"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools
then, by definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize
of religion.

So you would let pedophiles proselytize in gov't schools in the free
exercise of their speech?

Um, yes, if they met the requirements of being able to speak in a
public school (remember, the original context was with pupils being
able to express themselves). We already permit gay and lesbian
teachers, and readings of "Sally Has Two Mommies".

My ACTUAL view is that schools should prohibit that which falls
outside contemporary community standards (we already do that with
obscenity). But as long as the current rule is "anything goes," why
should religion be excluded?


In your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to
spreading their word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to
avoid offending the irreligious.

irreligious? big difference between being irreligious and
non-religious or especially non-xian, but I bet you would be just as
offended if your xian child was subjected to the very same
proselytizing by muslims or jews in your "gov't" school.

No, I wouldn't. My religion teaches that what God wants is righteous
conduct. To the degree that such proselytizing strengthens the faith -
and conduct - of the preacher, it's a Good Thing(tm). My kids won't be
affected by it. Nor insulted. We'll wish the Christians well and
success in their endeavors.

I'll admit I'm confused by your terminology; what's the difference
between "irreligious" and "non-religious?"

Just asking.

I like that phrase "righteous conduct". I will use it too. In my view
righteous conduct doesn't mandate any religion or view except being a
"good person"™


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid