Appropriate to hold political rally at public high school?

[cbelt3]

Dakota wrote:
It is not the use of facilities. It is the captive audience. The difference between holding a rally at a school and bussing students to a political rally is the bus.

Incorrect:
"The event was to have been open to the public, as well as students."

Again... expose children to politics. Let them see their candidates. In 2008 my near-voting age kids went to hear Senator Obama speak. One of them went with a buddy to hear Senator McCain speak. It's a damn good opportunity.

[Acer]

I would imagine that attendance by the students would be optional. Of course, why stay in class or sit in a study hall if you could go to an event like this, if only out of curiosity?

Anyway, 16 year olds may be immature, but they aren't idiots. In fact, they'll be a more skeptical audience than a rally full of sympathetic adults.

[swampy]

RgrF wrote:

What higher public purpose is there than to support the elective process?

I don't know. Perhaps allowing religious groups to use the facility (after hours of course)? Our local schools provide use of a school's assembly area on Sundays for church groups to hold services. These are usually new church groups that do not yet have their own church building.

I have no problem with it.

[hal]

swampy wrote:
[quote=RgrF]

What higher public purpose is there than to support the elective process?

I don't know. Perhaps allowing religious groups to use the facility (after hours of course)? Our local schools provide use of a school's assembly area on Sundays for church groups to hold services. These are usually new church groups that do not yet have their own church building.

I have no problem with it.
The political process is important to every american. Church gatherings only to some. Now, I have no problem with church oriented activities happening on school grounds after hours. But I do want to point out how your post is so very typical of puritanical hubris.

[Mac1337]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
It is not the use of facilities. It is the captive audience. The difference between holding a rally at a school and bussing students to a political rally is the bus.

Incorrect:
"The event was to have been open to the public, as well as students."

Again... expose children to politics. Let them see their candidates. In 2008 my near-voting age kids went to hear Senator Obama speak. One of them went with a buddy to hear Senator McCain speak. It's a damn good opportunity.
Let them see the candidates? Who is preventing them? Candidates make visits all over the place. Why don't you take your kids to see them instead of "bussing" all students from class to the cafeteria.

[Doc]

Dakota wrote:
Let them see the candidates? Who is preventing them? Candidates make visits all over the place. Why don't you take your kids to see them instead of "bussing" all students from class to the cafeteria.

Because I'm working today. 'Got to keep food on the table.

It's so nice when schools shoulder some of the burden of educating our children, isn't it?

[Mac1337]

If you could guarantee that McCain would show up right after Obama I would not have an issue. Until such time, you just have to take some time off and drive your kid to an Obama rally.

[Pops]

Encouraging kids to attend rallies and debates is a laudable goal, for parents and teachers. I still don't think holding such an event in a public school, while in session, is right. Do it in the evening and I'd hope all the kids show up.

And make the politicians pay for the janitorial services, just like the Boy Scouts and church groups have to. Better yet, have the politicians stay and help clean up. They might learn something while in school.

[swampy]

hal wrote:
[quote=swampy]
[quote=RgrF]

What higher public purpose is there than to support the elective process?

I don't know. Perhaps allowing religious groups to use the facility (after hours of course)? Our local schools provide use of a school's assembly area on Sundays for church groups to hold services. These are usually new church groups that do not yet have their own church building.

I have no problem with it.
The political process is important to every american. Church gatherings only to some. Now, I have no problem with church oriented activities happening on school grounds after hours. But I do want to point out how your post is so very typical of puritanical hubris.
Do you even know what the word hubris means? What "gods" did I defy in my post? Oh, wait... the liberal progressives to whom politics has become their religion.

[RgrF]

swampy wrote:
[quote=hal]
[quote=swampy]
[quote=RgrF]

What higher public purpose is there than to support the elective process?

I don't know. Perhaps allowing religious groups to use the facility (after hours of course)? Our local schools provide use of a school's assembly area on Sundays for church groups to hold services. These are usually new church groups that do not yet have their own church building.

I have no problem with it.
The political process is important to every american. Church gatherings only to some. Now, I have no problem with church oriented activities happening on school grounds after hours. But I do want to point out how your post is so very typical of puritanical hubris.
Do you even know what the word hubris means? What "gods" did I defy in my post? Oh, wait... the liberal progressives to whom politics has become their religion.