 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
>
>
Not to mention this: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:33:32 -0500, 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.
My opinion is that just because someone has the freedom to speak, that
doesn't negate my freedom to not listen.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> My opinion is that just because someone has the freedom to speak, that
> doesn't negate my freedom to not listen.
That is to say that the freedom to speak does not necessarily include a
requirement that you be heard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> 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.
Expressing your faith to others is exercising your freedom of speech.
Stopping someone from expressing their faith to others is censorship.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That is to say that the freedom to speak does not necessarily include a
> requirement that you be heard.
So, you think it's wrong that the school told the kid he couldn't
distribute religious propaganda during a class party?
What if it were atheist propaganda the student were to distribute, would
it still be considered wrong for the school to prevent distribution of that?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a844141$1@news.povray.org...
> 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.
I disagree. Religion does not need or warrant special, protected status
during interactions of private citizens. If someone wishes to give out fere
hair dye, or preach on the virtues of going bald, fine. If someone wishes to
give out free Bibles or preach Buddhism, just as fine with me. IMO, the
sooner we accept that religion is neither dirty nor sacred, the better of we
will be. By keeping it as taboo, discourse about religion is stiffled and
close mindedness is encouraged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:49:45 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> That is to say that the freedom to speak does not necessarily include a
>> requirement that you be heard.
>
> So, you think it's wrong that the school told the kid he couldn't
> distribute religious propaganda during a class party?
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".
> What if it were atheist propaganda the student were to distribute, would
> it still be considered wrong for the school to prevent distribution of
> that?
I think if an atheist wants to distribute information on their beliefs,
they should also be allowed to do so. You might've noticed that I don't
identify as Christian myself, and as long as all beliefs are treated
equally, then I don't see a problem.
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:53:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Stopping someone from expressing their faith to others is censorship.
Well, censorship (in the US, as applied to the first amendment to the
constitution) has more to do with the government suppressing the speech
in a public venue.
There's no guarantee, for example, of first amendment rights on a public
discussion forum hosted in the US. If the site owner does not permit
discussion of certain topics, they are certainly within their rights to
prohibit, for example, the posting of offensive, defamatory, derogatory,
or offensive materials, and they are free to define the community
standard by which the membership must abide - even if the membership is
permitted to be completely anonymous.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
