I recall an argument that stated that atheism is not a religion, it is an absence of religion. Hence it is not religious in nature.
This T shirt is not referring any specific religion, it is referring to an absence of a specific part of one. As we know, an absence of something is not the same as being something.
Therefore, his T-shirt cannot be referring to other religions. Because it is not referring to other religions, it should not fall afoul of the rules.
Which is why I think he was not originally suspended for wearing the T-shirt. It was his further actions which pointed out his intention behind the T-shirt, which is why he was ultimately suspended. In essence, he made the contents of the T-shirt offensive, it wasn't inherently offensive in and of itself. At least from my understanding of the situation as described in this thread.
Which is why I believe the National Organization for Atheists opposes the suspension. I would guess it is because they believe their actions (or planned actions) revolve around an absence of religion, as opposed to "actual" religion, and in their view being offended by being aggressive in one's speech should not be penalized.
|