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.

>>>> 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

> So it becomes a matter of "those are not MY beliefs, so the speech should 
> be suppressed" or even "those are not the beliefs of the majority, so the 
> speech should be suppressed".



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message