Tamar,

>>Freedom of speech intrinsicly contains the right to offend. That's why I am free to say something that might offend you, or visa versa. Using the notion of "being offended" as a legal justification for restricting speech and the free expressin of different ideas, which is what has essentially happened in today's legal and political circles, has opened a true Pandora's box with no end in sight.
>
>First, let's clarify that there are no legal issues in changing the name of the mission. This was simply of case of courtesy (in which avoiding offending others is a paramount consideration). There are no free speech issues or anything else here.

Oh, I have no problem with the name change at all. I think you and I agree on that point. What I wanted to do was make sure to point out that using 'offense' or 'being offended' is a hugely poor rationale for promoting any given point of view (mine included BTW) and it fails miserably as there will always be someone with an opposing 'offended' point of view. Let's use the rational part of our brains and remember that our emotions lie to us all the time.

Ever haard a noise in the night and gotten frightened only to discover it was a kid or the dog rustling around? Your emotions, when they pumped that adrenelin into your system in preparation of a "fight or flight" scenario totally lied to you. There was no real problem. Emotionas aren't bad; nor are they good. They are - but they often mislead and they do indeed give false readings. Be honest about this and you'll see my point.

Facts can be determined to a much higher degree of accuracy.

>
>Second, I agree with you 100% that free speech includes the right to offend.

Right, but I cannot force you to listen, nor would I wish to. But, I have the right to respond. The problem here is that by forcing God out of schools (for example) the non-God crowd is forcing their POV on those kids who come from a family of faith.

>
>>For example, I am offended that some want to scrub God out of public life. Based on the notion of wanting to avoid offending then I should have my way and God should be back in the public square. But, those in the minority want Him taken out as they as "offended", so He's gone.
>>
>>Why are their rights more important than mine?
>
>Their rights are not more important than yours. Both of you have the right to advocate your own positions and the right to be offended by the positions of others.

Right. However, you know as well as I that this is often the rationale given for exclusion - one way or another. ANd, look at the facts. The non-God crowd has hijacked the learning content via 'offense' and now they are promulgating (forcing) their views on kids. Look, Christian schools are often more intolerant than secular so secular schools aren't the only 'bad guys' here. I'm pretty sure youunderstand that I would like to be as evenhanded as possible but I don't often see that kind of attitude from the opposition - yourself excluded. You've always been a model of civility and that's why I enjoy these discussions with you.

For example, in California there is a huge push (submitted & rejected at least three times) in the stete legislature to outlaw what has been called (poorly) "hate speech". The net result is that pastors will now be prohibited from proclaiming from the pulpit the words of Paul the Apostle where he indicates that fornication, adultery and homosexuality are sins. IOW, it would restrict the right of those in the religious community from speaking their minds. Bad law.

>
>Being offended has nothing to do with the issue of God in public life. That has to do with the question of whether our government (through the use of public funds) advances the aims and beliefs of own religious group. When, for example, public schools required students to say the Lord's Prayer every morning (which Marshal remembers, but I don't), they were advancing (promoting?) Christianity, clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

Sure it does. See the above example. The Bill of Rights has been sorely misinterpreted. It prohibits the federal government from "running" a religion, not from religious people from expressing themselves anywhere they'd like; even in a school or public location. Remember Tamar, this came from the persecution that arose from those who derived their faith from the CHurch of England persecuting Catholics here in the states in such places like Virginia and so forth. Jefferson was IMO absolutely correct that the various faiths should not have the imprimeteur of the federal government. That this should be construed into suggesting that this was a rationale for eliminating the public expression of faith is ludrcrous at best. Remember, the phrase "separation fo church and state" came from a private letter and does not carry the same weight legally as something directly found in the Constitution.

"Fighting Words" are unconstitutional, prayer is not for example.

While I'm not LDS (Mormon) and have some fairly strong disagreements with them in terms of doctrine, I do think they have a good way of dealing with this. They have 'release time' where the kids can go to a church-owned & sponsered building across the street for one period. I think it's one good approach.

Perhaps, for example, one period on Tuesdays and Thursdays where the kids could use a classroom. You'll find, if you dig around, that this is often done for students who are of the Islam faith right now. The ACLU has been strangely quiet here as well they should. It's the Christians they go after more often than not if you look at the evidence, and the reason is deeper than Constitutional. <g>

>
>However, there is nothing that prohibits schools from teaching _about_ religion, nor are individual students prohibited from praying in school, as long as they don't interrupt classes or otherwise, interfere with normal school operation. The same applies to public employees, where the caveat is that prayer must not prevent them or others from doing their jobs.

Well, I personally think that education has been hijacked by the feel-good, no-failures-so-we-do-not-hurt-their-psyche crowd that elevates feelings above facts who hold their positions often without any ability to answer the simple question, "Can you show me someplace your ideas have worked?" crowd.

I want kids who can tell me the same kinds of information as my grandparents could. State capitals, reading at proper age levels, and so forth. Ditch the feel-good existentialist-based (Boy am I offended! Get rid of it now! <g>) garbage.

I'd actually like to see the various religious belief systems taught. Of course, an honest treatment of any of them would lead to howls of anger I suppose as none have clean hands and most are fraught with internal inconsistencies. That would be a real food fight. <g>

>
>You and I have had this conversation, so we each pretty much know where the other stands. I'm not sure we need to rehash it, but I suppose I'm game if you are. <s>
>

*chuckle* That we have sweetheart and I still love you to pieces. I'm just trying to make sure I hold up my end of the discussion. <g>