Re: non-disruptive speech ?
In a message dated 11/6/2005 9:17:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let’s understand – the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. I have a fourth degree black belt son, a second degree black belt daughter, two first degree black belt daughters, and a first degree black belt son, all in the form of Tang Soo Do, the fourth degree is also about 3/4s of the way to his first degree black belt in weapons. On the wall of the school were my children obtained their degrees are a listing of virtues -- discipline, integrity, respect, obedience, etc. They memorize and discuss three student codes, including "I intend to use what I learn in karate constructively and defensively, and never to be abusive or offensive." The self-defense instructors always emphasize that the first way to win a fight on the street is to escape without the fight starting. And the second way to win the fight is to escape from the fight after it starts. The only time the techniques taught in class are taught as TO BE USED is when the aggressor makes avoidance of the fight or escape from it impossible. I am sorry, Joel, that the art has been so degraded where your student studies that these important principles have been lost or underemphasized. Jim "The Father of Five Black Belts" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
In a message dated 11/6/2005 12:40:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While it may not be acceptable at school, it seems to me it is based, in some part, on the notion of fighting words, which is recognized in Free Speech jurisprudence (admittedly in the context of lying outside the protection of the First Amendment). Now, whether a remark disparaging another student's religion rises to the level of fighting words is a question a tribunal might well take into account--either when punishing the speaker and/or the student at whom the words were directed. There is an uncertainty to be injected into Free Speech Doctrine if Frances' suggestion takes hold. The concept of "fighting words" is not a license to bullies with fragile psyches or low self-esteem and a lack of confidence. It is simply not the case thatevery thing spoken is a fighting word. If some folks whose kids go to public schoolsare raising bullies at home and feeding them raw meat, giving "rah rah" speeches about how they don't have to take guff from no one, nowhere, no how, that is a sad commentary on affairs, but it doesn't change that Free Speech Doctrine so thatwordssuddenly rise to the level of fighting words because select, fragilely constructed individuals, act as though words are likely to provoke an immediate, violent response. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
I have a black belt in the game of go. Does that count? :)SteveOn Nov 7, 2005, at 8:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/6/2005 9:17:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let’s understand – the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. I have a fourth degree black belt son, a second degree black belt daughter, two first degree black belt daughters, and a first degree black belt son, all in the form of Tang Soo Do, the fourth degree is also about 3/4s of the way to his first degree black belt in weapons. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, someone will fill it with fear."Naomi Klein ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
In a message dated 11/7/05 8:48:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but it doesn't change that Free Speech Doctrine so that words suddenly rise to the level of fighting words because select, fragilely constructed individuals, act as though words are likely to provoke an immediate, violent response. I meant using the precedents associated with the fighting words doctrine not inventing a new and lower standard. No where did I say anything about creating a new standard. To the extent that the courts have taken the vulnerability or excessive fraility of the listener into account (something akin to the eggshell skull rule--and I don't know that they do) then a tribunal might well follow precedent on this issue. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 Cuimhnich air na daoine o'n d'thàinig thu --- Remember the people from whom you came. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
RE: non-disruptive speech ?
I thought that we were talking about the United States? I was. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:24 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? Well, Catholics, as I understand it, are still trying to convert people in the Third World; am I mistaken on that? Many atheists are trying to convert people, in the sense of trying to persuade people to reject religion. More broadly, that only some groups choose to exercise their free speech rights doesn't make their free speech rights any less protected; and persistence, in the sense of continue to speak out even when others condemn you for it, and resistance, in the sense of speaking out against restrictions on your free speech rights, are themselves protected by the First Amendment. I'm not surprised that some people who choose not to exercise the right to persuade people on certain religious topics seek to suppress others' exercise of that right. I'm just not terribly impressed by the calls for such suppression. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:15 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? Let's put this in context. There are only certain religious groups that are attempting to convert other people. That matters. The reality is a dynamic of persistence and resistance. From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 3:29 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? 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, though one I disagree with (not being a Christian). Atheists are likewise completely entitled, under the First Amendment, to try to rid the world of all Christians through the process of persuading the Christians (and others) to stop believing in Christianity. That too is a perfectly legitimate goal. Likewise, atheists are completely entitled 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 atheists. It's called trying to change people's minds, and it's at the heart of what the First Amendment is about. I would hope that both Christians and atheists try to resist attempted browbeating by people who want to unfairly tar them with negative labels such as anti-Semite, labels that acquired their rightful sting from actions far different from simply trying to persuade Jews of the truth of this or that theological belief. I realize that people who strongly believe in some ideology -- whether it's Judaism, Christianity, atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or what have you -- might not want that ideology to become less popular, and might therefore lash out against those who are trying to persuade holders of that ideology to change views. But that doesn't make the persuasion remotely improper; it just reflects the fact that people don't like their ideologies challenged. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
RE: non-disruptive speech ?
We were, but I hadn't thought that Catholic theology distinguished the U.S. from the Third World. If it's proper for Catholics to spread their faith in Africa, I would have thought that it would be proper here, too. Are Catholics completely uninterested in converting others to Catholicism within the U.S., though eager to do so elsewhere? If so, why? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:09 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? I thought that we were talking about the United States? I was. -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:24 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? Well, Catholics, as I understand it, are still trying to convert people in the Third World; am I mistaken on that? Many atheists are trying to convert people, in the sense of trying to persuade people to reject religion. More broadly, that only some groups choose to exercise their free speech rights doesn't make their free speech rights any less protected; and persistence, in the sense of continue to speak out even when others condemn you for it, and resistance, in the sense of speaking out against restrictions on your free speech rights, are themselves protected by the First Amendment. I'm not surprised that some people who choose not to exercise the right to persuade people on certain religious topics seek to suppress others' exercise of that right. I'm just not terribly impressed by the calls for such suppression. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:15 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? Let's put this in context. There are only certain religious groups that are attempting to convert other people. That matters. The reality is a dynamic of persistence and resistance. From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 3:29 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: non-disruptive speech ? 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, though one I disagree with (not being a Christian). Atheists are likewise completely entitled, under the First Amendment, to try to rid the world of all Christians through the process of persuading the Christians (and others) to stop believing in Christianity. That too is a perfectly legitimate goal. Likewise, atheists are completely entitled 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 atheists. It's called trying to change people's minds, and it's at the heart of what the First Amendment is about. I would hope that both Christians and atheists try to resist attempted browbeating by people who want to unfairly tar them with negative labels such as anti-Semite, labels that acquired their rightful sting from actions far different from simply trying to persuade Jews of the truth of this or that theological belief. I realize that people who strongly believe in some ideology -- whether it's Judaism, Christianity, atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or what have you -- might not want that ideology to become less popular, and might therefore lash out against those who are trying to persuade holders of that ideology to change views. But that doesn't make the persuasion remotely improper; it just reflects the fact that people don't like their ideologies challenged. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
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 words and ideas with violence. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. Brad - Original Message - From: Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] So let's understand - the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
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. While it may not be acceptable at school, it seems to me it is based, in some part, on the notion of fighting words, which is recognized in Free Speech jurisprudence (admittedly in the context of lying outside the protection of the First Amendment). Now, whether a remark disparaging another student's religion rises to the level of fighting words is a question a tribunal might well take into account--either when punishing the speaker and/or the student at whom the words were directed. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
RE: non-disruptive speech ?
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 damage it does. Whether its having rocks thrown at you, or some of the good Christian children waiting to beat on you when you leave the building, there are rarely good consequences to standing up for your Jewishness at school. There are few things I teach my children to stand and fight about. Religion happens to be one of them. If others find that offensive, perhaps they might want to put an end to the cause. Telling Jewish kids they are going to hell is never the end of the conversation, it is always the start of the confrontation. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph: 205-345-0966 fx: 205-345-0971 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: non-disruptive speech ? If I understand Joel correctly, the next time a peer informs my son, a 3d Degree Black Belt, that it is homophobic to discriminate against same-sex marriages, my son ought tokick the hateful speakersoundly with his best board-breakingside kicks. Hmmm. I think I would discipline him at home for such violent conduct. Rick Duncan Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. That's why John 3:16 says For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. So lets understand the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
RE: non-disruptive speech ?
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 punches thrown at you by bulliesis counterpunches (actually, it's blocks and counterpunches followed by round kicks). And I could tell you stories that would curl your hair about the bullying that manyhomeschooled children encounter when they enter public secondary schools. Cheers, Rick DuncanJoel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 damage it does. Whether its having rocks thrown at you, or some of the good Christian children waiting to beat on you when you leave the building, there are rarely good consequences to standing up for your Jewishness at school. There are few things I teach my children to stand and fight about. Religion happens to be one of them. If others find that offensive, perhaps they might want to put an end to the cause. Telling Jewish kids they are going to hell is never the end of the conversation, it is always the start of the confrontation. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph: 205-345-0966 fx: 205-345-0971 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: non-disruptive speech ? If I understand Joel correctly, the next time a peer informs my son, a 3d Degree Black Belt, that it is "homophobic" to discriminate against same-sex "marriages," my son ought tokick the hateful speakersoundly with his best board-breakingside kicks. Hmmm. I think I would discipline him at home for such violent conduct. Rick Duncan Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. That's why John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." So lets understand the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"W! hen the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis,
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
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 homo-phobic or even hateful, is not the same as saying that your are gong to go to hell or that all people who think like you MUST cease to exist. However, the desire to convert Jews which is pushed on our children stems from a theological goal of entirely ridding the world of all Jews. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: non-disruptive speech ? If I understand Joel correctly, the next time a peer informs my son, a 3d Degree Black Belt, that it is "homophobic" to discriminate against same-sex "marriages," my son ought tokick the hateful speakersoundly with his best board-breakingside kicks. Hmmm. I think I would discipline him at home for such violent conduct. Rick Duncan Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. That's why John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." So lets understand the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
RE: non-disruptive speech ?
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, though one I disagree with (not being a Christian). Atheists are likewise completely entitled, under the First Amendment, to try to "rid the world of all Christians" through the process of persuading the Christians (and others) to stop believing in Christianity. That too is a perfectly legitimate goal. Likewise, atheists are completely entitled to try to "rid the world of all Jews" (in the sense of people whoare Jews by religion) through the process of persuading the Jews (and others) to become atheists. It's called trying to change people's minds, and it's at the heart of what the First Amendment is about. I would hope that both Christians and atheists try to resist attempted browbeating by people who want to unfairly tar them with negative labels such as "anti-Semite," labels that acquired their rightful sting from actions far different from simply trying to persuade Jews of the truth of this or that theological belief. I realize that people who strongly believe in some ideology -- whether it's Judaism, Christianity, atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or what have you -- might not want that ideology to become less popular, and might therefore lash out against those who are trying to persuade holders of that ideology to change views. But that doesn't make the persuasion remotely improper; it just reflects the fact that people don't like their ideologies challenged. Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul FinkelmanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:15 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: non-disruptive speech ?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 homo-phobic or even hateful, is not the same as saying that your are gong to go to hell or that all people who think like you MUST cease to exist. However, the desire to convert Jews which is pushed on our children stems from a theological goal of entirely ridding the world of all Jews. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: non-disruptive speech ? If I understand Joel correctly, the next time a peer informs my son, a 3d Degree Black Belt, that it is "homophobic" to discriminate against same-sex "marriages," my son ought tokick the hateful speakersoundly with his best board-breakingside kicks. Hmmm. I think I would discipline him at home for such violent conduct. Rick Duncan Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. That's why John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." So lets understand the next kid that tells my 7 year old that we are going to hell, which whether Rick agrees or not is always where that conversation goes, is going to get a basic understanding of the karate classes Sam is now taking. The speech is in fact more then just disruptive, and it invites a response that will be equally unacceptable at school, but for which my son will not be disciplined at home. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to th
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
"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 reasonable
to bas such speech in a public school. As far as I know, Atheists to not
campaign to rid the world of Christians nor harass them about it. I have
never heard of Christians being beaten up, harassed, ridiculed by school
administraors, (or for that matter lynched) by athiests.
Paul Finkelman
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
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, though one I disagree with (not being a Christian).
Atheists are likewise completely entitled, under the First
Amendment, to try to "rid the world of all Christians" through the process
of persuading the Christians (and others) to stop believing in Christianity.
That too is a perfectly legitimate goal. Likewise, atheists are completely
entitled to try to "rid the world of all Jews" (in the sense of people whoare
Jews by religion) through the process of persuading the Jews (and others)
to become atheists. It's called trying to change people's minds, and it's
at the heart of what the First Amendment is about.
I would hope that both Christians and atheists try to resist
attempted browbeating by people who want to unfairly tar them with negative
labels such as "anti-Semite," labels that acquired their rightful sting
from actions far different from simply trying to persuade Jews of the truth
of this or that theological belief.
I realize that people who strongly believe in some ideology
-- whether it's Judaism, Christianity, atheism, liberalism, conservatism,
or what have you -- might not want that ideology to become less popular,
and might therefore lash out against those who are trying to persuade holders
of that ideology to change views. But that doesn't make the persuasion
remotely improper; it just reflects the fact that people don't like their
ideologies challenged.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 200512:15 PM
To: Law Religion issues for LawAcademics
Subject: Re: non-disruptive speech?
Rick the difference is that you or your son couldteach and learn to
be tolerant about gay people, rather than campaign againstthem not having
the same rights as you; you are after all, hardly harmed bysomeone else's
marraige or even their faith. To say that your son'sviews (or yours)
are homo-phobic or even hateful, is not the same as sayingthat your are
gong to go to hell or that all people who think like you MUSTcease to
exist. However, the desire to convert Jews which is pushed onour children
stems from a theological goal of entirely ridding the world ofall Jews.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Rick
Duncan
Sent: Sunday, November
06, 2005 8:32 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: non-disruptive
speech ?
If I understand Joel correctly, the next time a
peer informs my son, a 3d Degree Black Belt, that it is "homophobic"
to discriminate against same-sex "marriages," my son ought tokick the
hateful speakersoundly with his best board-breakingside kicks.
Hmmm. I think I would discipline
him at home for such violent conduct.
Rick Duncan
Joe
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
RE: non-disruptive speech ?
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 recognize group guilt of this sort. (2) Analogizing "getting rid of" in the sense of "persuading people to change their views" to "getting rid of" in the sense of "killing" is unsound and outrageous. (3) Some atheists most certainly do campaign to rid the world of Christians, in the sense of persuading people that Christianity is unsound. I've known atheists like that personally. And of course it makes perfect sense: If you thinksome ideology is illogical -- and perhaps even harmful -- then of course you would want to persuade all other people of this, and would like to see a world in which no-one accepts this ideology. (4) If the test is that schools may not restrict speech that simply tries to persuade people of some view, but may restrict speech when it tries to "pressure" students, I'd like to see exactly how "pressure" is defined. Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul FinkelmanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 1:26 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: non-disruptive speech ?"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 reasonable to bas such speech in a public school. As far as I know, Atheists to not campaign to rid the world of Christians nor harass them about it. I have never heard of Christians being beaten up, harassed, ridiculed by school administraors, (or for that matter lynched) by athiests. Paul FinkelmanVolokh, Eugene wrote: 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, though one I disagree with (not being a Christian). Atheists are likewise completely entitled, under the First Amendment, to try to "rid the world of all Christians" through the process of persuading the Christians (and others) to stop believing in Christianity. That too is a perfectly legitimate goal. Likewise, atheists are completely entitled to try to "rid the world of all Jews" (in the sense of people whoare Jews by religion) through the process of persuading the Jews (and others) to become atheists. It's called trying to change people's minds, and it's at the heart of what the First Amendment is about. I would hope that both Christians and atheists try to resist attempted browbeating by people who want to unfairly tar them with negative labels such as "anti-Semite," labels that acquired their rightful sting from actions far different from simply trying to persuade Jews of the truth of this or that theological belief. I realize that people who strongly believe in some ideology -- whether it's Judaism, Christianity, atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or what have you -- might not want that ideology to become less popular, and might therefore lash out against those who are trying to persuade holders of that ideology to change views. But that doesn't make the persuasion remotely improper; it just reflects the fact that people don't like their ideologies challenged. Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul FinkelmanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 12:15 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: non-disruptive speech ?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 homo-phobic or even hateful, is not the same as saying that your are gong to go to hell or that all people who think like you MUST cease to exist. However, the desire to convert Jews which is pushed on our children stems from a theological goal of entirely ridding the world of all Jews.
Re: non-disruptive speech ?
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 encountered and my kids have encountered in all but the most thoughtful and bright evangelicals. And they have to a person been respectful of me, and often of my beliefs, howsoever much they wished to convert me. Of course I have always been able to talk about religion without getting hot under the collar, and so do not easily get too upset by the comments of others in that regard.As to bullying -- much of the bullying done is done by Christians on Christians -- or was at my school 40 years ago -- of course nearly everyone was Christian of some sort. The Jews were not singled out for bullying. And the same is largely true today, though certainly when homeschooled kids come into the public schools there can be adjustment problems -- from a kind of ostracism or exclusion (cliques are already formed from years in public school) to a kind of hazing (in order to get into the "group") to even worse.But it is not one-sided -- home schooled kids often have a chip on their shoulder and have not encountered different views since they studied at home and went on field trips with like-minded families and such and so do not have the social resources to respond to the new and difficult situation. I wasn't bullied, but I hated HS and saw people who were bullied for no reason at all.Religion is a hot-button issue for kids who are just becoming exposed to new ideas for the first time in HS, sometimes MS, and for kids whose job it is in those years to explore and define themselves. Fewer adults are as vigorous true believers as kids are -- whether it is about a teacher, a rock band, sports, school "spirit", or whatever. I think the implication of this state of affairs, plus the EC and FE and free speech dimensions, all add up to the school having a fair amount of latitude in regulating speech and activities of a religious nature and in trumpeting the civic virtue of tolerance toward those of other beliefs, castes, what-have-you.BTW, I taught my kids not to fight with fists or stones or sticks. I've always found power in turning the other cheek. And my kids were not inclined toward martial arts, but rather found soccer to their liking.SteveOn Nov 6, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Rick Duncan wrote: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 with is counterspeech. The remedy for punches thrown at you by bullies is counterpunches (actually, it's blocks and counterpunches followed by round kicks). And I could tell you stories that would curl your hair about the bullying that many homeschooled children encounter when they enter public secondary schools. Cheers, Rick DuncanJoel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 damage it does. Whether it’s having rocks thrown at you, or some of the good Christian children waiting to beat on you when you leave the building, there are rarely good consequences to standing up for your Jewishness at school. There are few things I teach my children to stand and fight about. Religion happens to be one of them. If others find that offensive, perhaps they might want to put an end to the cause. Telling Jewish kids they are going to hell is never the end of the conversation, it is always the start of the confrontation. Joel L. SogolAttorney at Law811 21st Ave.Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401ph: 205-345-0966fx: 205-345-0971email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:32 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: non-disruptive speech ? If I understand Joel correctly, the next time a peer informs my son, a 3d Degree Black Belt, that it is "homophobic" to discriminate against same-sex "marriages," my son ought to kick the hateful speaker soundly with his best board-breaking side kicks. Hmmm. I think I would discipline him at home for such violent conduct. Rick Duncan Joel Sogol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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-di
