There is no logical coloration between speech and assault. One is permissible. The other is a crime. As I said, you do not have a right, either in law or in nature's law, to assault another person.
H. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 8:25 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Religious Freedom Hate speech leads to hate actions. If your taught that the Jews are going to hell for the killing, rejecting or whatever of your god what would you do. For many people, the answer would be to abuse, beat and even kill those people. One mans speech of support is another's speech of hate. "Go my people and become martyrs for this city". If someone takes you up on that speech and kills, have you committed assault? Are you to blame? Speech used to assault is just as bad as a fist. > The argument is spurious. > > You have no right to assault another person. Whereas, you do have a right to > religious freedom. So there's no analogy here. > > H. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 7:33 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > Two people are walking down a path. One pushes the other off the path > for some reason. What right does the first have to push the second > person? Your saying that there are two rights here. The first is the > right of one person to preach to others. The second is the right of one > person not to be preached to. The right to prevent someone from entering > into your personal space, the right to prevent someone from pushing you > off that path is the one that takes precedence. One is an action, the > other is the desire for the absence of that action. > > > > Why? > > > > Why must your rights supercede the rights of the teacher? > > > > And what, in the Constitution, supports your position? > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 6:40 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Religious Freedom > > > > > > the teacher is welcome to exercise his or her religion as long as it > doesnt' > > interfere with the rights of others - in this case, it does. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 12:52 PM > > Subject: RE: Religious Freedom > > > > > > > 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
