t; and worth deferring to, while the latter viewpoint is not?
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pamphlets in schools
Surely explaining why some students find it objectionable is ok -- teaching tolerance and understanding cannot be wrong. But there would be a line somewhere when the explanation becomes instruction not to do it at all that might be a problem.
Steve
On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 09:39 AM, marc
that permissible? Desirable? Subject the school to suit?
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
8:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pamphlets in schools
Apologize for sending
what I thought
Apologize for sending what I thought
was a private message to the general list. I am truly sorry if anyone was
offended.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 09:11PM
>>>Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that
everyoneagreed (myself included) that Christians against Chr
Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 6:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pamphlets in schools
>
>
> Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that
> everyone agreed (myself included) that Christians against
> Christ was unduly offensiv
Well said, and the interesting feature of my example was that everyone
agreed (myself included) that Christians against Christ was unduly
offensive.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/04 5:45 PM >>>
I apologize for this being a late submission on this topic, but I was
out
of town all weekend.
I wo
