scombrid

This is where the voluntary nature of the assembly is nullified. It was held during regular course hours and I interpret that 7th period was cancelled in favor of study hall or this assembly. The city pays for 7th period to be instruction time. Indirectly, school funds paid for the assembly.

Additionally, held during regular school hours means that kids were still required to be on premisis where they're more subject to peer pressure. After hours the kids have the option of going home, mall, soccer practice, whereever and money paying for classroom instruction isn't being wasted on study hall and evangelism.

RufusAtticus

Given the fact that this student has gotten in (slight?) trouble for mentioning the teachers name, I suspect that the student's side of the story is not all that faithful to exactly what happened.

echoes

Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the student, not the teacher.

Toto

Several people here emailed him when he was identifiable.

Feather

I'm interested in the results of those e-mails. It'd be an interesting thing to see the teacher come post his side of the story here on II.

Bill Snedden

I hear this same type of argument so often (not only about religion), but I wonder if those who make it ever think about just how stupid it really is...Hmmmm...let's see....

Stupid point #1: "It seems that our supposed freedom of speech is upheld now only to protect those who want to be free from being called a**-munching morons. Those who want to call others a**-munching morons are constantly reminded to keep quiet so as not to offend the non-a**munchers." Essentially, the "argument" attempts to defend a "right to offend." Not that we don't have one, but it certainly isn't the moral high ground the proponent would have you believe.

Stupid point #2: "Well, I am offended that I have to practically keep my religion a secret. I can not and will not separate my beliefs from the rest of my life." Essentially what's being argued here is that the ability to stand on a stage with a microphone and proselytize to an audience rendered captive by government support is the only activity that stands between a belief being "secret" and "public". How pathetically risible. Nobody's asking anybody to "separate themselves" from their own beliefs, merely to not force others to be included.

It honestly frightens me that the ability to think clearly appears to have all but disappeared from the general populace...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Feather

The question practically deserves it's own thread: Why is it that the religious--and Xtians especially--equate restriction from using taxpayer money/facilities to indoctrinate with oppression?

I just don't understand how the equivalence can be made. There's no restriction on the practice of religion. There is a restriction that one must use his own resources--not those of the state--to do so. How, exactly, is that "oppressive?"

GaryP

Hell of a good question, feather!!

Godless Dave

Well, one of the requirements for their religion is to evangelize. So if they're not allowed to evangelize whenever and wherever they want they are effectively being prevented from practicing their religion.

I don't think that's a valid argument, but I think it gets at what they're feeling. Most of the time they don't think about it at all, they're just reacting.

Undercurrent

The christian culture places a high value on being oppressed; You're a better person for practicing your faith despite oppression, and overcoming that oppression, than for just being part of a christian society. Being executed for your beliefs makes you especially virtuous.

The worldview draws so much reinforcement from the idea of being oppressed, that in the absense of actual oppression, oppression is manufactured from any mild inconvenience.