I have tried to explain before that the Christian Gospel does not teach that people go to Hell because they are Jews (or Hindus or Baptists or any other religious tradition). Nor is the message that Jews (etc) are not "good enough" becausethey are Jews (etc.).
The idea is that everyone sins (and
Rich Duncan says:
The law is clear that public school students do not shed their free
speech rights at the public schoolhouse door. They have a clear right to engage
in non-disruptive speech.
Discussing the doctrine of salvation by faith is not hate speech. It is quite
the opposite.
Title: Message
That's too
high a level of abstraction at which to cast the question -- too much turns on
the sort of "burden" that you're discussing. Certainly the majority (and
the minority) bears the burden of, for instance, not discriminating based on
religion in the government's actions
Rick has a very nice and neat notin of how "offering the gospel" works that
has nothign to do with the reality of public schools wher echildren tell
others they wil lgo to hell. That, in my book, is indeed a form of "hate
speech." My daughter has been told on more than one occasion that she
Title: Message
I agree that many kids may be offended by being
told that they're going to go to hell. Likewise, many older Christian kids
may be offended by being told that they're anti-Semites, or
homophobes.
There are, it seems to me, several questions in play
here:
(1) To what
Interesting and helpful analysis Eugene.However, I do not think that religious speech is coextensive with other speech or needs to be so considered. Restricting religious speech is not the same as restricting other speech. One cannot write the EC out of the analysis even in something that mostly
Are you seriously suggesting that a kid who talk to your 7 year old about
religion in a way that you find offensive is going to be physically
assaulted by your child? That's not just unacceptable at school. It's
criminal, and I cannot conceive of why you would permit your child to
respond to
In a message dated 11/6/05 11:47:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you seriously suggesting that a kid who talk to your 7 year old about
religion in a way that you find offensive is going to be physically
assaulted by your child? That's not just unacceptable at school.
Perhaps the better analogy would be when
my child simply points out that Jesus is just a fictional character like Shaggy
or even Scooby Doo, and his teaching are to be given about the same
weight. It seems that those who have never had to endure this kind of
assault have little idea the
Joel and I agree at least on this--if my child were physically attacked by other children because of his faith, I would encourage him to turn loose all his martial arts skills and give the bullies a good attitude adjustment.
The remedy for speech you disagree withis counterspeech. The remedy for
Rick the difference is that you or your son could teach and learn to be
tolerant about gay people, rather than campaign against them not having the
same rights as you; you are after all, hardly harmed by someone else's marraige
or even their faith. To say that your son's views (or yours) are
Title: Message
Christians are completely entitled, under the
First Amendment, to try to "rid the world of all Jews" (in the sense of people
who are Jews by religion) through the process of persuading the Jews (and
others) to become Christians. I think it's also a perfectly legitimate
goal,
Joel's post raises an excellent analogy. Say that a child tells his
classmates that he thinks Christianity is a myth, and that belief in
religion is illogical -- eminently legitimate and important arguments,
but ones that will naturally offend his classmates. (Note that the
statement could arise
In a message dated 11/6/05 3:39:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Under current doctrine, I take it that the school must tolerate such
speech unless it's actually likely to start a fight.
You'd take it wrong in the Eleventh Circuit. School officials do not need Tinker's
Title: Message
Hmm -- so in the Eleventh Circuit a school
district could ban atheist speech with no evidence of disruption? How is
that reconcilable with Tinker?
I do recall a Confederate flag case, and perhaps it's the one
Frances is referring to, in which the court of appeals held that
"Entitled" do it, and entitled to subject fellow student to the pressure
are two different thing. The school setting does make a differene. The KKK
is entitled, under the First Amendment, to advocate that we "rid the world
of Jews." So is the American Nazi Party. I think it would be quite
In a message dated 11/6/05 4:03:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
think that's an overreading of Fraser, but surely it wouldn't apply simply to speech that criticizes a religion (or absence of religion). Or else, as I asked, what happened to Tinker?
Well, the 11th Circuit
Title: Message
(1) The
First Amendment rights of Christians are not diminished by other Christians'
misbehavior, just like the First Amendment rights of blacks, whites, or Jews are
not diminished by other blacks', whites', or Jews' misbehavior. Our
constitutional law, thankfully, does not
Fortunately most Christians do not feel the need to go around telling the rest of us we are damned to hell and so the problem is less bad than it could be. I must respectfully disagree with Rick's attempt at a more subtle and sophisticated (and I think accurate) reading as being what I have
19 matches
Mail list logo
