 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:58:39 -0600, somebody wrote:
> IMO, the sooner we accept that religion is neither dirty nor sacred, the
> better of we will be
I agree *as long as* this applies to all religions, and not just one
"special" group of religions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Actually, I think the school was in the wrong here. The students who he
> was distributing to have every right to say "no thank you".
>
I don't think so. School is not the appropriate forum to proselytize. If
you want to give out messages, that's fine, leave them in a public area.
Don't pass it to each individual. Not everyone will appreciate it. If it
were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the bin
without so much as looking at it...
>
> 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...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a84629a$1@news.povray.org>,
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, I think the school was in the wrong here. The students who he
>> was distributing to have every right to say "no thank you".
>>
>
> I don't think so. School is not the appropriate forum to proselytize. If
> you want to give out messages, that's fine, leave them in a public area.
> Don't pass it to each individual. Not everyone will appreciate it. If it
> were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the bin
> without so much as looking at it...
I bet you are not a kid.
In my school, I would not allow an adult to pass any flyers. But a kid
can. Even if a kid from another school. I'm a believer in the idea
that you learn to program by programing. You learn to live in society,
by living in it. But you don't learn to play chess by always losing;
that is, by always playing against someone a lot more malicious than
you are; that's why I don't like the idea of adults playing society
with kids.
Done.
Now I want to question the framework of the discussion. Why is a (six
year old?) kid interested in Jesus? Suppose you find an answer here by
talking to his family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why I don't
allow adults doing propaganda in my school. Home is just another
school; only more important.
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:55:49 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Actually, I think the school was in the wrong here. The students who
>> he was distributing to have every right to say "no thank you".
>>
> I don't think so. School is not the appropriate forum to proselytize.
There's a difference between "not appropriate" and "should be
prohibited". I agree it's not appropriate, but as a supporter of free
speech, I have to support it not just in cases of things I find
appropriate - I also have to support it in cases where there are things
that I think are inappropriate.
That's what "free speech" is.
> If
> you want to give out messages, that's fine, leave them in a public area.
> Don't pass it to each individual. Not everyone will appreciate it. If it
> were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the bin
> without so much as looking at it...
As is your right. There's no guarantee that everyone will appreciate it,
nor that people will actually read what's attached. That's not really
the point, though. The point is "does the student have the right to
exercise their free speech on school property?", to which the answer is
absolutely, as long as they (a) aren't disrupting an ongoing class by
doing so, and (b) aren't inciting people to commit violent acts. As long
as they aren't doing those things, it's fine with me. I may not agree
with the message, but again, the message isn't the important part. The
exercising of the right is.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. The fact that they did notice suggests that it was very
obvious, probably so much so that it was very likely that the parents
were using the children for their own evangelical purpose.
If that was the case I think the school was right in protecting these
children (and the others) from their parents.*
Free speech is only an issue if it was a public school. IANAL but I
assume that, just as here, such rules are only between a person and a
government not between individuals.
It would be also interesting to know if these parents would allow
teachers to tell the kids that they have homosexual relationships.
I think in the Dutch context (which is very different that the US's) I
would not have a problem with children expressing their believe as long
as it does not interfere with the teaching.
*I probably did not mean that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:10:18 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> I don't think so. School is not the appropriate forum to proselytize.
>> If you want to give out messages, that's fine, leave them in a public
>> area. Don't pass it to each individual. Not everyone will appreciate
>> it. If it were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in
>> the bin without so much as looking at it...
>
> [...]
>
> In my school, I would not allow an adult to pass any flyers. But a kid
> can. Even if a kid from another school. I'm a believer in the idea that
> you learn to program by programing. You learn to live in society, by
> living in it. But you don't learn to play chess by always losing; that
> is, by always playing against someone a lot more malicious than you are;
> that's why I don't like the idea of adults playing society with kids.
If the adult has the right to be in the school and is not a school
official (which is important in public schools - if a teacher were
promoting a religion in a public school, I would have a problem with
that, regardless of the religion, because public schools are part of "the
state" and the first amendment prohibits the state sponsoring a
religion), then there should be no problem with this, again, as long as
they're not disruptive or inciting people to act against "those who are
different".
> Now I want to question the framework of the discussion. Why is a (six
> year old?) kid interested in Jesus? Suppose you find an answer here by
> talking to his family. Then you go ``aha.'' And that is why I don't
> allow adults doing propaganda in my school. Home is just another school;
> only more important.
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.
>>> 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.
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".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> The fact that they did notice suggests that it was very
> obvious, probably so much so that it was very likely that the parents
> were using the children for their own evangelical purpose. If that was
> the case I think the school was right in protecting these children (and
> the others) from their parents.*
You're right, you probably didn't mean that. The reasons why the kid was
distributing the messages aren't particularly important.
> Free speech is only an issue if it was a public school. IANAL but I
> assume that, just as here, such rules are only between a person and a
> government not between individuals.
>
> 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.
It's like me giving a professional reference for people I work with - I'm
not permitted to do that because it might reflect on my employer
"endorsing" a particular partner over another. I can provide a personal
reference, but it has to be clear that it is such and that I'm speaking
for myself and not for my employer.
> I think in the Dutch context (which is very different that the US's) I
> would not have a problem with children expressing their believe as long
> as it does not interfere with the teaching.
That's what I think, too.
> *I probably did not mean that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a84629a$1@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, I think the school was in the wrong here. The students who he
>> was distributing to have every right to say "no thank you".
>>
> I don't think so. School is not the appropriate forum to proselytize. If
> you want to give out messages, that's fine, leave them in a public area.
> Don't pass it to each individual. Not everyone will appreciate it.
Neither do I appreciate Chinese restaurant ads on my windshield, but I'm not
about to make a federal case for it. I think facing opposing viewpoints and
ideas or even behaviour that one does not necessarily appreciate is one way
for individuals and society to mature. I find that sheltered societies (such
as North America) remain more naive.
> If it were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the
> bin without so much as looking at it...
That's a form of expression, and a healthier one at that than censoring
interaction on these "taboo" matters altogether. Of couse schools don't wish
to become grounds for any sort of confrontation, so it's understandable that
they'd rather roundly ignore anything religious. That's more or less taking
the easy/safe way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:58:39 -0600, "somebody" <x### [at] y com> wrote:
> IMO, the
>sooner we accept that religion is neither dirty nor sacred, the better of we
>will be.
LOL accept that religion is not sacred.
Sorry but that tickles my fancy.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
