 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:58:39 -0600, somebody wrote:
> IMO, the sooner we accept that religion is neither dirty nor sacred, the
> better of we will be
I agree *as long as* this applies to all religions, and not just one
"special" group of religions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. If it
were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the bin
without so much as looking at it...
>
> 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...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a84629a$1@news.povray.org>,
Mike Raiford wrote:
> 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. If it
> were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the bin
> without so much as looking at it...
I bet you are not a kid.
In my school, I would not allow an adult to pass any flyers. But a kid
can. Even if a kid from another school. I'm a believer in the idea
that you learn to program by programing. You learn to live in society,
by living in it. But you don't learn to play chess by always losing;
that is, by always playing against someone a lot more malicious than
you are; that's why I don't like the idea of adults playing society
with kids.
Done.
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.
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:55:49 -0500, Mike Raiford 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.
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.
> 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
> were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in the bin
> without so much as looking at it...
As is your right. There's no guarantee that everyone will appreciate it,
nor that people will actually read what's attached. That's not really
the point, though. The point is "does the student have the right to
exercise their free speech on school property?", to which the answer is
absolutely, as long as they (a) aren't disrupting an ongoing class by
doing so, and (b) aren't inciting people to commit violent acts. As long
as they aren't doing those things, it's fine with me. I may not agree
with the message, but again, the message isn't the important part. The
exercising of the right is.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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. The fact that they did notice suggests that it was very
obvious, probably so much so that it was very likely that the parents
were using the children for their own evangelical purpose.
If that was the case I think the school was right in protecting these
children (and the others) from their parents.*
Free speech is only an issue if it was a public school. IANAL but I
assume that, just as here, such rules are only between a person and a
government not between individuals.
It would be also interesting to know if these parents would allow
teachers to tell the kids that they have homosexual relationships.
I think in the Dutch context (which is very different that the US's) I
would not have a problem with children expressing their believe as long
as it does not interfere with the teaching.
*I probably did not mean that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:10:18 -0400, Daniel Bastos 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 were me, I would have taken the candy and chucked the card in
>> the bin without so much as looking at it...
>
> [...]
>
> In my school, I would not allow an adult to pass any flyers. But a kid
> can. Even if a kid from another school. I'm a believer in the idea that
> you learn to program by programing. You learn to live in society, by
> living in it. But you don't learn to play chess by always losing; that
> is, by always playing against someone a lot more malicious than you are;
> that's why I don't like the idea of adults playing society with kids.
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".
> 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.
>>> 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.
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".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> The fact that they did notice suggests that it was very
> obvious, probably so much so that it was very likely that the parents
> were using the children for their own evangelical purpose. If that was
> the case I think the school was right in protecting these children (and
> the others) from their parents.*
You're right, you probably didn't mean that. The reasons why the kid was
distributing the messages aren't particularly important.
> Free speech is only an issue if it was a public school. IANAL but I
> assume that, just as here, such rules are only between a person and a
> government not between individuals.
>
> 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.
It's like me giving a professional reference for people I work with - I'm
not permitted to do that because it might reflect on my employer
"endorsing" a particular partner over another. I can provide a personal
reference, but it has to be clear that it is such and that I'm speaking
for myself and not for my employer.
> I think in the Dutch context (which is very different that the US's) I
> would not have a problem with children expressing their believe as long
> as it does not interfere with the teaching.
That's what I think, too.
> *I probably did not mean that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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] y com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> 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.
... or, worse yet, being offended on behalf of others.
(I think political overcorrectness seriously sucks.)
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.
>
We know you've NEVER attempted a forceful conversion in the realm of religion.
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.
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.
"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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:19:49 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> 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.
>
> ... or, worse yet, being offended on behalf of others.
Yes, that is also a problem.
> (I think political overcorrectness seriously sucks.)
And I agree with this. There's a certain amount that's reasonable in
polite conversation, but it can (and is) taken too far a lot of times.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
