Two issues here.
1. Must schools restrict proslytizing by students.
2. May schools constitutionally restrict proslytizing by students.
I'm focusing on the second. Eugene and I agree that religion is
different from ordinary speech in at least the sense that religion may
not be the subject of official government speech. Politics may. We
agree the state may not proslytize. It seems to me that the state may
also say student debate in school may be limited to materials that the
school may teach and comment on. Another line of argument. When the
state creates a quasi-captive audience situation, seems to be that the
state may forbid religious proslytizing. It is not speech restrictive,
it is religious restrictive. The very text of the first amendment
creates this distinction.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/05/04 6:07 PM >>>
I'm glad that we agree such speech shouldn't be called
"harassment." But I'm puzzled by Mark's second paragraph. Why does the
fact that *schools* may not teach religion or atheism mean that schools
may or even must restrict *students* who want to advocate religion or
atheism?
Mark says "schools are religious-free zones" -- but why? The
Establishment Clause may prohibit schools from endorsing religion (and,
incidentally, from putting up religious symbols). Mark agrees that it
doesn't prohibit students from wearing religious symbols. But he seems
to think that it prohibits students from expressing the view that some
should convert to some religion, or should stop being religious. What's
the justification for this sort of strikingly speech-restrictive
position?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:03 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
>
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
