On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:07:17 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> Where he got his interest is irrelevant.  We all learn from our
>> families and our friends.  So what?  The reason the kid is exercising
>> his free speech is not important.  He should be allowed to do so, as
>> long as he's not disruptive or inciting people to harm others.
>> 
>> 
> True, but I still don't think it's appropriate to attempt to convert
> other students to your form of religion, be it atheist, christian,
> jewish or muslim. There should be a respect for what others believe. The
> administrators of the school felt this overstepped a boundary, religion
> is a very touchy issue, and can be considered particularly inflammatory.
> I agree with the school's request not to hand out the item directly, but
> leave it in a common area for those who are interested to pick it up.

Well, and that is a reasonable request, too.  But I don't think handing 
out candy canes with a note attached need be inflammatory, either.

Again, whether you or I think it's appropriate to "attempt to convert" 
someone isn't the issue.  If we decided this based on what anyone 
arbitrarily thought was appropriate, we'd wander into government 
censorship pretty quickly.  Just because I don't agree with it doesn't 
mean they shouldn't have the right to try.

I also find it hard to believe that a student handing out candy canes (or 
candy cane pens) with or without a message on it could be 
"inflammatory".  There is such a thing as being too sensitive or willing 
to be offended as well.

>>>>> But I think the parents of the kid who caused the whole thing
>>>>> probably would have a problem with an atheist distributing
>>>>> information. *That's* where the problem usually starts.
>>>> Right...
>>> Right. And chances are the problem has nothing to do with religion.
>> 
>> It has *everything* to do with religion.  My hypothesis that the kid's
>> parents would be up in arms over an atheist distributing information
>> about atheism was put forth because most people who take these kinds of
>> actions seem to think "free speech" only applies to the things and
>> ideals they hold, not to everyone.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Interestingly enough, the candy cane was NOT intended to be a religious
> symbol:
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp

True, but people turn all sorts of symbols into special "religious" 
symbols for whatever reason.

That the kid was poorly educated on the matter doesn't invalidate his 
free speech rights.

Jim

Post a reply to this message