"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] ycom> 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

Jim Henderson schrieb:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:55:49 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 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.

... including, of course, voicing one's own opinion that it is 
inappropriate.

It's a bit schizophrenic, but yes.

Post a reply to this message

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

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

On 08/13/09 15:07, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 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

	That's like saying there should be no attempt at "converting"
from any opinion to any other opinion. Let's just kill all conversation.

	I think you're viewing it as some kind of "forceful" conversion, which 
it isn't. It's merely handing out fliers (if I read it right). No 
different from a kid handing out fliers saying that nuclear energy is 
wrong, or whatever.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 13:55, Mike Raiford 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

	Too lazy to reread the links, but if this were done on the playgrounds 
just among students, I think it's fine. The issue is that the *school* 
shouldn't be proselytizing or taking a view on religion.

	(Not appreciating it is not a factor, BTW).

	If, however, some kid is bringing in organized religion (i.e. adults 
who come and give talks to the kids) - that's another matter and would 
likely need school approval even if it had nothing to do with religion. 
In which case the school needs to say "No".

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 12:01, Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> So, you think it's wrong that the school told the kid he couldn't
>> distribute religious propaganda during a class party?
>
>    No matter how much you hate it, propaganda does fall under freedom of
> speech.

	The issue at hand, though, is separation of church and state. Schools 
can get quite queasy if they're seen as *officially* allowing 
proselytizing to occur.

	Passing out leaflets in between class may be OK. Asking the teacher for 
permission to pass out such leaflets *during class* very likely is not.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/13/09 11:33, 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.

	That's like saying me talking about pro-Republican viewpoints violates 
your right to be free to choose what political affiliation you want.

	(General comment responded to your general statement - not related to 
the links you provided).


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message