I have an idea; send out an email to friends, family members or others of your choice. Ask them to tell you who their favorite teacher was in school and what qualities made that teacher so special. Then let us know how many answer back and say "Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones was a great teacher because (s)he really enjoyed arguing. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that very few will list that as one of the redeeming qualities of their favorite teacher - or even a "great" teacher. The problem is you don't seem to understand the difference between a debate and an argument. The debate does focus on presenting data, research and objective counter-examples to the points presented by the other side. An argument can also include rational discussion, but more often is based on emotional statements and tend to attack or demonize opposing points rather than simply providing counter-points. You also do insist on voicing your views in an intentionally abrasive manner rather than just presenting them on their on merits. You insist on rational discussion, yet your own posts contain far more emotion than rational points. You complain about others being offended by your views, yet you express similar offense at anyone who disagrees with your views. Your license tag is a case in point. It's an obvious twist on the phrase "In God We Trust", yet when someone pointed that out, your response is "The only people that would possibly be offended by that are those who don't believe in placing trust in reason", which is nothing more than a backhanded insult towards Christians, because atheist often classify those with faith as being incapable of (or frightened by) reason. It isn't true, but it makes it easier to diminish their position in your mind. I've heard the same backhand insult from those who insist on calling themselves "Freethinkers", as opposed to people of belief because non-believers insist believers don't "thinks for themselves". Nothing is farther from the truth, but again, it's just another way for one group to marginalize the views of a different group rather than actually being respectful of the opposing view. BTW, respecting an opposing view doesn't mean agreeing with the opposing view. When told that most schools strongly recommend teachers be "neutral" on campus, including with their car, you immediately take offense and say "The first time I see someone wearing a T-necklace, I'll be insisting they can't do that either." But actually, you're not even willing to wait for some imagined slight to your own views, you state you would "have to say something" if you saw another teacher have a cross in their room. So you don't just wait for someone to offend you, you go looking for reasons to be offended. As others have said, that type of attitude will only make your teaching job more difficult, stressful and contentious than necessary, with the parents as well as your admin. And parents won't just complain to the P. They'll go to the School Board to complain. If enough of them do that, then your P may end up having no say in the matter. Frankly, even if you joined a union, you might find the union less than willing to give a vigorous defense to a member that seems to look for reasons to cause contention in the school.