Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
There are two conflicting statutes at play - the separation of church and state, and the freedom of speech. However, since the separation of church and state's juristiction is more accute, it is defaulted. This is taking place in a public school. The fear is that the teacher is in fact proselytizing. Given that the source is true, (who knows) you cannot blame either side for their opinions because they both have valid points. However, since the right thing to do would be to err on the side of caution, the school wins out. Please, think of the children.
|
Nah. I could imagine either side, given the limited information we have, believing that they are in fact "erring on the side of caution" and "thinking of the children". If the situation is exactly as the plaintiffs have implied and the references to God were all historical, then this is not even a matter of separation of church and state. I would fail to see how censoring religious aspects of history is good for the students, any more than banning Nietzsche or Sartre.
Manx, you presented a very real possibility of the reverse being true, but that's it. As it's been said, information about the reference materials is needed to make any meaningful conclusion about this case.
It's possible for far-right quasi-fascist Christian groups (if that's what we're talking about here) to do good things.