The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I thought I made clear, that a great many Christians who thought nothing problematic about converting Jews suddenly found speech offensive when they were the converters. I suspect, by the way, that we agree that harrassment is the wrong word.
I do think religion or anti-religion has no place in the public schools. Schools may teach that progressive taxes are good or that they may be evil. They may teach that the Vietnam War is good or that it was evil. And students must be free to disagree. But schools may neither teach that religion per se or religion in general is good or evil. Thus, I find nothing objectionable in an across the board ban on prolytizing in schools, that Tinker is different partly because Tinker is about political speech. Tnker is also different for a separate reason. Students ought to be permitted to wear various garb identifying themselves as religious. Crosses and stars of david are okay. The line isn't neat, but proslytizing does cross the line. People who go to school are not safe from political ideas, and they must mingle with students who disagree, but schools are religious-free zones. MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/05/04 5:38 PM >>> I'm puzzled. Is Mark genuinely saying that it should be considered harassment -- and thus presumably punishable under hostile environment harassment law (unless Mark agrees with me that hostile environment harassment law is unconstitutional to this extent) -- for people to express the view that Jews should convert to Christianity, or Christians should convert away from Christianity? If this were American Atheists putting up a table expressing the view that religion is irrational, and religious people should become atheists, would that be harassment, too? On the other hand, maybe despite the first sentence, he thinks this doesn't "constitute[] harassment" -- or is constitutionally protected harassment -- but simply shows that people are differentially offended by various viewpoints. You bet. There's no doubt that many people find criticism of Christianity to be offensive. There's also no doubt that many people find expressions of the idea that non-Christians (including Jews) should convert to Christianity to be offensive. I had thought, though, that the First Amendment protected even the expression of offensive ideas (though in K-12 schools, perhaps it might restrict them if there's serious evidence of disruption, beyond the level observed in Tinker). Mark, on the other hand, seems to think that the First Amendment allows and possibly even *requires* the suppression of such ideas in government-run schools. I find it hard to see why; it's not the school that's endorsing (or, as to American Atheists, disapproving of) religion. The school is simply tolerating a viewpoint that some people find offensive. I would think that under Tinker, that's the school's constitutional *duty*, not a constitutional violation. Seriously, Mark, do you really think that if an atheist high school student decides to tell some of his classmates why religion is wrong, and why they should stop believing -- and let's assume he does that politely, and there is indeed no evidence of disruption (because his classmates are decent people who don't start fighting when they hear offensive ideas) -- then the school has a constitutional duty to suppress the speech? Or that if he wears a "Religion is the Opium of the Masses" T-shirt, the school must tell him to take it off? Or even that it has the power to suppress the speech, even when the Tinker requirements aren't satisfied? Eugene _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.