It depends on how it is displayed and what that display is used for, so, yes, "expressly forbidden" is a non-starter. A teacher may wear a cross necklace, for example, but can not use it to prosyletize. Crosses can not be used as classroom decorations in US public schools. This has been substantiated and upheld by the courts.<quoted text>
Please explain to me how a teacher having a cross in a classroom is "expressly forbidden"....
C'mon, show your athitard to me.
See, e. g., Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971).
Displays of religious symbols, texts or artwork on school property are impermissible unless a display is integrated into an appropriate secular curriculum.
52 See Stone v. Graham, 449 U. S. 39, 42 (1980); ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 354 F.
Your use of the term "expressly forbidden" is dissemblance of the third kind, since you know that a teacher may wear personal jewelry and religious symbols may be part of secular curriculum, but, you also know that religious displays, artwork, and prosyletizing are "expressly forbidden". Parsing words is inherently dishonest.