Judaism is not allowed to proselytize, but that's not the point. Does she have the right to speak? Yes. Does she have the right to use a place paid for by tax payer money? Not necessarily. It doesn't matter the religion. It matters the content. Lets do it this way. If she is teaching what Judaism things and does, that's one thing. If she's being arrogant (as all missionaries are) and saying that your wrong, your culture, religion, parents and everything else is wrong and only she is right then she does not have the right to use MY or anyone else's funds to do so. The governments job is to keep the peace. Giving a forum paid for by the public to people who will upset that peace is counter productive. Tell me that you support a preaching Satanist as a teacher. I don't support a preaching Christian, Jew, Wiccan or anyone else as a teacher. Teach the subject and that's it.
> Let's change Mrs. Smith's religion to Judaism, because I think you're not > focusing on the issue I'm raising. > > Do you have a right to infringe on Mrs. Smith's right to preach Judaism, if > she felt ordered by God to do so, because you don't want to hear it? > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 4:17 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > I'm Jewish. I pay taxes. Someone else is Christian. They pay taxes. > Money does not care what religion it comes from. It's money. I don't > want my money going to a Christian thing that'll try and go "to the Jews > first". A Christian does not want their money going to converting their > followers to another religion. So we now need a common ground. That > common ground is respect for each other and the leaving out of religion > from the interaction. > My right not to hear in someone in any place paid for by group taxes > DOES trump that of someone who wants to use such a place to infringe on > me. > If Mrs. Smith has to evangelize at every opportunity then she can do so > at his home, at a place that is public and not paid for by taxes or a > place set aside for that. Let me put this in perspective. A subway > walkway is a public place. A missionary has every right to proselytize > there as long as he does not interfere with the movement of people. I > have the right to debate and cause that missionary to have a mental > collapse just as much as he has the right to spew his ideas at me. > The question is space. I can walk away and he can run. In a class no one > can walk away. In a school your 'trapped'. And if she feels trapped by > the fires of hell then she can just quit. A student can't. > Yes, I happen to hate missionaries. Yes I debate Jews for jesus and > cause them to publicly cry. If they come to tell me that thousands of > years of tradition and belief is wrong then I'm ok with telling them > that their lives are worthless and that they need to stop. > That's the problem. Give a person a podium and you draw counter > speakers. Don't limit their speech in some way and all speech is > allowed. If someone starts saying how we're all going to hell and > America has to be destroyed, is that protected? If so, can someone else > do a counter speech. And on and on and on till the hate flows, the > fights start and the wars are on. There has to be limits and controls. > Otherwise, Microsoft wins. :) > > > > Michael: > > > > This still doesn't answer my basic question. > > > > You're religion says "don't force it on others," but what if Mrs. > Smith > > follows a religion that says, "you must evangelize at every > opportunity"? > > > > The constitution guarantees a right to free exercise of religion. If > Mrs. > > Smith's belief in God commands her to be a public school teacher and > > evangelize from behind the podium, what is there within the > Constitution > > that says she can't? She feels just as captive as the students. She > feels > > the fiery pits of hell await if she doesn't do it. > > > > Does your right not to hear it trump her right to say it? > > > > H. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 2:01 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > > > > I haven't been following much of this thread but I have to say one > > thing. Your right to exercise your religion is based on it not > > infringing on the rights of others. A teacher is paid to teach. > Period, > > end of story. If I had to put up with a missionary in public school > I'd > > have walked out. Of course, a student can't do that. It's a captive > > audience. > > Your religion is your own. Don't force it on others. At least that's > > what my religion says. > > > > > I'm not saying what I believe. I'm asking the question: Why isn't > this > > an > > > infringement of the teacher's rights to exercise his or her religion > > freely. > > > By preventing the teacher from that exercise you are asking the > > teacher to > > > disobey God (per the scenario I drafted). Should the government be > > able to > > > force a person to disobey God? If so, what is the constitutional > > argument > > > for such as case when the First Amendment says clearly that we have > a > > right > > > to freely follow our religious beliefs as we see fit? > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 1:01 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > > > > > > > So, as a teacher I should be able to teach the children whatever > > religion I > > > choose in the classroom? > > > > > > Its the teachers job to present the cirriculum, not to preach > > religion. The > > > teacher is wrong in two ways: > > > 1) not performing duties in their job description (presenting > > cirriculum) > > > and > > > 2) infringing on the religious rights of the students > > > > > > > > > Do you really believe a teacher should be allowed to attempt to > > convert > > > students to their religion as part of teaching practices? > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 10:38 PM > > > Subject: RE: Religious Freedom > > > > > > > > > > Which would be a violation of the teacher's First Amendment rights > > to > > > > exercise religious freedom. > > > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 9:05 PM > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 1:59 PM > > > > Subject: RE: Religious Freedom > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if, as a public school teacher, you felt called (an > > vocation), as > > > in > > > > > commanded by God, to be both a public school teacher and > > evangelist. > > > That > > > > if > > > > > you were not a public school teacher, and that if you did not > read > > from > > > > the > > > > > Bible during class, you would be going against God's will? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then you should be fired. > > > > > > > > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 1:40 PM > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So, if you are a teacher, or a mayor or other government > > official, are > > > > you > > > > > >not sinning if you do not use every opportunity to spread the > > Gospel. > > > As > > > > a > > > > > >teacher, aren't you commanded by God to spread the Gospel to > your > > > pupils? > > > > > > > > > > But as a teacher, you are paid to teach what the school system > has > > > > provided > > > > > for you to teach, if you don't like it, go teach at a church > > school. > > > > > > > > > > >This, of course, is an extreme position that is terribly > > politically > > > > > >incorrect, but I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here. > > > > > > > > > > > >Isn't it a violation of your "free exercise" rights if you are > > > prohibited > > > > > >from preaching, praying and proselytizing no matter what your > > position > > > in > > > > > >the government? > > > > > > > > > > No, as your position is voluntary, usually by both parties, you > > are > > > > allowed > > > > > to leave, or be fired if you are not doing your job, and if your > > job > > > says > > > > > don't teach religion in your class, then you can't. If you have > a > > > problem > > > > > with this, find another job. > > > > > > > > > > >Another question: If the government makes a law that says, > "Thou > > shalt > > > > not > > > > > >pray in public," isn't the government showing a preference for > > > > irreligion, > > > > > >if not secular humanism. Even a secularist is taking a > religious > > > position > > > > > >based on faith (it takes as much faith not to believe as to > > believe). > > > So, > > > > > >when the government says, "no prayer," it's really > "establishing > > > > religion" > > > > > >by establishing irreligion as the religion of choice for the > > > government. > > > > > >True or not? > > > > > I would agree with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
