On 13-8-2009 21:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:29:49 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 13-8-2009 18:33, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> I'm of the opinion that attempts to "convert" someone to your religion
>>> does not fall under protected speech, and further, it infringes on
>>> others rights of freedom of religion.
>>>
>>> http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-aaron1-wed-candy-cane-trial-
> story,0,3441616.story
>>> http://www.ccnews.org/index.php?
> mod=Story&action=show&id=1580&countryid=0&stateid=0
>>>
>> What I am missing in the info is what the message was and why the school
>> noticed. 
> 
> I don't think the message content is important, generally.

Generally not, but if someone was wearing a cross in my class I probably 
would not notice. If that someone is publicly pointing at it telling the 
other kids that because of it he will be saved and they will burn in 
hell, I would notice. It is only if it is as ostentatiously as that that 
I would object. If only because that sort of behaviour will interfere 
with the teaching in class.

At least, that is what I assume, I haven't been teaching much since I 
finished my teaching training at university. Ask me again in a few weeks.


>> It would be also interesting to know if these parents would allow
>> teachers to tell the kids that they have homosexual relationships.
> 
> That's a totally different issue.  Teachers are in a position of 
> authority and need to be careful what they're doing because they 
> represent not only themselves as individuals, but also "the state" in 
> public schools.  There are very clear guidelines that cover what "the 
> state" isn't allowed to promote, not only at the national level, but at a 
> local level too.

Is it promoting sexuality if you don't lie about your private life?

Post a reply to this message