Religion in the classroom. A question.

oslooskar said:
I appreciate your intent to ensure that public colleges and universities foster respectful environments. However, a policy like the one you suggest would enter very dangerous legal territory and infringe on the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, even if that speech is controversial or offensive to some. Any attempt to limit protests based on the specific content of their message—such as targeting race, gender, ethnicity, culture, heritage, or religion—would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that government entities, including public universities, cannot restrict speech based on its content or viewpoint, except in narrowly defined cases like incitement to violence, true threats, or obscenity. There are already laws in place to address these exceptions, such as laws against inciting riots or encouraging illegal actions. These provide a framework to ensure public safety without trampling on free speech rights.

While promoting a culture of respect is important, imposing content-based restrictions would undermine the very freedoms that universities should exemplify and protect. It’s crucial to address harmful speech through dialogue, education, and counter-speech rather than through restrictive policies that could set a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...
There is no right to free speech when the speech causes fear or distress. In that case, it's known as harassment, and there are several laws that protect people from harassment.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits harassment in federally funded programs or activities based on race, color, or national origin.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits harassment in education programs or activities based on sex.

For behavior to be considered harassment under these laws, it typically must be:
  1. Severe or pervasive: Creates a hostile environment.
  2. Targeted: Directed at an individual or group based on a protected characteristic.
  3. Interfering: Denies someone access to education, employment, housing, or safety.
 

HermitHogan said:
There is no right to free speech when the speech causes fear or distress. In that case, it's known as harassment, and there are several laws that protect people from harassment. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits harassment in federally funded programs or activities based on race, color, or national origin. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits harassment in education programs or activities based on sex. For behavior to be considered harassment under these laws, it typically must be:
  1. Severe or pervasive: Creates a hostile environment.
  2. Targeted: Directed at an individual or group based on a protected characteristic.
  3. Interfering: Denies someone access to education, employment, housing, or safety.
Click to expand...

You’re absolutely correct that harassment laws, such as those established under Title VI and Title IX, play a critical role in protecting individuals from behavior that creates a hostile environment based on protected characteristics. However, there are key differences between harassment and protected speech that are important to consider.

The scenarios covered under Title VI and Title IX are very specific. For behavior to legally qualify as harassment, it must meet the threshold of being severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, to the extent that it effectively denies someone equal access to education or other opportunities. Merely offensive or controversial speech does not rise to this level. Courts have been clear that free speech protections extend even to unpopular or distressing ideas, as long as they don’t cross the line into harassment as legally defined.

What you describe—speech that causes fear or distress—may feel like harassment to some, but it doesn’t automatically meet the legal standard for harassment unless it’s directed, severe, and denies access or safety. For example, a protest advocating controversial views or criticizing a particular group is generally protected under the First Amendment, even if it causes distress. The courts have emphasized that public universities, as government entities, have an obligation to uphold these protections.
 
oslooskar said:
You’re absolutely correct that harassment laws, such as those established under Title VI and Title IX, play a critical role in protecting individuals from behavior that creates a hostile environment based on protected characteristics. However, there are key differences between harassment and protected speech that are important to consider.

The scenarios covered under Title VI and Title IX are very specific. For behavior to legally qualify as harassment, it must meet the threshold of being severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, to the extent that it effectively denies someone equal access to education or other opportunities. Merely offensive or controversial speech does not rise to this level. Courts have been clear that free speech protections extend even to unpopular or distressing ideas, as long as they don’t cross the line into harassment as legally defined.

What you describe—speech that causes fear or distress—may feel like harassment to some, but it doesn’t automatically meet the legal standard for harassment unless it’s directed, severe, and denies access or safety. For example, a protest advocating controversial views or criticizing a particular group is generally protected under the First Amendment, even if it causes distress. The courts have emphasized that public universities, as government entities, have an obligation to uphold these protections.
Click to expand...
Sometimes speech we find offensive is just something we need to put up with, such as if a White Supremacist is invited to speak at a college campus. (That has been known to happen; lord only knows why.) In such a case, the White Supremacist often wants violent protests because it elevates his status and makes headline news. What would have otherwise been instantly forgotten becomes a major event.

Then again, free speech goes both ways. Students are free to protest controversial speakers, as long as they don't break the law and start breaking windows and setting fires. The problem is that students are generally young, opinionated, with a lot of energy and often inebriated, so there's a good chance that laws will be broken.
 

HermitHogan said:
Sometimes speech we find offensive is just something we need to put up with, such as if a White Supremacist is invited to speak at a college campus. (That has been known to happen; lord only knows why.) In such a case, the White Supremacist often wants violent protests because it elevates his status and makes headline news. What would have otherwise been instantly forgotten becomes a major event.

Then again, free speech goes both ways. Students are free to protest controversial speakers, as long as they don't break the law and start breaking windows and setting fires. The problem is that students are generally young, opinionated, with a lot of energy and often inebriated, so there's a good chance that laws will be broken.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right that free speech goes both ways, and students have every right to protest controversial speakers. However, the fear that protests might escalate into unlawful behavior cannot be a justification for compromising free speech. Allowing such fears to dictate who can or cannot speak undermines the very foundation of free expression.

Universities must uphold the principle that the answer to offensive speech is more speech—not censorship or suppression. Students have the freedom to protest, but they also bear the responsibility to do so within the bounds of the law. If some choose to break those boundaries, it’s on them, not on the speaker or the principle of free expression itself. Free speech must remain non-negotiable, regardless of the emotional reactions it may provoke.
 
oscash said:
If we all followed the 10 Commandments life would be so much easier.
Click to expand...


If we all followed the general guidelines of any religion life would be much easier. Most can be summed up as Do as you would be done by or Love thy neighbour as yourself.

No problem with rules for living being displayed - either in a secular manner or in the format of many religions

But not singling one out above others.

Here for example are the 5 main rules of Confucious - if we all followed them life would be much easier. The wording and the abstract are different to the 10 Commandments - but the basic principles are not.
Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on good rules.

1. Ren (仁) – Benevolence or humaneness
Ren is the central virtue in Confucianism, representing compassion, empathy, and kindness towards others. Confucius believed that practicing ren would lead to a harmonious society where individuals treated each other with respect and understanding.


2. Yi (义) – Righteousness or justice
Yi emphasizes the importance of doing what is morally right and just. Confucianism teaches that individuals should act with integrity and uphold ethical standards in their interactions with others.


3. Li (礼) – Rituals or propriety
Li refers to the proper conduct and behavior expected in social situations. It includes etiquette, manners, and respect for traditions and customs. Following li helps maintain order and harmony in society.


4. Zhi (智) – Wisdom
Zhi emphasizes the importance of knowledge, learning, and self-improvement. Confucianism encourages individuals to seek wisdom through education and reflection in order to better themselves and contribute to the betterment of society.


5. Xin (信) – Sincerity or trustworthiness
Xin emphasizes the importance of honesty, integrity, and trust in relationships. Confucius believed that individuals should be sincere in their words and actions, and that trust is essential for building strong and lasting connections with others.


In conclusion, the five principles of Confucianism – ren, yi, li, zhi, and xin – provide a moral framework for individuals to lead a virtuous and harmonious life. By following these principles, one can cultivate personal growth, strengthen relationships, and contribute to the well-being of society as a whole.
 
other than the christian specific things like , No other gods and Keeping Sabbath holy - the rules for living are similar in both

Obviously murder, stealing, adultery are not things one would do if one folllowed 'proper conduct and behaviour' and 'acted with integrity and ethical standards' and treated others with 'compassion ad respect' and acted 'trustfully and sincerely'.

The wording isnt the same - but the gist of how to behave is - and if we all followed the above life would be much easier for everyone

or indeed the basic rules for living of any religion
 
Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal my neighbors goat. Well duh?!! Some of us figure this stuff out on our own. While deciding which god, if any, is the real one isn't that harmful to others.
 
dilettante said:
I'm not talking about the kinds of witch hunts the education industry used to weed out voices they didn't approve of. Just standard psychological examinations.

Many professions require one to meet standards for licensing. What's alarming about disqualifying neurotics from such close contact and control over children for so many hours of their lives?
Click to expand...

I am glad you see a potential problem with the psychological invasion of a person's private life.

Teachers experiencing violence at school can experience PTS and acknowledging this and the helpfulness of counseling is a good thing. Impact of Teachers’ Post-Traumatic Stress Due to Violence Victimization: Moderated Mediation Effect of Living a Calling - PMC


​


Remy said:
Some of these university students shouting "from the river to the sea" in the past year didn't know what river or sea was being talking about in that rant. Even I knew that one and I suck at geography.

To me, that was toxic. They were joining in just to belong. To what exactly is a question. I said it before (and probably good I never had kids) but if I had a kid at an expensive college, found out they were doing that, I'd drag them to the car, hit their head like a bad cop and throw them in the back seat.
Click to expand...
We replaced education for independent thinking with "group-think". I am saying we literally changed the way we teach children to think. You can see the cultural change by comparing the original Star Trek with the Next Generation. That would make a good subject to talk about if people understood its importance.
 
The ten commandments are surely the basis of our law systems They are a sound basis to live by for all and yes, should be displayed in schools. Britain is a Christian country, the king is head of the church and we should be proud of our Christianity. Just as other cultures are proud of their religions.
 
Rose65 said:
The ten commandments are surely the basis of our law systems They are a sound basis to live by for all and yes, should be displayed in schools. Britain is a Christian country, the king is head of the church and we should be proud of our Christianity. Just as other cultures are proud of their religions.
Click to expand...
The UK has an "established" church, i.e. a state religion. The US does not and our Constitution explicitly mandates the separation of church and state.
 
The Supreme Court hasn't been very consistent about where the Ten Commandments can be displayed legally.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas state capitol building was constitutional because the monument was part of a larger secular display that had stood without challenge for 40 years.
Here is the ruling

But that same year, the Supreme Court ruled against displaying the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses, finding that that the displays had an improper and religious purpose.
Here is that ruling

The Supreme Court's 1980 Stone v. Graham decision ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms served no educational function and violated the Establishment Clause.
And here is that ruling
 
JustDave said:
Thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, steal my neighbors goat. Well duh?!! Some of us figure this stuff out on our own. While deciding which god, if any, is the real one isn't that harmful to others.
Click to expand...


well yes - that was my point really - good rules for living are things all humans figured out with or without a religious format - hence the general rules of all religions are very similar

They are not something unique to the 10 commandments
 
Rose65 said:
The ten commandments are surely the basis of our law systems They are a sound basis to live by for all and yes, should be displayed in schools. Britain is a Christian country, the king is head of the church and we should be proud of our Christianity. Just as other cultures are proud of their religions.
Click to expand...

A very quick search would show you not all English are Christian at all - there are many people of other religions and many people of no religion

England isnt one culture or one religion

Yes the 10 commandments are good basis for law (minus the christian specific parts like keeping Sabbath holy) - so are the general rules of any religion. Or the general rules without religion.

No reason 10 commandments should be singled out - better just to show the general rules for good living without any specific religion attached.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
The Supreme Court hasn't been very consistent about where the Ten Commandments can be displayed legally.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas state capitol building was constitutional because the monument was part of a larger secular display that had stood without challenge for 40 years.
Here is the ruling

But that same year, the Supreme Court ruled against displaying the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses, finding that that the displays had an improper and religious purpose.
Here is that ruling

The Supreme Court's 1980 Stone v. Graham decision ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms served no educational function and violated the Establishment Clause.
And here is that ruling
Click to expand...
The 2024 court and the 1980 court are miles apart. The 1980 court had 8 of the 9 Justices that ruled on Roe v Wade. So, if this goes to SCOTUS, that 1980 decision isn't at all predictive.
 
Warrigal said:
Education covers a lot more than just the basics of core subjects like the ones you have mentioned but I'll leave that aside.

Each strand of the curriculum is, or should be, clearly defined by a syllabus that must be adhered to. It is the job of the teacher to make sure that the syllabus is faithfully delivered in the teaching program. The students should never know the teacher's opinion on matters religious or political.
Click to expand...
Thank you. In the U.S. the syllabus is a big part of the problem today --in my view.
 
Buckeye said:
The 2024 court and the 1980 court are miles apart. The 1980 court had 8 of the 9 Justices that ruled on Roe v Wade. So, if this goes to SCOTUS, that 1980 decision isn't at all predictive.
Click to expand...

True, there is plenty of evidence that historical decisions are no indicator of what is to come.
 
Buckeye said:
And as an aside, the 10 Commandments predate Christianity by a few thousand years. Some believe that it's just the first codified presentation of these basic ideas that arose from multiple sources.

Kids don't care.
Click to expand...
Would the 9th commandment help them? :)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top