That's all well and good Hawkeyee, but I fail to see how getting drunk compares to exercising your rights. Getting drunk in public doesn't just negatively impact you as a teacher, it negatively impacts you period. We must make the distinction between constitutionally protected behaviors and those behaviors that are not protected. If your activity is protected, then we have to make a distinction between your role as a teacher and your role as a private citizen. Teachers are also not suppose to endorse one particular political ideology, but I rarely if ever have heard of someone complaining when a teacher has supported either the Republicans or the Democrats while on their own time. If we can make the distinction for non-religious issues, then I hardly see it being a large leap to make a distinction between a teacher's public position and their being a private citizen with regard to religion.

Doh! Sorry Angel1!

I grew up in the Bible Belt and suffered religious persecution for my LACK of Christianity. In part, this started because I personally chose not to say "Under God" during the pledge of allegiance. Given that saying the pledge was required, and I was not yet educated enough to know I didn't have to say it at all, I just left those words out. Well, that was enough for the other kids to pick up on my beliefs (or lack thereof). Lots followed from that.

I also got kicked out of the Cub Scouts at the age of 8 because of my refusal to testify to a belief in God (yes, its actually a rule they have nationally). I don't call that "wrong" per se, because they are a private organization. But I also don't buy their popcorn when they come through the neighborhood and knock on my door. I politely state that I won't support organizations who discriminate on the basis of religious belief. Funny, the kids always look bewildered, unaware of what the adults who run the organization are doing.

Anyway, my teacher had no problem with me leaving the words out, and I was never required to say them. My teacher was aware of the history behind the addition of Under God to the pledge when it was changed in the 1950s. But I don't believe that change in the 1950's was valid, and I don't think kids should be required to say anything that endorses a religious belief.

The original, Jeffersonian understanding of separation of church and state was to protect RELIGION from the state. Not to prevent religion from having influence in public life.

There should be no difference between getting drunk in public and expressing my political or religious views in public. If I'm not driving drunk or vandalizing or shouting or cursing or making a huge scene then it shouldn't matter if I get flufffaced drunk at a bar. But it does matter. I'm sure I'd get parents rushing to my principal's door if I did that. I'm also sure I'd get parents rushing to my principal's door if I were to stand on a street corner with some sign warning of Jesus' imminent arrival, or if I posted my top 10 reasons to vote NDP on my personal blog. There is no "private citizen." Even if my actions are protected and nothing can happen to me if I express certain views on public, those views can affect a parent's opinion of and confidence in me as an educator and as an extension of that their confidence in educators in general. That's true of off-duty cops, doctors, members of parliament etc. When your profession assumes a certain level of public confidence and trust then your actions as a "private citizen" certainly affect the way the public views your competency as a professional. There's a very thin line separating the two.

.

So long as you do not reference your personal blog in class or advertise your religious activity, then you maintain a wall between the two. Off duty cops can absolutely attend political rallies (they can't wear their uniform while doing so as that would violate the wall between their personal lives and their public lives).

Public drunkenness could certainly be seen as violating the wall between your private self and your public self as it makes you inherently unable to maintain the wall.

If we do not draw the line between an individuals personal life and their public life, then it will not be long before we make no distinction between private individuals and public officials. This would be extremely dangerous to the rights of everyone. We simply have no choice but to draw the line before we get to this point.

why is getting drunk a negative?

Jesus turned water into wine so people could keep getting drunk. It seems like a positive in my books.

i could be wrong, but i think that it's viewed as a negative because of loss of control. what control? can they hold their breath for an hour? how can they demonstrate that they were in control to begin with?