What is it about the possible resulting incidents that makes them WORSE than limiting the free expression of students in academic environments.
Some students are incredibly emotionally unstable. If everyone were allowed to attempt to convert people and by extent indirectly belittle their religion, you would see a major increase in student suicides unfortunately. Also, drop-out rates could increase.
If everyone were allowed to attempt to convert people and by extent indirectly belittle their religion, you would see a major increase in student suicides unfortunately. Also, drop-out rates could increase.
What is there to say that it is necessarily all or nothing?
The fact that the school in question is a public school means that it's owned by the State Gov't. Our State Gov't answers to the Federal Gov't which says that one in the United States has Freedom of Religion, one of the main pillars that make up the foundation of the country. Back down the ladder, we have the Public School, where, because of the Freedom of Religion, must choose all or nothing when determining religion. Selection of the few would show a preference in a public domain, something that our Separate-Chuch-And-State system forbids.
No, it actually just means that you're equivocating and calling something hate speech on the basis of your own personal disagreement with the message. That's not what hate speech is, and it is your misuse of the term that is leading to the perceived subjectivity.
Obviously you don't quite understand Satanism. In a nutshell, Satanism is the belief that one needs not do anything special other than life and enjoy the self in order to achieve Paradise. The fact that John 3:16 states that men must take time out of their days to worship and, through worship, will achieve Paradise. Satanism states that as long as if the self is happy, one will achieve Paradise. Who are the Divines to judge us? They know not Pain, Poverty, Thirst, Hunger, even Death eludes all but The Son.
To finalize, John 3:16 can, and has, been taken as Hate Speech because it dictates a lesson that totally goes against another. While seen as a Holy and good lesson from one viewpoint is taken as Hate from another. Since you cannot inhabit my body, then you cannot tell if I feel the sting of another's Hate or not, and with that, comes the relativity that spawns from the quite subjective Hate Speech concept.
1) Religion is a personal belief and should not be present in school aside from classes specifically about religion.
WHY should it not be present?
2) Arguments can result about God can prove distracting to the learning environment and foster ill-feelings towards the other party.
This is certainly a possibility, sure, but there's nothing distinguishing it from any other subjective topic of argument. Should there then be no arguments over subjective things in school?
3) They are unnecessary.
Unnecessary to what?
4) It is not conducive to learning purposes, which is the main focus of school.
You've already said something quite similar to this. Also, what shows that religious expression is necessarily not conducive to learning?
5) It has historically been shown to be a very touchy subject.
How is this justification? Westernization in Tsarist Russia was historically a very touchy subject as well, so how does this justification support the banning of religion but not any other historical problem like, for example, westernization in Tsarist Russia.
Experience. Everyone who has been a teenager has experienced the hormonal imbalances that tend to make you moody at best. Imagine if this was compounded with people saying that you were following a false religion, that you weren't normal because you were gay, or simply that you are dirty because you are of religion XYZ. You would be emotionally unstable, and would not be thinking rationally. This could lead to suicide and other, more deadly cases where the bullied teen decides to try and take out his class or the bullies with him.
Despite it looking like a neutral phrase, even when taken out of context, it still preaches a lesson that is heavily dismissed in Satanism. I call it Hate Speech, but you don't. Doesn't this disagreement alone make it all relative?
I don't detect any hate speech in there. If someone sent me a valentines card that mentions allah or something like that as long as it doesn't intentionaly insult me or anyone else i'm okay with it. The person is just trying to be nice. It would be wrong to just censor it just because it has something to do with religion.
Because I shouldn't have to hear you spewing your religious beliefs when they are clearly unwanted. You want to have religion in school? Go to a religious school. However keep it out of my public, government-funded one.
This is certainly a possibility, sure, but there's nothing distinguishing it from any other subjective topic of argument. Should there then be no arguments over subjective things in school?
It's not that. It's because these arguments aren't school sponsored, and they take time out of class, where the subjective arguments are actually assigned by the teacher.
The fact that the school in question is a public school means that it's owned by the State Gov't. Our State Gov't answers to the Federal Gov't which says that one in the United States has Freedom of Religion, one of the main pillars that make up the foundation of the country. Back down the ladder, we have the Public School, where, because of the Freedom of Religion, must choose all or nothing when determining religion. Selection of the few would show a preference in a public domain, something that our Separate-Chuch-And-State system forbids.
I like how you explained our school system to me instead of answering my question. You're assuming that it's all or nothing from the get-go, which is begging the question, and the premise you're begging the question upon is a false dichotomy. This argument just doesn't work.
Obviously you don't quite understand Satanism. In a nutshell, Satanism is the belief that one needs not do anything special other than life and enjoy the self in order to achieve Paradise. The fact that John 3:16 states that men must take time out of their days to worship and, through worship, will achieve Paradise. Satanism states that as long as if the self is happy, one will achieve Paradise. Who are the Divines to judge us? They know not Pain, Poverty, Thirst, Hunger, even Death eludes all but The Son.
I understand Satanism. You, however, do not understand hate speech, nor do you seem to know what I meant when I said that you were equivocating. You're not using the right definition of hate speech, and because of that your argument doesn't work.
Because it can lead to advertising of said religion, is not usually there in the form of academic learning, on occasion and in certain instances directly contradicts what is being taught by the school.
Should there then be no arguments over subjective things in school?
In a debate class, sure. In Biology, no.
Unnecessary to what?
An unnecessary part of the school environment. Which is namely learning of facts and skills which will be used later in life.
Also, what shows that religious expression is necessarily not conducive to learning?
Distractions in class, arguments about it, possible fights, animosity between students...
How is this justification?
In that issues can and do easily arise from this subject.
how does this justification support the banning of religion
When and where did I ever say religion should be banned?
No, he simply has a different perspective on it. A perfect example is the article written about Jeremy Lin's part in the loss of the Knick's game. It was titled, "A ***** in the Armor." Now, Jeremy Lin is Asian. Could he have considered this hate speech? Yes. Did the author? Obviously not.
Because I shouldn't have to hear you spewing your religious beliefs when they are clearly unwanted. You want to have religion in school? Go to a religious school. However keep it out of my public, government-funded one.
It's not like you have to listen. Presence does not equate to it being forced upon you.
Experience.
You're using personal experience as a justification for a statistical effect you said would occur because of this.
It's not that. It's because these arguments aren't school sponsored, and they take time out of class, where the subjective arguments are actually assigned by the teacher.
Not necessarily.
Because it can lead to advertising of said religion, is not usually there in the form of academic learning, on occasion and in certain instances directly contradicts what is being taught by the school.
So it should be totally gone? Also, this argument is still begging the question, so it doesn't really matter too much.
In a debate class, sure. In Biology, no.
I never said anything about debate class vs. biology. This issue goes broader and deeper than that.
An unnecessary part of the school environment. Which is namely learning of facts and skills which will be used later in life.
Discussing religion and dealing with religious advances aren't skills that will be used later in life?
Distractions in class, arguments about it, possible fights, animosity between students...
These are some possible consequences. I asked what about religious expression is NECESSARILY not conducive to learning. How people treat their freedoms is another story.
When and where did I ever say religion should be banned?
What I meant is kinda obvious I thought, sorry. How does this justification support that religious expression should be banned in schools is what I was asking.
No, he simply has a different perspective on it. A perfect example is the article written about Jeremy Lin's part in the loss of the Knick's game. It was titled, "A ***** in the Armor." Now, Jeremy Lin is Asian. Could he have considered this hate speech? Yes. Did the author? Obviously not.
Perspective is irrelevant. It's not entirely subjective. I've said this already, multiple times.
It's not like you have to listen. Presence does not equate to it being forced upon you.
No, I don't have to listen. However, if I am trying to do school work, and this moron next to me is blabbering about how "Jesus is awesome," I am going to be distracted, and offended that no matter how many times I tell this kid I'm not interested, he keeps yammering on.
So it should be totally gone? Also, this argument is still begging the question, so it doesn't really matter too much.
I don't care if you are discussing religion with your friends during school. I have issue with it when you force it on someone who doesn't want to have it forced upon them.
I never said anything about debate class vs. biology. This issue goes broader and deeper than that.
You asked if subjective arguments should be allowed. I said that in certain areas, yes. I do not see a broader or deeper meaning than this.
Discussing religion and dealing with religious advances aren't skills that will be used later in life?
They are, but there's a time and place for learning these skills. School currently does not allocate time to this though. If a class was made for it, I would see no issue.
I asked what about religious expression is NECESSARILY not conducive to learning.
If for example someone wore a "The bible says Evolution is false" t-shirt to Biology class, and then tried to persuade all the students in the classroom that what the teacher is saying is false. That's not conducive to learning.
How does this justification support that religious expression should be banned in schools is what I was asking.
I don't think it should be banned. I think people should be allowed to wear symbols of faith and such things. I do also however think that if they're going to be obnoxious about it (evangelizing in the hallway, accosting people of other faiths) then such behavior should not be allowed. There are differences between expression and trying to shove it down everyone else's throats. There's also a time and place for it. To starting argument, I don't think that including verses from a religious text is appropriate in a valentine because of before-mentioned reasons.
