The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I thought I made
clear, that a great many Christians who thought nothing problematic
about converting Jews suddenly found speech offensive when they were the
converters. I suspect, by the way, that we agree that harrassment is
the wrong word.
I do think religion or anti-religion has no place in the public schools.
Schools may teach that progressive taxes are good or that they may be
evil. They may teach that the Vietnam War is good or that it was evil.
And students must be free to disagree. But schools may neither teach
that religion per se or religion in general is good or evil. Thus, I
find nothing objectionable in an across the board ban on prolytizing in
schools, that Tinker is different partly because Tinker is about
political speech. Tnker is also different for a separate reason.
Students ought to be permitted to wear various garb identifying
themselves as religious. Crosses and stars of david are okay. The line
isn't neat, but proslytizing does cross the line. People who go to
school are not safe from political ideas, and they must mingle with
students who disagree, but schools are religious-free zones.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/05/04 5:38 PM >>>
I'm puzzled. Is Mark genuinely saying that it should be
considered harassment -- and thus presumably punishable under hostile
environment harassment law (unless Mark agrees with me that hostile
environment harassment law is unconstitutional to this extent) -- for
people to express the view that Jews should convert to Christianity, or
Christians should convert away from Christianity? If this were American
Atheists putting up a table expressing the view that religion is
irrational, and religious people should become atheists, would that be
harassment, too?
On the other hand, maybe despite the first sentence, he thinks
this doesn't "constitute[] harassment" -- or is constitutionally
protected harassment -- but simply shows that people are differentially
offended by various viewpoints. You bet. There's no doubt that many
people find criticism of Christianity to be offensive. There's also no
doubt that many people find expressions of the idea that non-Christians
(including Jews) should convert to Christianity to be offensive.
I had thought, though, that the First Amendment protected even
the expression of offensive ideas (though in K-12 schools, perhaps it
might restrict them if there's serious evidence of disruption, beyond
the level observed in Tinker). Mark, on the other hand, seems to think
that the First Amendment allows and possibly even *requires* the
suppression of such ideas in government-run schools. I find it hard to
see why; it's not the school that's endorsing (or, as to American
Atheists, disapproving of) religion. The school is simply tolerating a
viewpoint that some people find offensive. I would think that under
Tinker, that's the school's constitutional *duty*, not a constitutional
violation.
Seriously, Mark, do you really think that if an atheist high
school student decides to tell some of his classmates why religion is
wrong, and why they should stop believing -- and let's assume he does
that politely, and there is indeed no evidence of disruption (because
his classmates are decent people who don't start fighting when they hear
offensive ideas) -- then the school has a constitutional duty to
suppress the speech? Or that if he wears a "Religion is the Opium of
the Masses" T-shirt, the school must tell him to take it off? Or even
that it has the power to suppress the speech, even when the Tinker
requirements aren't satisfied?
Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone
can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
