in the home, but it also belongs in the public schools.

´´Muise said the district also forbade her from any form of communication with students ´that would conflict with your duty to show complete neutrality toward religion and to refrain from promoting religion or entangling yourself in religious matters.´ ´´

Wow! To think that Bibles were used as texts in schools in our early days.

As former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, ´´There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ´wall of separation´ [between church and state].´´

You would think this battle would be over by now, but the devil doesn´t give up easily.

#1, you are misinterpreting the First Amemdment. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must keep all religious references out of government institutions. There is also no such statement written anywhere that calls for "separation of church and state". That is leftist false propaganda. It was only when the ACLU and Madeliene Murray O´Hair began their athiest crusades that we somehow allowed the leftist judges to make such determinations. But in truth, religion was never meant to be taken out of all governmental functions. Our Founders often had prayers before convening government gatherings. They even had services tied into official business. The actual words of the Constitution are clear. The Founders did not wish to establish a state religion--like the Church of England--where people were forced to worship ONLY one way. They believed in freedom OF religion--NOT freedom from religion.

Uhhh... The teacher was involved with the schools Bible Study Group. Of course she´d have Christian stuff in her room!

isn´t it perverse how the media can expose minors to every vice under the sun, while inspirational quotes and the word "God" are called unacceptable and offensive?

and they ask why this nation is in decline.

The students have some protection of religious speech in schools, but teachers have little.

My guess is that because Reagan mentioned the words "Under God" that he has to be censored. Perhaps the sayings of "Chairman Obama" would have been left alone.

Its first 100 years our US Capitol Building in DC held church services each Sunday and Presidents including Thomas Jefferson attended.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90

It is truly amazing to read of the immaturity of those who think themselves to be enlightened and thus must oppose, if not ban, any reference to, or even mention of, Christianity. They don´t seem to get quite as upset about Judaism, and are certainly afraid to speak in any way against Islam.

These that view themselves as enlightened are actually cowards that are afraid of Christ and Christianity. A perfect example is those who call themselves these "Citizens United".

These writers, like #1, do nothing to enhance education. Rather, they seek to establish a form of national religion that excludes whatever they do not want to hear. And those views do not represent freedom.