It seems to me this language presents a kind of King Canute conundrum. It makes a legislative statement, a legislative finding, that is at least contestable if not clearly contrary to fact. Were I challenging, I'd challenge the first sentence as factually inaccurate, especially where it says
From the Times:"After five years of legal battles, the leaders of this Bergen County borough approved an agreement on Tuesday night that enables an eruv, a symbolic boundary for Orthodox Jews that allows them to do some work on the Sabbath, to remain in place." Nice victory for religious
I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-"gay" banner because of their religious beliefs. The rainbow-flag
Does someone think there is a (serious) religious liberty argument
available to the teachers here? From what we have here, there appears
to be nothing at all religious about the message and policy the school
board has decided to pursue; it is a secular message about diversity.
There is
I think Steve is right that there is probably no 1A religious liberty issue (certainly no EC issue)or free speech (compelled spech)issue so long as the requirement is that the banner be posted in the classroom as opposed to requiring the teachers to do the posting themselves or to somehow
There is a long article in yesterdays WSJ about the
conflicts that have arisen in the California Department of Educations
textbook review process.
At least to my mind, the article raises a variety of
interesting questions.
Is there a constitutional
problem if a public school
Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they often do, and yet requires them to operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its
Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states
that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the
school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is
the message of the school board as opposed to that of
It's the same except in one case it's the government "Vance R. Koven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they often do, and yet requires them to
Alans post raises an important
point, which is that when we expect, or even mandate, public schools to address
controversial matters or matters that strike close to home for people, in terms
of their strongest values and personal lives, sticky questions may arise.
Ill duck the specific
Whoops. I sent the last reply by mistake.Sorry.I meant to say that the cases are the same except in one case it is the government requiring public school teachers to teach in a classroom under an ideological display that offendssome teachers' religious beliefs.I think the govt has the
Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down
Title: Message
Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote:
Messrs.
Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated.
For
the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no
proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in
sciencefiction). It does importantly
We have the pink triangles here at the University of Nebraska,
too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I personally
believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't
safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male, female, or
any other reason at
Rick Duncan wrote:
Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of
complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers
asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes
another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the
Title: Message
With respect, I have a great deal of
difficulty in understanding this proposed language, and its purpose. I have a
great deal of concern about its probable effects or consequences. Let me just
pose three questions for now.
First, what is actual creation?
Without knowing
The problem is just not the nature of the difficulties
teaching about religion necessarily raises, but also the problem of enforcement.
It does no good if the teachers will not abide by the resolution of the sticky
problems made by the appropriate school or other officials including
Brad M Pardee wrote:
We have the pink triangles here at the University of
Nebraska,
too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I
personally
believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't
safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male,
Rick,
I'll ask you to stipulate that there probably have been incidents of
student-on-student harassment (verbal insults, perhaps physical threats
and actual violence) directed at the gay students. This is certainly a
common phenomenon at other schools, and so let's assume that this is
what
Rick:
Maybe the test ought to be which whiny group has suffered persecution,
gets murdered, beaten up, and threatned (or beaten up and left tied to a
fence overnight in Wyoming); which group lives in fear day-to-day of
being attacked for the essence of who they are? which needs the
Ed Brayton wrote:
I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know
what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How
do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying
that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've
I agree with a lot of what Greg says here. Schools can not and should not avoid teaching
about any and all sensitive topics (although that does not mean that they have
to address every imaginable controversial issue without regard to age propriety
or class relevance.) When they do address
On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:
snip
I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals
here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in
practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they
encounter anybody who believes that
Ed Brayton's suggestions were much cooler-headed than my post; if there is to be legislation, he offers some ways to make it almost workable.I am nervous about legislatures stepping into a role where what is known by science is determined by a majority vote of people who are almost completely
--- Brad M Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right
that I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt about
motivations of the
specific officials in San Leandro. I haven't seen
their past actions or
heard their past pronouncements. I do know what
I've seen of what appears
to be
25 matches
Mail list logo
