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

On 08/14/09 07:18, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 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 .... )

	Well, for one thing, some locales have ordinances against cursing in 
public (or at least cursing *at* people).


-- 
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 08/14/09 07:59, Warp wrote:
> 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.

	I often feel that both sides on this tend to exaggerate.

	Scenario: A company/organization wants to have a Christmas party. 
However, if they call it Christmas, many people will not show up because 
they're not Christians. Note that they won't be *offended*, they'll 
simply not want to come. The organizers *want* them to show up and have 
fun, so they rename it (or dare I say, rechristen it?). Suddenly, 
they're accused of being politically correct when all they wanted was to 
have a fun party.

	And the non-Christians are accused of being behind all of this.

	Etc. I think you get my drift.


-- 
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

Warp wrote:

>   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.

Let me be clear on my feelings about this:

I actually miss the days when we could reference certain holidays in 
school. When I was a kid, our public school had a Christmas show every 
year, and we liked it!

But it was a mostly secular view of the holiday season, elves, Santa 
Claus, trees and bells and such. All of the typical symbols of the season.

It was all very harmless, or so it seemed.




-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message