XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.republicans, alt.   
   olitics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.republican, alt.politics.usa.misc, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: us.politics, talk.politics.usa   
   From: linder.one@osu.edu   
      
   Wilson Woods  wrote:   
      
   >Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:   
   >> Wilson Woods  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:   
   >>>> Sarah Austin  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder)  wrote :   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> RichTravsky  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Sarah Austin wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Wilson Woods   wrote :   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Preventing school principals from forcing their religious views   
   >>>>>>>>> on others is not forcing them to do anything - it's preventing   
   >>>>>>>>> them from doing something.   
   >>>>>>>> Free speech isnt "forcing one's views" on anyone, as long as it's   
   >>>>>>>> not done on someone else's private property when they dont want it   
   >>>>>>>> done.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> IOW you cant come preach religion in my living room, free speech   
   >>>>>>>> doesnt apply on my private property.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> It SHOULD however apply on all government property and streets.   
   >>>>>>> Organized religious activities on government property constitutes   
   >>>>>>> endorsement and hence violates the Constitution.   
   >>>>>> Government property or public property?  They aren't synonymous.   
   >>>>> No?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A street corner is "in public" and we're supposed to have free speech.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Do we not also have free speech in a government building too?   
   >>>> I think that would depend upon the government building.  I think its a   
   >>>> slippery subject and doesn't really apply in the broad sense being   
   >>>> discussed here.   
   >>> It's just the wrong question, period.  A teacher or principal does not   
   >>> have a right to teach material that is contrary to the curriculum, and   
   >>> as religious indoctrination and promotion isn't supposed to be part of   
   >>> the curriculum at all, then the teacher's "free speech" rights are not   
   >>> being infringed if he is forbidden from proselytizing students.   
   >>   
   >> I agree that a government employee acting in their official capacity   
   >> should not be proselytizing.   
   >>   
   >> But then what do you about chaplain's in the military?   
   >   
   >That's an interesting issue.  One huge difference is no one forces   
   >military personnel to use chaplains' services; they voluntarily seek   
   >them out.  I expect a lot of frenzied anti-religion people would like to   
   >see the chaplain corps eliminated because they consider it to be an   
   >"establishment" of religion, but I don't think having military chaplains   
   >"establishes" religion any more than having military doctors   
   >"establishes" medicine.   
      
   I would agree.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)