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

On 08/13/09 19:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

	Aren't "nosy neighbors" one of the primary reasons courts do get involved?

-- 
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 20:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

	Which is what gregjohn was saying: Allow them to start up *any* groups. 
No preferential treatment.


-- 
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

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         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.

  It shouldn't be seen as "officially allowing proselytizing to occur",
but as "officially allowing free speech to occur".

  (And no, I'm not advocating evangelization in schools. I'm just expressing
my opinion that expressing one's beliefs to others does fall into freedom of
speech.)

> 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.

  That's a completely different issue, and in no way related to
evangelization in particular. Disturbing a lecture should be frowned
upon regardless of how what kind of leaflets are being passed out.
Religion has nothing to do with it, but public order and discipline.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

> different from a kid handing out fliers saying that nuclear energy is 
> wrong, or whatever.

Why does that seem less unacceptable to me-- even though I disagree with 
that position-- than someone handing out religious brochures?

You (and everyone who agrees this is free speech) do have a point, 
though. Keep in mind, from what I understand, the school didn't outright 
say no. They just stated that the cards could not be handed out in the 
class room, but rather, placed in a public area where others were free 
to take them as they wished.

In regards to free speech, I strongly doubt anyone would find it 
acceptable to walk into a primary school spewing a stream of the most 
foul and profane language you could imagine, so .... why would passing 
out what others could view as offensive be acceptable? (Yes, I realize I 
just made a big logical fallacy, there .... )

or is swearing in a school free speech? If not, why not? How is this 
different from passing out religious fliers? Both are strongly offensive 
to a group of people. I have a right to state my opinions, but I don't 
have the right to offend? Or do I?



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:

> We know you've NEVER attempted a forceful conversion in the realm of religion.

Was that meant to be sarcastic?

> 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 have no problem with that. I've seen student organizations just like 
that form in schools.

> Ninth graders might be able to handle themselves as far as choosing how to deal
> with controversial after hour club choices.   But as far as keeping the school
> hours environment, especially for younger ones, free of proselytization of all
> sorts, that's fine.

I agree. FWIW, they still say "under God" in the pledge, at this 
district, but in all other cases the district does very well to avoid 
any religious references whatsoever. Hence the "winter break" party, 
rather than Christmas.

I also strongly disagree with the kids being required to pledge 
allegiance to the state flag, but that's a different issue altogether.

> "Rally around the flag", especially if it takes up time and space in the
> morning, seems to give special dispensation to one special religious sect to
> carry out their idolatry.

I'm curious about this, what is Rally around the flag, exactly?


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hence the "winter break" party, rather than Christmas.

  I really think that is completely ridiculous, completely regardless of
what one's world view is. The event called "Christmas" is a traditional
festivity. It's called that because of tradition. Anyone who gets offended
by an event being called in a certain way is being a huge bigot.

  Just to put it in perspective: Let's say an American goes for a few months
to Japan on a job assignment, and while there, he gets deeply offended and
loudly complains about some local festivity which might be historically based
eg. on buddhism or shintoism. I don't know how people would regard him there,
but at least here in the west he would be considered a jerk and a moron. It's
their tradition and their custom, and they damn have the right to name their
festivities as they please. We westernes have zero right to go there and
start complaining how some festivity of theirs might be based on buddhism
or whatever. That's just stupid and bigoted.

  Why shouldn't this work in reverse? Why should anyone have the right to
come here and start complaining about some festivity or its naming? If
someone does that, why isn't that someone just a huge jerk and a moron?

  (And by "come here" I don't necessarily mean that someone literally
comes here from another country. People already living here are bound
to the same rules of courtesy and respecting other people.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 02:39, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>>          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.
>
>    It shouldn't be seen as "officially allowing proselytizing to occur",
> but as "officially allowing free speech to occur".

	I don't know what the rules are regarding free speech in the school. 
Obviously, you can't say whatever you want during a lesson. OTOH, if the 
teacher asks you to construct a statement using certain words, and you 
construct a religiously oriented statement, you can't be penalized for it.

>    That's a completely different issue, and in no way related to
> evangelization in particular. Disturbing a lecture should be frowned
> upon regardless of how what kind of leaflets are being passed out.
> Religion has nothing to do with it, but public order and discipline.

	Well, I did say they asked the teacher for permission - so it's not 
"disturbing a lecture". If it's done in the beginning of the class and 
doesn't take more than 3 minutes, it's fine for most materials. But if 
it contained religious content, it may not be fine.

-- 
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