 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a846afb$1@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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".
Okay.
I myself wouldn't really, in this context, distinguish private from
public, though. It's about education. Let me argue from an even
tougher perspect: family. If your parents are oppressing you, I think
it kinda is my business too. It's true that there may be virtually
nothing I can do about it, because I will not intervene in your family
life in order to do what I think is best.
And if I ever do intervene, then it is my responsibility to show
beforehand that an intervention is indeed required, and I should get
approval from others. There is, in fact, a formal way of doing that:
calling the police, for example. That is, we hand to the state the
task of intervening.
Sometimes this can be justified. For example, if your parents beat you
up violently, regularly, I think that most people will agree that an
intervention is justifiable. So, if a private school is oppressing
people, I think it is people's business too. But there are Good and
Bad ways of doing something about that.
I'm not saying you are against any of this. It just came to mind as
you begin to distinguish between public and private schools on free
speech.
>> 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.
The paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with free speech, actually. I
changed the subject. ``Now I want to question the framework...'' This
sometimes falls outside the scope.
[...]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:29:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> I myself wouldn't really, in this context, distinguish private from
> public, though.
The private/public distinction is an important one. In a private
Catholic school, such behaviour might be encouraged, and people bringing
in fliers promoting Judaism would probably be a bad idea - not from an
educational standpoint, but from a religious standpoint. As a religious
institution, a Catholic school should have the right to dictate (within
certain limits, perhaps) what is and isn't appropriate.
> It's about education. Let me argue from an even tougher
> perspect: family. If your parents are oppressing you, I think it kinda
> is my business too. It's true that there may be virtually nothing I can
> do about it, because I will not intervene in your family life in order
> to do what I think is best.
Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to get
into the middle of. If parents are "oppressing" (do you really know what
oppression is? Because while many teenagers *think* they're oppressed,
they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them, then it's time
for the family court to get involved, not for nosy neighbors to get
involved.
> And if I ever do intervene, then it is my responsibility to show
> beforehand that an intervention is indeed required, and I should get
> approval from others. There is, in fact, a formal way of doing that:
> calling the police, for example. That is, we hand to the state the task
> of intervening.
>
> Sometimes this can be justified. For example, if your parents beat you
> up violently, regularly, I think that most people will agree that an
> intervention is justifiable. So, if a private school is oppressing
> people, I think it is people's business too. But there are Good and Bad
> ways of doing something about that.
Sure, but that's not "oppression" - that's abuse. And there are specific
laws in the US that cover what must be done when abuse is suspected,
especially by teachers and people in a position of authority.
> I'm not saying you are against any of this. It just came to mind as you
> begin to distinguish between public and private schools on free speech.
A private school is a venue funded privately, and the people who provide
that private funding have complete authority to decide what is and isn't
appropriate. The first amendment is about free speech in public spaces,
not in private spaces.
Thus, if I invite you into my home, I am allowed to set the tone for
discourse. If you violate my house rules, I am within my rights to (a)
ask you to leave, (b) insist that you leave, and (c) remove you from my
home by force if necessary (including calling the police to have you
removed). So, for example, I would not allow someone to remain into my
home who, after a period of time, demonstrates that they are a total
racist. Not acceptable in my book, and not acceptable in my home. Your
free speech rights do not trump my rights to be in control of my private
property.
>>> 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.
>
> The paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with free speech, actually. I
> changed the subject. ``Now I want to question the framework...'' This
> sometimes falls outside the scope.
Perhaps, but as I said, the reason for his interest isn't really
relevant. It's an interest of his, for whatever reason. You tied it
back to free speech by at least implying that the right to exercise free
speech shouldn't be allowed if it's done by proxy. I don't think that
matters.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/13/09 18:22, gregjohn wrote:
> I'd support a "constitutional" right for older (high school) students to have
> equal access to school grounds after-hours to organize themselves into
> religious and political interest groups, no matter how controversial, from
> "questioning" teens to Jews for Jesus.
I can't see a reason for it. If it's after hours, and if you want the
government to get involved, why not just insist on an alternative public
location? Why must it be in a school?
I'll also note that I'm not sure the constitution forbids this presently.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a84735b@news.povray.org>,
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.
I'm against all forms of persuasion.
I find that actually a good way to live. You present the facts, and
speak your mind. Done. I don't see ``debates'' as something very
useful.[*]
I don't actually think that there is true persuasion. I say if you
convinced someone, only fooled them. But if you contributed for them
to truly understand something and in the end they really agree with
you, then I guess you're theory truly works --- well, at least some
think so. (I don't mean I can precisely distinguish persuasion from
communication, but I trust you get the idea.)
[*] If see a bad argument somewhere (going somewhere), and I can fix
it, I make it better for myself and share it with others. What the
others do is up to them --- plus, I'd like to use my time for good
things; some people already have their minds made, and are only
looking for arguments that sustain that. That's how debates should be,
IMO. If I see a very good argument somewhere, I make it mine first,
because that is the best way to investigate it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a849ce7$1@news.povray.org>,
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
Your last paragraph sounds good to me. We can talk without an
intention of persuading, or converting, or whatever is the word you
would prefer to use. I think we have been doing this right here. I
have. We're speaking our minds, presenting facts.
There is some sort of a reward when people agree with us, but this
reward is only good when we honestly present the ideas. And the reward
is shared; it is not solely gained by the one who could, in the end,
say ``I told you I was right.''
It's true that this reward sometimes is so eagerly desired that it
drives one into dishonesty, and that's bad. I hope people question
themselves too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:47:48 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/13/09 18:22, gregjohn wrote:
>> I'd support a "constitutional" right for older (high school) students
>> to have equal access to school grounds after-hours to organize
>> themselves into religious and political interest groups, no matter how
>> controversial, from "questioning" teens to Jews for Jesus.
>
> I can't see a reason for it. If it's after hours, and if you want
the
> government to get involved, why not just insist on an alternative public
> location? Why must it be in a school?
>
> I'll also note that I'm not sure the constitution forbids this
> presently.
It doesn't explicitly forbid it, however courts have read the laws and
the constitution to mean that a school that provides a meeting space for
people of a particular faith could be promoting that faith IF they don't
allow equal access for other religious groups.
Schools are good places to hold meetings, though - they're easily
accessible (generally) and tend to be community centers. My own local
community organization meets in a school within our borders (a private
school, in fact) because it's an easy place to get people together.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a84b31f@news.povray.org>,
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:29:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>
>> I myself wouldn't really, in this context, distinguish private from
>> public, though.
>
> The private/public distinction is an important one. In a private
> Catholic school, such behaviour might be encouraged, and people bringing
> in fliers promoting Judaism would probably be a bad idea - not from an
> educational standpoint, but from a religious standpoint. As a religious
> institution, a Catholic school should have the right to dictate (within
> certain limits, perhaps) what is and isn't appropriate.
You're talking about policy. I shifted to education.
Surely, Catholic schools people are humans too. The distinction here
is important in this context. I see no problem with them having a
class about Jesus' values in between mathematics and physics. It's
their lives.
Now, surely they can veto a Jew flier or whatever. It would be silly
of me to oppose such a formal rule, because in fact they don't need a
formal rule to veto that.
>> It's about education. Let me argue from an even tougher
>> perspect[ive]: family. If your parents are oppressing you, I think it kinda
>> is my business too. It's true that there may be virtually nothing I can
>> do about it, because I will not intervene in your family life in order
>> to do what I think is best.
>
> Other people's family relationships are generally not a good idea to get
> into the middle of. If parents are "oppressing" (do you really know what
> oppression is? Because while many teenagers *think* they're oppressed,
> they're not) a kid, and I mean *really* oppressing them, then it's time
> for the family court to get involved, not for nosy neighbors to get
> involved.
That's a good question. What's oppression? I don't think I can give
you a formula in the world, even because the world has no easy
grammar, if any. I look at oppresion as a pattern of actions that deny
one's humanity[*], in any age.
Some people seem to be raised to be a soldier, or a religious leader,
or follower. I think that's clear oppression. These are pretty easy, I
think. There are difficult ones. Some people are raised to be
thinkers, others to be stupid, others to be drunk, et cetera. I
consider all of these cases of oppression as well. Of course, now it
is times for me to present the facts on that. This wouldn't be easy on
a newsgroup. The material I have seen are condensed in
hundreds-of-pages books, and even then they fail the rigor of physics,
chemistry, and even medicine --- not to mention mathematics.
But anyway, there are these weaker forms of oppression which tend to
be so overlooked; specially in schools. What's that song by Rush?
Subdivisions.
In the high school halls
In the shopping malls
Conform or be cast out
In the basement bars
In the backs of cars
Be cool or be cast out
[*] I don't think anybody knows what are the fundamental properties of
``human nature.''
>> And if I ever do intervene, then it is my responsibility to show
>> beforehand that an intervention is indeed required, and I should get
>> approval from others. There is, in fact, a formal way of doing that:
>> calling the police, for example. That is, we hand to the state the task
>> of intervening.
>>
>> Sometimes this can be justified. For example, if your parents beat you
>> up violently, regularly, I think that most people will agree that an
>> intervention is justifiable. So, if a private school is oppressing
>> people, I think it is people's business too. But there are Good and Bad
>> ways of doing something about that.
>
> Sure, but that's not "oppression" - that's abuse. And there are specific
> laws in the US that cover what must be done when abuse is suspected,
> especially by teachers and people in a position of authority.
I think my definition up there would cover abuse.
>>>> 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.
>>
>> The paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with free speech, actually. I
>> changed the subject. ``Now I want to question the framework...'' This
>> sometimes falls outside the scope.
>
> Perhaps, but as I said, the reason for his interest isn't really
> relevant. It's an interest of his, for whatever reason. You tied it
> back to free speech by at least implying that the right to exercise free
> speech shouldn't be allowed if it's done by proxy. I don't think that
> matters.
I don't think I implied that. But if my words did, I would fix them.
I can't think of any speech, regardless of context, that should be
prohibited.
By not allowing adults doing propaganda in my school, it's not that I
forbid the adult's speech. I think he can do that on the streets, in
the public buses where the kids go to go school, et cetera. In fact,
if there are people doing that, I'd say great: here's a real world
case to be discussed. But I'm not sure kids would be interested. They
might just wish to play.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/13/09 19:58, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Your last paragraph sounds good to me. We can talk without an
> intention of persuading, or converting, or whatever is the word you
> would prefer to use. I think we have been doing this right here. I
> have. We're speaking our minds, presenting facts.
No - that's not quite what I'm saying. When people hand out fliers
about the dangers of nuclear energy, they *are* trying to
convert/persuade/whatever. And I'm saying that's OK.
--
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 19:49, Daniel Bastos wrote:
> I'm against all forms of persuasion.
>
> I find that actually a good way to live. You present the facts, and
> speak your mind. Done. I don't see ``debates'' as something very
> useful.[*]
"Presenting the facts/speaking your mind" and persuasion are not
mutually exclusive.
Persuasion is defined by intention. You're describing an action. The
two can't be compared.
And (live) debates are a totally different beast (and usually a waste
of time beyond the entertainment they provide).
> I don't actually think that there is true persuasion. I say if you
> convinced someone, only fooled them. But if you contributed for them
> to truly understand something and in the end they really agree with
> you, then I guess you're theory truly works --- well, at least some
> think so. (I don't mean I can precisely distinguish persuasion from
> communication, but I trust you get the idea.)
Even if I look at it your way, I fail to see why students on
playgrounds can't try to persuade others regarding any topic.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
