On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:16:41 +0200, andrel wrote:

> 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.

When I was in school (a public high school), one of our English teachers 
agreed to let some of us play with an Ouija board in the class as part of 
an exercise (I don't remember the exact circumstances any more).  There 
were two or three girls in the class who nobody really thought were 
particularly religious who declared that if we continued down this path, 
we were all going to be damned to hell for eternity.  They seriously 
believed that and were genuinely frightened.

The "seance" didn't last very long, maybe 5 minutes, and the matter was 
dropped.  Nobody got sued or expelled from school, and we all learned 
something from the experience (though maybe not what was intended).

Similarly, in another English class (the next year) we read parts of the 
Bible as a part of a literature study.  The teacher was extremely clear 
that this was to be read as a literary work rather than as a religious 
work, and the class discussion was led that way - and it was a very 
interesting part of the class.

When the behaviour disrupts actual teaching, then yes, it's a problem - 
but when it doesn't, then the expression of those different ideas should 
be encouraged, not discouraged.

>>> 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?

There really is no reason to bring your private life into the classroom, 
and if you're a public school teacher, paid for by taxpayer dollars, than 
it's part of the job to ensure that that doesn't happen in the US.

It's like deciding to take a job at a place that serves pork ribs and 
then refusing to work because the kitchen doesn't meet Halal standards.  
You can't take a job where you are likely to run into a conflict like 
that and then claim that the job discriminates because you're "forced" to 
cook pork.

Jim

Post a reply to this message