Valedictorian Files Suit Over 'Jesus' Speech

[triadboy]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/14009954/detail.html

"We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don’t already know him personally I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with him."

They should take away her diploma for believing such crap....oh yeah...I guess they did.

[Temporal Renegade]

I wonder how any Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist students automatically dropped their old belief system and picked up the Banner of Christ from her little speech. Not many, I'd guess.

[Ryokan]

Overreaction much?

I don't really see the problem with her speech.

[Temporal Renegade]

I just noticed that Erica Corder (the person involved in the speech) now works for the Liberty Council in Florida, which is 'dedicated to advancing religious freedom'.

Funny, with all the 'religious' people working in Washington, I still wonder where their 'rights' are being so blatantly violated...

[KingMerv00]

First off, I am the most athiest atheist of all...

What the hell was the school hoping to achieve by taking away her diploma? Even if I agree that she shouldn't say things like that at a graduation, I'm not sure how holding her diploma makes the situation any better. Feelings were hurt, milk was spilt. Wah. Now suck it up and move on with life.

[ponderingturtle]

First off, I am the most athiest atheist of all...

What the hell was the school hoping to achieve by taking away her diploma? Even if I agree that she shouldn't say things like that at a graduation, I'm not sure how holding her diploma makes the situation any better. The milk is spilt. Suck it up and move on with life.

So there should be no recourse, and thus no need to approve speaches for school graduations? THe only recourse should be for slander?

If you have no way to enforce a rule, you can not have a rule.

[quixotecoyote]

She broke the rules. All she has to do is apologize for breaking the rule and she gets the diploma. Heck, even doesn't even have to apologize, she just has to ACKNOWLEDGE she broke the rule.

Schools need to be able to enforce some standards for what is allowed during student speeches. This is not an issue about religion, but about a deliberate violation of school policy and the resultant consequences.

[ksbluesfan]

If Jesus was such an important part of my life that I couldn't follow the rules established by a public school, I would probably go to a Christian school, but that's just me.

[Temporal Renegade]

She broke the rules. All she has to do is apologize for breaking the rule and she gets the diploma. Heck, even doesn't even have to apologize, she just has to ACKNOWLEDGE she broke the rule.

Schools need to be able to enforce some standards for what is allowed during student speeches. This is not an issue about religion, but about a deliberate violation of school policy and the resultant consequences.

If she didn't think it would be a problem, why did she slip it into the final speech, and not in the rehearsals?

[george@etcorngods.co]

About ten years ago, my daughter was upset at a prayer being said at a University of Del Engineering event. She wrote a letter to the President of the school. I thought they wouldn't do anything, but the President wrote all professors and dept heads and said from then on, there would be no expression of religion at any school event, including prayer.
My kids went to many schools (Univ of Mich, Cornell, Syracuse, etc.). None of them could hold a candle to Univ of Del -- a very fair school where the student comes first with all who teach and administer.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

First off, I am the most athiest atheist of all...


Wow. I knew there were different levels of x-ians but to be the "most atheist atheist". :D

[KingMerv00]

So there should be no recourse, and thus no need to approve speaches for school graduations? THe only recourse should be for slander?

If you have no way to enforce a rule, you can not have a rule.

I'm not so much attacking their rule as the practical outcome of their actions. They might as well have set up a cross on the football field so she could at least martyr herself properly. I say don't throw her into the briar patch.

Besides, the "damage" was so minor that enforcing the rule in this case was bound to cause more trouble than it is worth. Part of enforcing the rules is being judicious.

That isn't to say there aren't ANY circumstances I wouldn't withold a diploma.

[quixotecoyote]

If she didn't think it would be a problem, why did she slip it into the final speech, and not in the rehearsals?

That's where the deliberate violation comes in. If she had tried to put it in at rehearsal and been told no, THEN she would have a legitimate freedom of speech issue. But she didn't, so we don't know whether it would have been or could have been made permissible. The fact that she broke school policy in making her speech rather than following school policy and being suppressed means that the blame falls on her rather than the school.

If the school had actually engaged in religious discrimination that would be a problem. From all the evidence available, it didn't.

[MWare]

Do schools really have 15 valedictorians these days? Doesn't that detract a little bit from the honor? Is it so they can get lots of kids into Ivy Leagues?

[articulett]

Would the people supporting this girls right to free speech support my right to say the perfectly secular comment that I owe my success from learning that faith and feelings are bad ways to find the truth and not to trust anyone who makes you feel guilty about asking questions as chances are they are lying to you or themselves?

I was a Valedictorian and an atheist, but somehow I don't think my rights to free speech would have been as loudly supported by those who support this girl. Yet, such a speech would have violated no church-state laws.

This is the problem with the whole notion that religion is special and deserves special respect. If the girl was a wiccan or satanist crediting her beliefs to her success, then I think the fundies would be far less interested in her free speech. Freedom of speech and separation of church and state is an important way to keep peoples "magical higher laws" from gettig special privilege. Sure, it doesn't convert anyone... but it should be no more tolerated than the examples above and less tolerated than my example (which I'd be too chicken to give) of a perfectly secular speech.

[KingMerv00]

Wow. I knew there were different levels of x-ians but to be the "most atheist atheist". :D

Read what I typed carefully. I was poking fun at the common mispelling of "atheist".

[Temporal Renegade]

That's where the deliberate violation comes in. If she had tried to put it in at rehearsal and been told no, THEN she would have a legitimate freedom of speech issue. But she didn't, so we don't know whether it would have been or could have been made permissible. The fact that she broke school policy in making her speech rather than following school policy and being suppressed means that the blame falls on her rather than the school.

If the school had actually engaged in religious discrimination that would be a problem. From all the evidence available, it didn't.


Man, I gotta say, one day this country's going to be PACKED with lawyers, all specializing in free speech cases, skirting the rules and thinking they're more special than anyone else. :D

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not so much attacking their rule as the practical outcome of their actions. They might as well have set up a cross on the football field so she could at least martyr herself properly. I say don't throw her into the briar patch.

Besides, the "damage" was so minor that enforcing the rule in this case was bound to cause more trouble than it is worth. Part of enforcing the rules is being judicious.

That isn't to say there aren't ANY circumstances I wouldn't withold a diploma.

Her arguement is I knowingly broke the rules, and because of free speach I should be able to say what ever I want. Her entire arguement is wrong.

[pgwenthold]

This is all, as far as I know, settled law. Students do not have a right to preach religion at commencement ceremonies in public schools. That has been ruled clearly by the USSC, as far as I know. The school was acting properly to prohibit it, and she violated those rules, which are designed to conform to the law.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Read what I typed carefully. I was poking fun at the common mispelling of "atheist".

I noticed that. I found it humorous to think of different levels of atheists.

Considering all the posts on here of what a "real" x-ian is.

[Oubliette]

Originally Posted by Temporal Renegade
If she didn't think it would be a problem, why did she slip it into the final speech, and not in the rehearsals?


That's where the deliberate violation comes in. If she had tried to put it in at rehearsal and been told no, THEN she would have a legitimate freedom of speech issue. But she didn't, so we don't know whether it would have been or could have been made permissible. The fact that she broke school policy in making her speech rather than following school policy and being suppressed means that the blame falls on her rather than the school.

If the school had actually engaged in religious discrimination that would be a problem. From all the evidence available, it didn't.

Agree. :)

[tsg]

Do schools really have 15 valedictorians these days? Doesn't that detract a little bit from the honor? Is it so they can get lots of kids into Ivy Leagues?

Technically, a valedictory is a farewell speech, and a valedictorian is the person delivering that speech. Traditionally, the person chosen to be valedictorian was, and hence has become synonymous with, the highest ranking student in the class, but it isn't strictly necessary that it be the case.

15 of them seems a bit much, however.

[quixotecoyote]

Technically, a valedictory is a farewell speech, and a valedictorian is the person delivering that speech. Traditionally, the person chosen to be valedictorian was, and hence has become synonymous with, the highest ranking student in the class, but it isn't strictly necessary that it be the case.

15 of them seems a bit much, however.

It happens most often in schools that have done away with weighted grading practices. An A is and A is an A is an A. Thus Every all-A student is a valedictorian.

[Quinn]

First off, I am the most athiest atheist of all...


Them's fightin' words 'round these parts.

[tsg]

It happens most often in schools that have done away with weighted grading practices. An A is and A is an A is an A. Thus Every all-A student is a valedictorian.

That had occurred to me after I had posted. But 15 is still too many. They should have a steel cage match to decide the winner.

[drkitten]

But 15 is still too many. They should have a steel cage match to decide the winner.

Yeah, 'cause nerds like that are so well-equipped to handle cage matches. Why not a spelling bee instead?

[tsg]

Yeah, 'cause nerds like that are so well-equipped to handle cage matches. Why not a spelling bee instead?

Because I don't really care who wins. I just want to see a brawl.

[fuelair]

Overreaction much?

I don't really see the problem with her speech.
Sorry but I consider it a blatent and purposeful slap at every non-xtian in the audience and most of the normal xtians. Either she is an idiot, a zealot or a purposeful troublemaker. Any of those should have disqualified her from graduation

[triadboy]

Overreaction much?

You're the third post!?! :)

I don't really see the problem with her speech.

I started this thread because I thought it was funny...in a sad way.

Here you have a valedictorian - someone who, it is thought, loves knowledge. And yet in her valedictorian speech(!) - she proposes that "belief" in the story of a crucified god-man who lived in the Middle East 2000 years ago will ensure everlasting life. And then in a veiled threat

"...I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with him."

She informs her classmates (and everyone listening) that they've been warned and if they fail to heed her words - they will spend eternity burning in hell.

Now c'mon that's funny...but in a sad way.

[triadboy]

Besides, the "damage" was so minor..

She threatened the entire audience! :)

[articulett]

I wonder how any Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist students automatically dropped their old belief system and picked up the Banner of Christ from her little speech. Not many, I'd guess.

I wonder how the religious liberty crowed would have felt if her religion had been satanism and she credited him for her diligence and ruthlessness... somehow I don't she'd convert anyone... but I bet none of the faith heads would be screaming about her being discriminated against because of her religion.

[Miss Anthrope]

I really think that if she'd simply thanked God and left it at that, no one would have had a problem with it.

[The Atheist]

First off, I am the most athiest atheist of all...


Hey! That's my line!


Is this why USA has so many churches? That the banning of stuff like this causes a desire to be part of it? Maybe, you should try encouraging kids to talk about their friend Jesus all the time - most of the kids would get bored out of their pants and never go near a church.

I find it difficult to understand why she can't make a statement like that - I would have thought that rules of free speech would apply, given that it's the kid's right to say something. Isn't denying an area of speech somewhat against the Constitution? If a kid at a public school in NZ made a speech like that, they'd probably be laughed off the stage.

[Elind]

Minor, trivial whatever. However what it was was disrespectful to the rules (she could have fought much earlier to have them changed.

At least that would have been an expression of principle), and it was disrespectful to all the listeners (who thought little of this 2000 year old execution) who had come for a day of pride for themselves and their children, not to listen to yet another fundie wanting to impose their superstition on the planet.

Clueless disrespect is what it amounted to.

Taking away her diploma probably serves nothing, but it should have had, "You have no respect" stamped across the front.

[JoeEllison]

She's a creep and a scumbag. She lacks discipline, respect, and basic decency.

[articulett]

She threatened the entire audience! :)

with inferred eternal damnation.

(kiss jesus' ass or he'll torture you forever--he died for you, you wretched scumbags.)

[Meadmaker]

She's a creep and a scumbag. She lacks discipline, respect, and basic decency.

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks pleas for "discipline, respect, and basic decency" are dimished when preceeded by "creep" and "scumbag"?

[KingMerv00]

Her arguement is I knowingly broke the rules, and because of free speach I should be able to say what ever I want. Her entire arguement is wrong.

Part of enforcing the rules is balancing cost and benefit. Not every speeder on the highway gets a ticket.

[wollery]

If the school hadn't taken action against her then it would have been very hard for them to ever take action against such things in the future.

Mention of god is okay, but as soon as she started to evangelise she was breaking the rules, and she knew it. Her case shouldn't have a hope of winning.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

First off, I am the most athiest atheist of all...

What the hell was the school hoping to achieve by taking away her diploma? Even if I agree that she shouldn't say things like that at a graduation, I'm not sure how holding her diploma makes the situation any better. Feelings were hurt, milk was spilt. Wah. Now suck it up and move on with life.

My guess: they wanted to punish her but, what do you know, she has technically already left. So the only repercussion left to give was to keep her diploma.

If I were principal, I'd change the policy on not giving detention to students who had already left the school instead.

What self-righteous chutzpah. I'd immediatly peg her for one of those bratty Paris Hilton types who makes everyone's life miserable in high school but she personally seems pleasant enough in this clip: http://cbs4denver.com/seenon/local_story_240165930.html

[Meadmaker]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

What do school administrators think when they ask someone to present their speech before the ceremony? This is my last possibility to censor these young adults before they are officially free? I think a school administrator should tell the chosen speakers at the ceremony, "I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."

[triadboy]

Mention of god is okay, but as soon as she started to evangelise she was breaking the rules, and she knew it.

Isn't it ironic that the act of evangelizing dooms people to hell?

[thaiboxerken]

Overreaction much?

I don't really see the problem with her speech.

Let them have an inch and they'll take a mile.

[thaiboxerken]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

The problem here is that if they let one get away with this, then they have to let all get away with it. First, this girl does a Jesus speech. Next year, a kid does a Muslim prayer and then the Christians will get upset. Then some Scientologist takes stage and talks about Hubbard and more people get upset. This kind of evangelism on the pulpit of public schools only serves to create an environment of religious tension. If some kid got up there and say "there is no god, and those who believe in a god are delusional" you know damn well that there would be a Christian uproar.

Public schools should be free from the tension that religion and superstition can bring about in most people.

[JoeEllison]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?


Yeah, so if they want to be racist or sexist or bigoted, they "earned" the right to it.

Apologists are always wrong, but usually not as pathetic.

[Meadmaker]

If some kid got up there and say "there is no god, and those who believe in a god are delusional" you know damn well that there would be a Christian uproar.

And?

Public schools should be free from the tension that religion and superstition can bring about in most people.


I know whenever someone tells me that my speech will be censored, I just feel the tension melt away.

[Complexity]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks pleas for "discipline, respect, and basic decency" are dimished when preceeded by "creep" and "scumbag"?


It is just you and you are the only one...

[The Atheist]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

What do school administrators think when they ask someone to present their speech before the ceremony? This is my last possibility to censor these young adults before they are officially free? I think a school administrator should tell the chosen speakers at the ceremony, "I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."

Gets my vote.

[articulett]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks pleas for "discipline, respect, and basic decency" are dimished when preceeded by "creep" and "scumbag"?

It might be due to your bias. Would you ask the same question if the girl had praised her wiccan beliefs and said that her success has to do with not trusting anyone who claims to speak for god?

[The Atheist]

Yeah, so if they want to be racist or sexist or bigoted, they "earned" the right to it.

Apologists are always wrong, but usually not as pathetic.

Hint: If you're equating a girl talking about her invisible friend Jesus with racism and sexism, it's not the girl who has the problem.

;)

[JoeEllison]

Hint: If you're equating a girl talking about her invisible friend Jesus with racism and sexism, it's not the girl who has the problem.

;)

Clearly, it is YOU that has the problem.

[The Atheist]

with inferred eternal damnation.

(kiss jesus' ass or he'll torture you forever--he died for you, you wretched scumbags.)

Arti's favourite strawman of religion - believe or burn in hell. Funny that the girl never mentioned damnation, torture or hell, but why bother with facts?

It might be due to your bias...

Whose bias?

[articulett]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

What do school administrators think when they ask someone to present their speech before the ceremony? This is my last possibility to censor these young adults before they are officially free? I think a school administrator should tell the chosen speakers at the ceremony, "I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."

And this applies for the Satanist and atheist too, right? And the Muslim fundamentalist? How about the kid who talks about his astrology signs being right and then putting in a quick ad for his favorite astrologist should anyone want similar success. Somehow, I think that the "freedom of speech crowd" wants freedom for their wackiness and violation of church state--but they would be pissed if those who believed differently did. They'd be really pissed if someone gave a particularly secular legal speech saying she attributed atheism for her success. Somehow, I don't think you'd be all apologetic and flowery as you are in this case. Wonder why? Double (ahem) standard?

[The Atheist]

Clearly, it is YOU that has the problem.

Yeah, mea culpa, fancy thinking that having an invisible friend which comforts people's delusions is not as bad as racism.

Never mind, with all of the anti-theism around here, you can always hope that it's contagious.

[articulett]

If the school hadn't taken action against her then it would have been very hard for them to ever take action against such things in the future.

Mention of god is okay, but as soon as she started to evangelise she was breaking the rules, and she knew it. Her case shouldn't have a hope of winning.

And if it does, then I hope it becomes a free for all with praises of Allah, Satan, and Hitler if that's what people credit for their discipline or success... But I especially hope it will give atheist students a chance to speak out in bold proclamation because they have been silenced and their speech on the topic WOULD be legal.

[JoeEllison]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks pleas for "discipline, respect, and basic decency" are dimished when preceeded by "creep" and "scumbag"?Just you.

Otherwise, we can say that respect and basic decency are a default position, unless someone earns the names "creep" and "scumbag". This person gave a speech disrespectful of others, so earned being called a "creep".

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, mea culpa, fancy thinking that having an invisible friend which comforts people's delusions is not as bad as racism.

Never mind, with all of the anti-theism around here, you can always hope that it's contagious.
Clearly, your form of dishonesty is spreading.

[JoeEllison]

Arti's favourite strawman of religion - believe or burn in hell. Funny that the girl never mentioned damnation, torture or hell, but why bother with facts?



Whose bias?Certainly, YOU never bother with facts, as your posts bear out.

[articulett]

Just you.

Otherwise, we can say that respect and basic decency are a default position, unless someone earns the names "creep" and "scumbag". This person gave a speech disrespectful of others, so earned being called a "creep".

Well, not just him... I'm sure a heap of apologists and Christian hypocrites would see it exactly his way. Thankfully, we don't have a lot of them on this forum. :)

In their world-- all criticism of religion is bad and everything having to do with certain brands of faith is just peachy and no big deal and deserving of their kiss ass deference as well as their judgment upon those who disagree.

[Meadmaker]

It might be due to your bias. Would you ask the same question if the girl had praised her wiccan beliefs and said that her success has to do with not trusting anyone who claims to speak for god?
Did she call anyone a creep or a scumbag?

[JoeEllison]

Well, not just him... I'm sure a heap of apologists and Christian hypocrites would see it exactly his way. Thankfully, we don't have a lot of them on this forum. :)

In their world-- all criticism of religion is bad and everything having to do with certain brands of faith is just peachy and no big deal and deserving of their kiss ass deference as well as their judgment upon those who disagree.
Yeah, but since it is always weak and pathetic and parroting of the same old nonsense, it may as well be just the one person...

[JoeEllison]

Did she call anyone a creep or a scumbag?
Nope, she was "just" a religious bigot, a point I doubt you'd ever be honest enough to accept.

[Meadmaker]

And this applies for the Satanist and atheist too, right? And the Muslim fundamentalist? How about the kid who talks about his astrology signs being right and then putting in a quick ad for his favorite astrologist should anyone want similar success.

Let's see if there can be any hints found in what I wrote:


"I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."


I think the key feature of this hypothetical principal is that he isn't going to listen to the speeches of his students prior to their presentation, unless the students (I should say graduates. They are no longer his students.) specifically invite him to do so. It would have to apply to Satanists, atheists, Muslims, astologists, racists, communists, hedonists and any other ist you can think of, because there would be no way for the administrator to know what was about to be said.

[articulett]

Did she call anyone a creep or a scumbag?

nah...just the ugly notion that an all loving god killed his son for them-- inferred wretchedness. But nobody else was being a creep and a scumbag by lying for Jesus at the event. Nothing like "higher laws" to bring out the creepiness and scumbagginess in the name of "love" and "truth".

If I recall, Joe called her a creep and scumbag on a Skeptics forum--she preached her delusion at a public school event. Just a bit of difference, Mr. doublestandard.

[articulett]

Yeah, but since it is always weak and pathetic and parroting of the same old nonsense, it may as well be just the one person...

Yep... same old naked emperor... same delusion... same deference... same smoke and mirrors to pretend religion is good and those who criticize it are bad. tsk tsk tsk.

[JoeEllison]

nah...just the ugly notion that an all loving god killed his son for them-- inferred wretchedness. But nobody else was being a creep and a scumbag by lying for Jesus at the event. Nothing like "higher laws" to bring out the creepiness and scumbagginess in the name of "love" and "truth".

If I recall, Joe called her a creep and scumbag on a Skeptics forum--she preached her delusion at a public school event. Just a bit of difference, Mr. doublestandard.That's exactly right. I wouldn't be so rude and disrespectful and indecent as to turn a completely NON-RELIGIOUS OCCASION into a forum to tell other people how very wrong it is for them to believe whatever nonsensical superstition floats their boat.

I've had tons of public speaking opportunities, including speaking in front of my fellow students in public schools. At no point did I assume I was there to weigh in on my personal beliefs on unrelated matters. A high school graduation is not the proper forum to tell people who disagree with you on religious matters that they are on the wrong path.

[articulett]

Let's see if there can be any hints found in what I wrote:


"I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."


I think the key feature of this hypothetical principal is that he isn't going to listen to the speeches of his students prior to their presentation, unless the students (I should say graduates. They are no longer his students.) specifically invite him to do so. It would have to apply to Satanists, atheists, Muslims, astologists, racists, communists, hedonists and any other ist you can think of, because there would be no way for the administrator to know what was about to be said.

As I said... I was a Valedictorian... they made me give them a copy of my speech beforehand--I presume it's part of the policy to ensure public school appropriateness and plan time limits and the general order of the assembly. I'm also sure that if had I done the much more legal thing in my speech by attributing my success to discovering faith is a bad way to know anything true-- that you and those who advocate for this girl's right to "free speech" would have a different take on the issue. I know for damn sure you'd be less sympathetic had the girl praised Allah or Satan or Nazi discipline tactics. And why would that be? Or are you are pretending you'd act the same or that the situations are completely different?

Freedom of speech isn't just for people who agree with you and separation of church and state includes even religions you find "harmless". I notice that your religious freedom issues only tend to surface when it's Christianity that is the religion trying to exercise it.

[JoeEllison]

Yep... same old naked emperor... same delusion... same deference... same smoke and mirrors to pretend religion is good and those who criticize it are bad. tsk tsk tsk.

Somehow, though, we remain strong enough to fight it. Thank goodness someone bothers...

[JoeEllison]

As I said... I was a Valedictorian... they made me give them a copy of my speech beforehand--I presume it's part of the policy to ensure public school appropriateness. I'm sure that if had I done the much more legal thing in my speech by attributing my success to discovering faith is a bad way to know anything true-- that you and those who advocate for this girl's right to "free speech" would have a different take on the issue. I know for damn sure you'd be less sympathetic had the girl praised Allah or Satan or Nazi discipline tactics. And why would that be? Or are you are pretending you'd act the same or that the situations are completely different?

Freedom of speech isn't just for people who agree with you and separation of church and state includes even religions you find "special".
It is just the same old lying, isn't it? Over and over, as though no one notices.

[Meadmaker]

It might be due to your bias. Would you ask the same question if the girl had praised her wiccan beliefs and said that her success has to do with not trusting anyone who claims to speak for god?


Did I ever mention that I am a founding member of the Pagan Illini?

[JoeEllison]

Did I ever mention that I am a founding member of the Pagan Illini?

Bill O'Reilly insists that he's an "independent."

[articulett]

Did I ever mention that I am a founding member of the Pagan Illini?

Not that I recall... I just notice that you pop in to offer apologetics for assorted Christians and christian creationists and flog those who criticize them at every opportunity. You seem to have a radar of demonization tuned to those who criticize christian dishonesty while having a blind spot that keeps you from calling such dishonesty for what it is.

[thaiboxerken]

I know whenever someone tells me that my speech will be censored, I just feel the tension melt away.

Public schools are not free speech zones.

[thaiboxerken]

Not that I recall...

Meadmaker is the christian who isn't a christian. He finds no wrong in the Christian religion but doesn't claim to be Christian.

[The Atheist]

Certainly, YOU never bother with facts, as your posts bear out.

Really? Cite examples then.

Cheers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

What do school administrators think when they ask someone to present their speech before the ceremony? This is my last possibility to censor these young adults before they are officially free? I think a school administrator should tell the chosen speakers at the ceremony, "I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."So if some Valedictorian got up and pitched Amway products you'd find that acceptable? Essentially it was a sales pitch. Money gets exchanged later at the church.

How about if they got up and Bush bashed for 10 minutes or praised Hitler and denied the holocaust? There are many things most people would find objectionable. But in this case the school actually has a law to enforce or they could lose federal funding. So even if the administrators were empathetic, they wouldn't technically have the authority to just break the law.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Does nobody else think the student has completely engineered this situation? She knew what she was doing was going to force the school to do something and she knew she would get her 15 minutes of fame out of it (and maybe a nice cheque in the mail too)

She wants the school to acknowledge what they did was wrong and yet she was the one who broke the rules? She didn't challenge the rules at any time before making the speech, seems she was fairly happy with them until she saw her opportunity to make a name for herself. Meanwhile the school will have to pay the legal bills to defend the case. Thank the-absence-of-God the schools are rolling in money to be able to pay for her vanity.

[Meadmaker]

Gets my vote.

I'm always puzzled that it doesn't get more. What part of "liberal" do the others not understand?

[PenguinWarrior]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

What do school administrators think when they ask someone to present their speech before the ceremony? This is my last possibility to censor these young adults before they are officially free? I think a school administrator should tell the chosen speakers at the ceremony, "I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."

I agree with this, and am somewhat surprised at the reaction in here, actually. And yes, I would support the rights of students to say anything they like within the law (I.e. No threats or slander etc) whether they want to talk about the damage faith does, or Amway or Scientology or Hitler or how the tiny leprechaun who is living in their earlobe was a constant companion and inspiration thyrough the hard times. And frankly if they got up and bashed Bush, I'd lead the standing ovation, but that's a political matter. Why shouldn't they be allowed to say whatever's on their mind? Schools should not impose religious or political opinions on their students, but they doesn't mean students shouldn't be allowed to hold religious or political ideals whilst in schools. Frankly, witholding the diploma is silly and is just going to inflame tensions and make those who (laughably, given social conditions in the US) complain that Christians are being oppressed more angry.

Now this isn't to say that what she said was right, or that the speech was appropriate for the occasion (and it is certainly not to say that about the counter examples, such as Holocaust deniers). It is not even to say that she was within school rules to make the speech as she did. It is just to say that I see no sense in restricting freedom of speech in this way and frankly I find the tendency of (even otherwise intelligent) people in general to want to restrict freedom of speech (beyond the sensible necessities of slander, threats, plotting or inciting criminal acts etc) to be a massively frustrating and depressing fact of political life in the twenty first century. Surely we should have accepted this by now? (NB: These remarks are not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread, or even at the reaction in this thread in general, but at the sadly numerous members of the public who still support censorship. Unless it's THEM being censored of course). But this is wandering away from the main point. If you don't want someone to speak their mind, don't invite them to give a speech.

[JoeEllison]

Does nobody else think the student has completely engineered this situation? She knew what she was doing was going to force the school to do something and she knew she would get her 15 minutes of fame out of it (and maybe a nice cheque in the mail too)

She wants the school to acknowledge what they did was wrong and yet she was the one who broke the rules? She didn't challenge the rules at any time before making the speech, seems she was fairly happy with them until she saw her opportunity to make a name for herself. Meanwhile the school will have to pay the legal bills to defend the case. Thank the-absence-of-God the schools are rolling in money to be able to pay for her vanity.Yep... that's what the Liars for Jesus do. They intentionally break rules, and then pretend to be victims. Scumbags, every last one of them.

[Meadmaker]

So if some Valedictorian got up and pitched Amway products you'd find that acceptable? Essentially it was a sales pitch. Money gets exchanged later at the church.

How about if they got up and Bush bashed for 10 minutes or praised Hitler and denied the holocaust? There are many things most people would find objectionable.

The reaction I would have to your examples would be to find them anywhere from tacky to loathesome. This girl's speech falls into the tacky category

When you let people have freedom, the results aren't always pretty. Handing a microphone to a seventeen year old and saying, "This is yours to do with as you will." carries a certain degree of risk. No guts, no glory, I say.

[JoeEllison]

Is there anything a Christian will do in the name of their religion that the apologists WON'T defend??

[SomeGuy]

I am so happy I wasn't the Valedictorian after her....

They would also not have been able to give me my diploma...

[ponderingturtle]

My guess: they wanted to punish her but, what do you know, she has technically already left. So the only repercussion left to give was to keep her diploma.

If I were principal, I'd change the policy on not giving detention to students who had already left the school instead.

What self-righteous chutzpah. I'd immediatly peg her for one of those bratty Paris Hilton types who makes everyone's life miserable in high school but she personally seems pleasant enough in this clip: http://cbs4denver.com/seenon/local_story_240165930.html


And how do you make them show up? They demanded an apology and did the only thing that they could do, hold her diploma back.

But apologizing for breaking rules in such a willful manor is against free speech I guess

[ponderingturtle]

The way I see it, the speaker at a commencement ceremony has earned the right to say whatever she wants for whatever period of time she is granted to say it. What are we afraid of, letting people actually speak? Letting the community get a look at the genuine product of our educational system?

What do school administrators think when they ask someone to present their speech before the ceremony? This is my last possibility to censor these young adults before they are officially free? I think a school administrator should tell the chosen speakers at the ceremony, "I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."


She has free speech, the school thought is not obligated to give her a platform to reach more people.

[ponderingturtle]

I know whenever someone tells me that my speech will be censored, I just feel the tension melt away.

Then don't give a speech. If you can not abide by the rules of the organization that you are speaking to puts in, then you shouldn't be giving a speech for them.

You are claiming the right to be a jackass and not have any repercussions for it, not a free speech right.

[ponderingturtle]

Hint: If you're equating a girl talking about her invisible friend Jesus with racism and sexism, it's not the girl who has the problem.

;)

So you do not defend a right for really free speech at this sort of event then. If it is a free speech issue then racist and sexist remarks should not be punnished.

[ponderingturtle]

Let's see if there can be any hints found in what I wrote:


"I have no need to hear your speeches, because my time to pass judgement on you is over. You are an adult now. The audience will judge you as an adult. If anyone wishes to seek my advice on their speeches I will listen and offer any suggestions I may to anyone who wishes to take that advice."


I think the key feature of this hypothetical principal is that he isn't going to listen to the speeches of his students prior to their presentation, unless the students (I should say graduates. They are no longer his students.) specifically invite him to do so. It would have to apply to Satanists, atheists, Muslims, astologists, racists, communists, hedonists and any other ist you can think of, because there would be no way for the administrator to know what was about to be said.

So no organization should have any say in their speakers speeches then.

[ponderingturtle]

That's exactly right. I wouldn't be so rude and disrespectful and indecent as to turn a completely NON-RELIGIOUS OCCASION into a forum to tell other people how very wrong it is for them to believe whatever nonsensical superstition floats their boat.

I've had tons of public speaking opportunities, including speaking in front of my fellow students in public schools. At no point did I assume I was there to weigh in on my personal beliefs on unrelated matters. A high school graduation is not the proper forum to tell people who disagree with you on religious matters that they are on the wrong path.

So you agree that she was wrong to give the speech that she did.

[ponderingturtle]

Now this isn't to say that what she said was right, or that the speech was appropriate for the occasion (and it is certainly not to say that about the counter examples, such as Holocaust deniers). It is not even to say that she was within school rules to make the speech as she did. It is just to say that I see no sense in restricting freedom of speech in this way and frankly I find the tendency of (even otherwise intelligent) people in general to want to restrict freedom of speech (beyond the sensible necessities of slander, threats, plotting or inciting criminal acts etc) to be a massively frustrating and depressing fact of political life in the twenty first century. Surely we should have accepted this by now? (NB: These remarks are not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread, or even at the reaction in this thread in general, but at the sadly numerous members of the public who still support censorship. Unless it's THEM being censored of course). But this is wandering away from the main point. If you don't want someone to speak their mind, don't invite them to give a speech.

Her free speech was not being restricted, they where saying if you are going to use our platform to make a speech it will conform to our rules.

See you do not have a right to force others to print, publish, show your speech if they don't want to.

So think of this as an introduction to real life, if she wants to take advantage of the audiance that the school has gathered for the graduation she has to play by the schools rules. Just like in real life.

And she broke those rules and is facing consequences, funny that seems to be just like in real life as well.

[ponderingturtle]

The reaction I would have to your examples would be to find them anywhere from tacky to loathesome. This girl's speech falls into the tacky category

When you let people have freedom, the results aren't always pretty. Handing a microphone to a seventeen year old and saying, "This is yours to do with as you will." carries a certain degree of risk. No guts, no glory, I say.

Why should they be shielded from the repercussions that breaking rules by speaking your mind has in real life? It is not like they have lost jobs or all the other things you can certainly get for exercising your free speech in the real world as well.

If they are being treated as adults then they should understand that their actions have consequences. You are treating her like a kid. She entered into a contract when she agreed to give a speech that she would give a speech that had been approved by the school, she broke her agreement, and is now upset that doing so has repercussions.

I think she should just grow up.

[Meadmaker]

If you don't want someone to speak their mind, don't invite them to give a speech.

Well said.

To elaborate on that point, do you want to hear what these young people would tell you, or do you want to hear what they are allowed to tell you?

[KingMerv00]

Public schools are not free speech zones.

Yup, it is a real shame.

I'm not saying that there should be a free-for-all all year long but I think an open forum at school every once in a while wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree with this, and am somewhat surprised at the reaction in here, actually. And yes, I would support the rights of students to say anything they like within the law (I.e. No threats or slander etc) whether they want to talk about the damage faith does, or Amway or Scientology or Hitler or how the tiny leprechaun who is living in their earlobe was a constant companion and inspiration thyrough the hard times. And frankly if they got up and bashed Bush, I'd lead the standing ovation, but that's a political matter. Why shouldn't they be allowed to say whatever's on their mind? Schools should not impose religious or political opinions on their students, but they doesn't mean students shouldn't be allowed to hold religious or political ideals whilst in schools. Frankly, witholding the diploma is silly and is just going to inflame tensions and make those who (laughably, given social conditions in the US) complain that Christians are being oppressed more angry.

Now this isn't to say that what she said was right, or that the speech was appropriate for the occasion (and it is certainly not to say that about the counter examples, such as Holocaust deniers). It is not even to say that she was within school rules to make the speech as she did. It is just to say that I see no sense in restricting freedom of speech in this way and frankly I find the tendency of (even otherwise intelligent) people in general to want to restrict freedom of speech (beyond the sensible necessities of slander, threats, plotting or inciting criminal acts etc) to be a massively frustrating and depressing fact of political life in the twenty first century. Surely we should have accepted this by now? (NB: These remarks are not aimed at anyone in particular in this thread, or even at the reaction in this thread in general, but at the sadly numerous members of the public who still support censorship. Unless it's THEM being censored of course). But this is wandering away from the main point. If you don't want someone to speak their mind, don't invite them to give a speech.

I disagree. Her right to speech was not impeded. Institutions have the right to impose restrictions on speech within the confines of the institution. Freedom of speech concerns a political matter between an individual and the state. The federal government is not stepping in here -- this is a local reaction of the school itself to enforce a rule it devised for behavior at school functions.

She has a political right to say whatever she pleases. The school has a right to enforce certain codes of behavior in all students' speech (and dress). If she doesn't agree with the school rules, then she can do essentially what she has done -- not follow the rule. But Civil Disobedience carries with it as consequence that one accepts the decision of the governing body and accepts the punishment. That is what Ghandi did, what Martin Luther King did, what Rosa Parks did. If she wishes to challenge the authorities, then she can. But from the shool's perspective, the consequences must follow.

[patrick767]

Wow... the reactions here really surprise me. Forget defending speech if you don't agree with it, huh? Some of you are every bit as bad as the Christians about whom you frequently complain. Judging her as a "scumbag" or otherwise as some kind of bad person over such a small thing is completely ridiculous.

I'm not religious myself, but I see no reason for the school to punish the girl. They gave her the time to speak. She made a simple statement of her beliefs and encouraged others to look into it. Big. Freaking. Deal. I realize they can restrict the constitutional right to free speech, but in this situation I think it's pointless to do so. No one was "slapped in the face" by her 30 second speech. Give me a break. Some people are far too easy to offend and some others are far too paranoid about being offensive. Political Correctness for the loss! :mad:

I was a Valedictorian and an atheist, but somehow I don't think my rights to free speech would have been as loudly supported by those who support this girl. Yet, such a speech would have violated no church-state laws.


You are probably correct, but that doesn't make it right. If the girl had made a speech as you described, I'd have defended her right to say it, just as I defend her right to say what she did.

[bignickel]

I have no problem with someone's free speech as long as I'm not in the audience and forced to listen to it.

But that's the whole point that these people do it; they can proselytize to a captive audience.

[patrick767]

Double post. No delete option? bah!

[Beth]

Is it just me, or am I the only one who thinks pleas for "discipline, respect, and basic decency" are dimished when preceeded by "creep" and "scumbag"?

No, not just you. I had the same reaction. But apparently we are in the minority on this forum.

[KingMerv00]

I have no problem with someone's free speech as long as I'm not in the audience and forced to listen to it.

But that's the whole point that these people do it; they can proselytize to a captive audience.

The speech was 30 seconds long. Hardly worth complaining about.

If I were in the audience, I would have been happy to hear her drivel. It would have kept me awake and given me a good laugh.

[ponderingturtle]

Wow... the reactions here really surprise me. Forget defending speech if you don't agree with it, huh? Some of you are every bit as bad as the Christians about whom you frequently complain. Judging her as a "scumbag" or otherwise as some kind of bad person over such a small thing is completely ridiculous.

This is not a free speech issue. If she had been having a converstation with a friend on school property and they did this, that would be a free speech issue. This is her taking advantage of the audiance that the school gathered for its cerimony.

You have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to free airtime.

[ponderingturtle]

The speech was 30 seconds long. Hardly worth complaining about.

If I were in the audience, I would have been happy to hear her drivel. It would have kept me awake and given me a good laugh.

This is really a seperate issue, should the school have let her say that if she had followed the procedure, and what punishment should she be subjected to for not following procedure.

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is really a seperate issue, should the school have let her say that if she had followed the procedure, and what punishment should she be subjected to for not following procedure.

Yes, the real issue is the punishment. The school has every right to limit speech for institutional purposes. What she did was to perform an act of Civil Disobedience. She knew full well that she was violating a school rule. The real question, then, should not be "does the school have the right to limit institutional speech?" but "was the punishment appropriate?"

I don't think it was. The punishment is excessive given the "offense" which was minor at best.

Regardless, she should accept the consequences, as she seems to have done, and file a suit in proper fashion befitting her stance as a "civil disobedient" to have either the basic rule or the consequences changed.

[Beerina]

"I am awesome! Here's how I got so awesome: Jesus! Here's how you can get awesome, too..."


Only in the fantasies of some subset of athiests are vitally important things in life, like schooling, 100% separate from other vitally important things in life, like religion, which tries to guide you on those very important things in life.

"Schooling is vitally important -- that's why the government does it!"

"Yes, it is vitally important. My life-guide of religion helps me deal with important things!"

"Nope, nope! Your religion is a separate, self-contained thing. You are permitted, by me, to only do it separately, over there, that away. A few more steps. There ya go. There is the only place that I permit you to practice religion. You are not permitted to practice it here because I have unilaterally decided religion is not part of this aspect of life."

Or do I exaggerate?

[patrick767]

This is not a free speech issue. If she had been having a converstation with a friend on school property and they did this, that would be a free speech issue. This is her taking advantage of the audiance that the school gathered for its cerimony.

You have a right to free speech, you do not have a right to free airtime.

Yes, I understand her constitutional rights are not being violated. I do not even begin to understand why people get so upset about a 30 second speech. I think you're looking for a reason to be offended much like some of the fundamentalists are. I agree that her comments were rather tacky. So what? I don't think the school should give a damn what religion the student wants to advocate for his/her 30 seconds of air time. It hurts no one and offends no one who isn't looking to be offended. People are so oversensitive.

Truly I wouldn't care if she'd thanked Satan, Zeus, Thor or the FSM for her success and encouraged us to follow said supernatural being. I might have remarked on it or gotten a kick out of it, but that's to be expected as it would have been such an unusual thing to hear. But I wouldn't think she should be punished for it. I wouldn't be offended. I wouldn't think a 17 yr old girl giving a 30 second speech was a "scumbag" for saying it.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

And how do you make them show up? They demanded an apology and did the only thing that they could do, hold her diploma back.

But apologizing for breaking rules in such a willful manor is against free speech, I guess.

I'd hold her diploma until she showed up for detention! :D And wrote "I will keep my religion to myself" 200 times on the blackboard and done somethig useful for Jesus like volunteering at a soup kitchen, instead of annoying people at their graduation.

Then again, she'd probably take the whole state to court for imprisonment! And wouldn't do it anyway, if she wouldn't even admit that she delibrately didn't tell the school about it with her diploma at stake.

[pgwenthold]

Yes, I understand her constitutional rights are not being violated. I do not even begin to understand why people get so upset about a 30 second speech.

As I said early on, this is established law. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the schools have the right and responsibility to not allow religious speech at commencement cereomonies.

In this case, the school is trying to enforce their legal responsibilities.

In terms of it being a 30 second speech, I'd like to know, how much of a violation of school policy should be accepted?

Those who are saying "the school should not have let her speak if they didn't want this" are having it backwards. The school let her speak because she agreed to not prosetylize. Had they known she was going to do this, they would not have let her speak. She lied to them, giving a different speech at rehearsal.

[drkitten]

I'm not religious myself, but I see no reason for the school to punish the girl. They gave her the time to speak.

They also gave her -- were compelled to give her, under law -- restrictions about what she could speak about.

She broke the rules.

She got punished for it.

Under law, the schools have to make these rules. How do you expect them to make rules if you don't allow the schools to enforce them?

If the girl had made a speech as you described, I'd have defended her right to say it, just as I defend her right to say what she did.

Yes, she had a right to make a speech. But not at that time and place.

[JoeEllison]

Those who are saying "the school should not have let her speak if they didn't want this" are having it backwards. The school let her speak because she agreed to not prosetylize. Had they known she was going to do this, they would not have let her speak. She lied to them, giving a different speech at rehearsal.

Apparently, being a good Christian involves being a lying piece of garbage... who knew?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, the real issue is the punishment. The school has every right to limit speech for institutional purposes. What she did was to perform an act of Civil Disobedience. She knew full well that she was violating a school rule. The real question, then, should not be "does the school have the right to limit institutional speech?" but "was the punishment appropriate?"

I don't think it was. The punishment is excessive given the "offense" which was minor at best.

Regardless, she should accept the consequences, as she seems to have done, and file a suit in proper fashion befitting her stance as a "civil disobedient" to have either the basic rule or the consequences changed.

So she does not have a piece of paper, it has not prevented her from going to college.

Her punishment was that they demanded an apology, she then did not issue one.

She is getting exactly what she deserves from the school, I just wish everyone else would stop giving her the attention that she craves.

[JoeEllison]

"I am awesome! Here's how I got so awesome: Jesus! Here's how you can get awesome, too..."


Only in the fantasies of some subset of athiests are vitally important things in life, like schooling, 100% separate from other vitally important things in life, like religion, which tries to guide you on those very important things in life.

"Schooling is vitally important -- that's why the government does it!"

"Yes, it is vitally important. My life-guide of religion helps me deal with important things!"

"Nope, nope! Your religion is a separate, self-contained thing. You are permitted, by me, to only do it separately, over there, that away. A few more steps. There ya go. There is the only place that I permit you to practice religion. You are not permitted to practice it here because I have unilaterally decided religion is not part of this aspect of life."

Or do I exaggerate?Wait, what are you saying? You support religious bigotry and hate religious freedom? You feel that Christians should have special privileges?

Or do I exaggerate?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I understand her constitutional rights are not being violated. I do not even begin to understand why people get so upset about a 30 second speech. I think you're looking for a reason to be offended much like some of the fundamentalists are. I agree that her comments were rather tacky. So what? I don't think the school should give a damn what religion the student wants to advocate for his/her 30 seconds of air time. It hurts no one and offends no one who isn't looking to be offended. People are so oversensitive.


Perfect arguement for why there should be a prayer at the begining of the graduation as well. It only offends people looking to be offended.

It is not the atheists who largely had the cases that got religion out of schools, it was other theists. Beacuse it WAS discriminatory.

[ponderingturtle]

I'd hold her diploma until she showed up for detention! :D And wrote "I will keep my religion to myself" 200 times on the blackboard and done somethig useful for Jesus like volunteering at a soup kitchen, instead of annoying people at their graduation.

Then again, she'd probably take the whole state to court for imprisonment! And wouldn't do it anyway, if she wouldn't even admit that she delibrately didn't tell the school about it with her diploma at stake.

You are worse than the school, all they demand is an apology, then she gets her diploma.

[JoeEllison]

Perfect arguement for why there should be a prayer at the begining of the graduation as well. It only offends people looking to be offended.

They should throw in a flag burning, someone peeing on a picture of the pope, and a quick KKK rally too. It only offends people looking to be offended.

[ponderingturtle]

They should throw in a flag burning, someone peeing on a picture of the pope, and a quick KKK rally too. It only offends people looking to be offended.

So you do agree that limiting school prayer to the right kind of religions is also in the schools interest. Other wise it is kind of like saying "There really is nothing wrong with separate but equal, they are equal right in the name".

How do you feel about the firring of the principal because she did not criticize the "Intifada NYC" t-shirts?

[JoeEllison]

So you do agree that limiting school prayer to the right kind of religions is also in the schools interest. Other wise it is kind of like saying "There really is nothing wrong with separate but equal, they are equal right in the name".

How do you feel about the firring of the principal because she did not criticize the "Intifada NYC" t-shirts?

Huh? What the heck are you talking about?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

You are worse than the school, all they demand is an apology, then she gets her diploma.

This kid's so obnoxious, that I don't think that's too harsh.

Allthough if they had given someone so litigious and reactionary detention, she'd probably singlehandedly declare Holy War.

[Mobyseven]

Holy Over-reaction Batman!

She broke the rules and until she apologises for doing so, she will reap the consequences.

How is this difficult to understand? This isn't a free-speech thing - it's a school rules thing. If you don't like it - tough. Should have checked with the school first, hey?

It's not like apologising for wilfully breaking the rules should be a big deal anyway...unless she wants to serve as an example.

[Fnord]

Religious persecution by Secular Authority, plain and simple. Express your religious beliefs, and lose your diploma. Say that you were wrong to do so, and get it back.

The only apology should come from the School, not the graduate. There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speach, even when the speach includes a religious tract. It's just those Atheists trying to cram their non-religion down our throats.

[JoeEllison]

Religious persecution by Secular Authority, plain and simple.

Express your religious beliefs, and lose your diploma.
Say that you were wrong to do so, and get it back.

There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speach, even when the speach includes a religious tract. It's just those Atheists trying to cram their non-religion down our throats.

Wow, I almost believed that you meant that!:rolleyes:

[Tanstaafl]

I agree with Mobyseven completely. She got to make her silly little evangelizing speech, and she's getting her 15 minutes of fame, and she's paying a small price for it. So what?

I don't think she's worth that much of our time.

[patrick767]

Leading a prayer at the beginning of commencement is not the same thing as a student choosing to use her 30 seconds of time, among other students giving their own statements, to make a religious statement. It should be understood that these short speeches are just whatever the student would like to say, not anyone leading the gathering in anything. They are not equivalent.

They should throw in a flag burning, someone peeing on a picture of the pope, and a quick KKK rally too. It only offends people looking to be offended.

Are you really comparing a KKK rally, peeing on anything at all, or setting fire to a flag during a commencement ceremony to speaking for 30 seconds about her religion? I'll take nutty comparisons for 200, Alex.

[patrick767]

As I said early on, this is established law. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the schools have the right and responsibility to not allow religious speech at commencement cereomonies.


Evidence? I know that they are not to lead the assembly in prayers at commencement ceremonies, but that is not the same as prohibiting all religious speech. If it is in fact the law, then and only then do I understand the school's position.

To those saying this is an issue of following the rules and clearing the speech ahead of time, I think it's clearly more than that... It's because what she said was religious that you have a problem with it. If she'd deviated from her "approved" speech with mundane comments about college or favorite sports teams or what have you, no one, including the school, would care. But she mentioned her god, so she's a terrible person. I don't get it.

[Meadmaker]

In the legal sense, this is not a free speech issue. The school made rules about what procedure should be followed. The rule was that the 15 valedictorians had to submit their speeches for review. She did so, but she lied about what she would say. The school has a right to make such rules, and I think also to exact whatever puny, insignificant, and pathetic punishment they can against those who are no longer students at the institution.

And since this is America, the student has the right to go to court, making this a federal case. God Bless America!

I'm saying that if I were the administrator, I would have different rules. Of course, some say the administration had no choice but to make the rules that they did. Federal law requires the student not to proselytyze and the principal, being a government agent, is legally required to enforce the law. Here's an example of such an argument:


As I said early on, this is established law. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the schools have the right and responsibility to not allow religious speech at commencement cereomonies.


In my humble opinion, if the law, makers, whether they be legislators or judges, are busy deciding what students can say at graduation ceremonies, the lawmakers probably have too much time on their hands.

Regardless of my opinion, though, I think this is a misreading of Supreme Court opinions. The students in question are not agents of the state, and the contents of their speeches are not specified by any agent of the state. (At least, they ought not be.)

The closest appicable case to this one would be the Texas football case, in which student led prayers were outlawed. In that case, though, what you had was a case where the school administration had set up a system where it was guaranteed that a good Baptist prayer would be said at the football game. It was a transparent endorsement of religion, hidden by a veneer of fairness. They didn't fool anyone.

Letting someone say whatever they darned well felt like would not be such a case, and the ruling in the football case would not apply. To my knowledge, no case has been decided in such a way as to preclude students chosen on the basis of academic achievement from being given a free microphone for a limited time.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm saying that if I were the administrator, I would have different rules.

Fair enough. Can't argue with that.

[ponderingturtle]

Leading a prayer at the beginning of commencement is not the same thing as a student choosing to use her 30 seconds of time, among other students giving their own statements, to make a religious statement. It should be understood that these short speeches are just whatever the student would like to say, not anyone leading the gathering in anything. They are not equivalent.

But that is not what they are, that is why they need to be approved.

[pgwenthold]

In my humble opinion, if the law, makers, whether they be legislators or judges, are busy deciding what students can say at graduation ceremonies, the lawmakers probably have too much time on their hands.


Yeah, but then you don't care about the enforcement of the constitution and the separation of state. I would expect no less.

Actually, the reason judges have decided it was because some folks have insisted that they should be allowed to do it and others have argued that they should not be allowed. If judges aren't around to settle legal arguments between squabbling parties, then what are they there for?


Regardless of my opinion, though, I think this is a misreading of Supreme Court opinions. The students in question are not agents of the state,

They most certainly are! They are just as much an agent of the state as any invited speaker.

For example, a school couldn't invite a minister to come in and preach and then claim it is allowed because "she is not an agent of the state." Obviously, she is. They are the ones who put her there. Same with this speaker. As soon as the school puts her up as a selected speaker, she becomes and agent of the school and thus of the state.

Whereas she has a right to "free speech" she does not have a right to use the podium to express it. The school is well within its rights and responsibilities to insist that people they invite to speak not use that to preach religion. Public schools are not allowed to teach religion, and that includes students preaching from a school endorsed forum.

[thaiboxerken]

Yup, it is a real shame.

I'm not saying that there should be a free-for-all all year long but I think an open forum at school every once in a while wouldn't be a bad thing.

I agree, but I don't think a graduation ceremony should have to be this. Perhaps every public school should have a free speech soap box that the students can use. The point is, the kid has no "right" to sell her religion during a graduation ceremony.

[NobbyNobbs]

Sorry but I consider it a blatent and purposeful slap at every non-xtian in the audience and most of the normal xtians. Either she is an idiot, a zealot or a purposeful troublemaker. Any of those should have disqualified her from graduation

Purposeful troublemaker, as evidenced by the fact that she didn't include it in rehearsal.

Which brings up another point. By purposely misleading the administration by leaving out the religious part of her speech during rehearsal, isn't she guilty of a lie by omission? And isn't lying a sin? So how well does she really know Jesus, anyway?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it was. The punishment is excessive given the "offense" which was minor at best.

I don't agree. If she thinks it's ok to pimp her religion during a graduation speech, then she really doesn't deserve a diploma. She should have to do another year of school. But the school isn't as hard as me, they just want her to acknowledge that she broke a rule and they'll let her have her diploma. There is no "punishment" in this other than for her to let her pride take a step down and realize that what she did was wrong.

[Meadmaker]

Actually, the reason judges have decided it

And this was decided in which case?

[thaiboxerken]

Religious persecution by Secular Authority, plain and simple. Express your religious beliefs, and lose your diploma. Say that you were wrong to do so, and get it back.

The only apology should come from the School, not the graduate. There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speach, even when the speach includes a religious tract. It's just those Atheists trying to cram their non-religion down our throats.

Are you channelling bill O-Reilly?

[pgwenthold]

And this was decided in which case?


You should read the entire paragraph.

You claimed "judges shouldn't be wasting time on stuff like this." What else should judges do besides listen to disputes between citizens and rule in favor of one or the other?

This is what judges are there to do! This is why we have judges, because laws can't address every possible contingency. Therefore, judges have to worry about the details of it.

So in the end, my point is that, yes, judges SHOULD be worrying about what is being said at commencement ceremonies, if that is what people are complaining about.

[jimlintott]

I'm a strong advocate of both free speech and separation of church and state. I also recognize that the school has rules which she broke. My problem then is with the rules. If the school is required by law to set these rules then I have a problem with the law.

It is not right for a school to engage everyone in religious speech. If the school had arranged for an invocation at the ceremony that would be wrong. They can't do that under separation of church and state. The school does not have free speech. Citizens do.

The school didn't write her speech. It's her speech. I think she should have as much right to say that as if she walked out, thrust her fist in the air, and screamed 'white power, white power'. Free speech comes with some risks. The speaker risks upsetting the audience. The audience risks being upset. Hearing something offensive, or upsetting other people is better than the alternative.

Unfortunately it seems the lesson she got is "Christians are persecuted". In fact I sometimes suspect the schools of punishing these people severely in order to martyr them and create a media show around more persecuted Christians.

It's fine to not agree with her. I don't. It's terrible to suggest that she shouldn't say it. (Yes, as I mentioned before she broke school rules. I get that.)

[ponderingturtle]

I'm a strong advocate of both free speech and separation of church and state. I also recognize that the school has rules which she broke. My problem then is with the rules. If the school is required by law to set these rules then I have a problem with the law.

It is not right for a school to engage everyone in religious speech. If the school had arranged for an invocation at the ceremony that would be wrong. They can't do that under separation of church and state. The school does not have free speech. Citizens do.

The school didn't write her speech. It's her speech.

But she is representing the school. That is why there is the podium and everything.

I think she should have as much right to say that as if she walked out, thrust her fist in the air, and screamed 'white power, white power'. Free speech comes with some risks. The speaker risks upsetting the audience. The audience risks being upset. Hearing something offensive, or upsetting other people is better than the alternative.

Great I want in on the next Republican convention as a speaker, if I can't get that they are clearly not respecting my rights of free speech. Maybe Geller should give a speech at TAM for the same reason.

Unfortunately it seems the lesson she got is "Christians are persecuted". In fact I sometimes suspect the schools of punishing these people severely in order to martyr them and create a media show around more persecuted Christians.

The lesson she should have gotten is that liers and frauds do not get to do what ever they want with out consequence. But that would violate free speech by many heres definitions.

It's fine to not agree with her. I don't. It's terrible to suggest that she shouldn't say it. (Yes, as I mentioned before she broke school rules. I get that.)

The confusing thing is that you agree that those should be school rules.

[drkitten]

I'm a strong advocate of both free speech and separation of church and state. I also recognize that the school has rules which she broke. My problem then is with the rules. If the school is required by law to set these rules then I have a problem with the law.

It is not right for a school to engage everyone in religious speech. If the school had arranged for an invocation at the ceremony that would be wrong. They can't do that under separation of church and state. The school does not have free speech. Citizens do.

The school didn't write her speech. It's her speech.

No. It's an official, school-sponsored speech. She's writing and delivering it as an agent for the school. As such, she has to follow the same rules that the school does.

[Oubliette]

Religious persecution by Secular Authority, plain and simple. Express your religious beliefs, and lose your diploma. Say that you were wrong to do so, and get it back.

The only apology should come from the School, not the graduate. There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speach, even when the speach includes a religious tract. It's just those Atheists trying to cram their non-religion down our throats.

It is not a matter of freedom of speech*. It would have been the same as if they said "you can't have any political statements in your speech", then she goes up there and expresses her support for (insert political preference).

It's against the rules. She broke the rules. That's all!

Btw, speech*.

[bjb]

According to this article:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html

"Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing,..."

The article goes on to give the relevant court rulings:

"Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied."


So is this enough evidence, or does the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just have too much time on their hands?

[articulett]

Meadmaker is the christian who isn't a christian. He finds no wrong in the Christian religion but doesn't claim to be Christian.

I think we have a few of those here...

[wollery]

Umm, could people please learn to read? :rolleyes:

She gave the statement of acceptance that the school required, that she had broken the rule (they never asked for an apology), and was given her certificate!

[jimlintott]

But she is representing the school. That is why there is the podium and everything.

I see valedictorians as representing themselves. I suppose it could be argued. I see the student body as citizens of the school.


Great I want in on the next Republican convention as a speaker, if I can't get that they are clearly not respecting my rights of free speech. Maybe Geller should give a speech at TAM for the same reason.

A political convention should be thought of as a private meeting. You could try to be invited to speak. Otherwise you can stand out front of the convention and tell anyone who will listen how crazy the people inside are. That's free speech.

The lesson she should have gotten is that liers and frauds do not get to do what ever they want with out consequence. But that would violate free speech by many heres definitions.

I agree, she broke rules and knew it. She sneaked the speech in through the back door. My point is she shouldn't have to be sneaky about it.
The confusing thing is that you agree that those should be school rules.
I quite clearly said I have a problem with the rules.

[mijopaalmc]

Does anyone have any evidence that the courts consider valedictorian (or other student graduation speakers) school officials (or representatives)?

This seems to be the unstated assumption among those who hold that the disciplinary action is constitutional. I can see that there may be a basis for this argument if the school chose valedictorians on some other criterion than GPA (this is the most common criterion that I have seen). However, since having a high GPA does necessitate endorsement of any other school policies other than good scholarship (and sometimes not even that), I don't see how a valedictorian can be said to "represent" the school.

[jimlintott]

No. It's an official, school-sponsored speech. She's writing and delivering it as an agent for the school. As such, she has to follow the same rules that the school does.

If that's the way it is, that's the way it is. I don't agree with it but I don't get to make the rules. As I said I see the students as citizens of the schools. Of course a representative of the school cannot engage in religious speech.

[mijopaalmc]

I think we have a few of those here...

Actually, it's just your own paranoid delusion of persecution and your inability to accept that there are valid arguments with which you do not agree.

[articulett]

So you do agree that limiting school prayer to the right kind of religions is also in the schools interest. Other wise it is kind of like saying "There really is nothing wrong with separate but equal, they are equal right in the name".

How do you feel about the firring of the principal because she did not criticize the "Intifada NYC" t-shirts?


We agree with you on this issue. Joe... and I. We just don't agree on the "science is faith" issue. We, like you, think this girl clearly violated the establishment clause and the punishment (apology) was no big deal-- she made it big and others excuse her behavior because Christianity gets special dispensation in our culture. I think she should have been required to write the establishment clause 100 times-- :)

[bjb]

In this case I would consider the valedictorians to be school representatives because their speeches were approved of in advance by school officials! In general, I expect that school officials are held responsible for everything that occurs at a school event.

Here's another example of Christian persecution by the U.S. court system:

http://www.tldm.org/News10/Persecution9thCircuitCourt.htm

That darn 9th Circuit Court must be full of activist judges!

Another case:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13306

Here they go again with their blatant activism by hiding behind the constitution:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/3_26/pages/court_speech.html

"We conclude the district officials did not violate the students' freedom of speech," the court said. Refusing the submitted remarks "was necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause."
___Cole's invocation prayer would not have been "private speech," the court decided, because of the school district's authorization and the fact only a student elected by classmates was allowed to speak.

Those of you who don't like the rules are welcome to dislike them, however, keep in mind that these 'rules' are based upon the U.S. Constitution and decisions made by the U.S. Supreme court. Why do you hate the Constitution and the court system?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Does anyone have any evidence that the courts consider valedictorian (or other student graduation speakers) school officials (or representatives)?

This seems to be the unstated assumption among those who hold that the disciplinary action is constitutional. I can see that there may be a basis for this argument if the school chose valedictorians on some other criterion than GPA (this is the most common criterion that I have seen). However, since having a high GPA does necessitate endorsement of any other school policies other than good scholarship (and sometimes not even that), I don't see how a valedictorian can be said to "represent" the school.

I don't think it really matters. Again, this is not a free speech issue. She simply broke a school rule and was punished by the school. The school, as an institution, has the right to limit speech within its confines and its functions. Just like employers have the right to limit the speech of employees related to their jobs.

[drkitten]

If that's the way it is, that's the way it is. I don't agree with it but I don't get to make the rules. As I said I see the students as citizens of the schools.

And they are. The principal is a citizen of the school, too. This isn't about citizenship; it's about abuse of public office.

Of course a representative of the school cannot engage in religious speech.

And a valedictorian -- like anyone delivering an official speech as part of an official school event -- is a representative of the schoo.

[articulett]

Leading a prayer at the beginning of commencement is not the same thing as a student choosing to use her 30 seconds of time, among other students giving their own statements, to make a religious statement. It should be understood that these short speeches are just whatever the student would like to say, not anyone leading the gathering in anything. They are not equivalent.



Are you really comparing a KKK rally, peeing on anything at all, or setting fire to a flag during a commencement ceremony to speaking for 30 seconds about her religion? I'll take nutty comparisons for 200, Alex.

The point is the double standard that you seem to miss... when an atheist complains about people over-stepping the church-state separation-- or expecting special deference for religion--they are called the radicals... no matter what the christian does, religion is not at fault, it's no big deal, people are over reacting. The student has as much right to burn a flag as they do to proselytize-- neither is appropriate... both are equally offensive-- the former is however legal-- unless in violates fire laws. Making people feel like they are "making a big deal" out of nothing is exactly how the religious right has slowly become more audacious and this idiotic notion that "faith is good" has permeated the public consciousness.

She knew the rules. She violated them. Her consequences were mild, but she refused. What are people supposed to do. "Ah, it's just christianity...what's the harm-- it can't hurt"... the harm is that the people who think this is no big deal will think that someone praising allah at the ceremonies is. See? Or are the blinders to thick?

I remind my student that their freedom of speech rights do not trump the other students rights to an education nor my rights to teach in a non-disruptive environment.

[ponderingturtle]

I see valedictorians as representing themselves. I suppose it could be argued. I see the student body as citizens of the school.


Not at an offical school event when they are giving a speech.

It is rather like the princpal can do what they want after school and can preach as much as they want, but at offical school events that is a no no.


A political convention should be thought of as a private meeting. You could try to be invited to speak. Otherwise you can stand out front of the convention and tell anyone who will listen how crazy the people inside are. That's free speech.

So is graduation, why do you think you need a ticket?

[andyandy]

1) One 18 year old kid, out of 2 million* graduating students mentions jesus in her 30 second speech

2) she shouldn't have

3) the school ask her to (half) apologise

4) she does


the student shouldn't have broken the school rule.

She was punished because she did.

The school punishment did not seem unreasonable given all that
she was required to do.

It's hardly earth shattering...

The reaction to such an non-story is more interesting than the story itself. I imagine if some of the [angrier] posters here lived in the UK, they'd be Daily Mail readers for sure. They're legendary at getting incredibly whipped up on the flimsiest of stories that reinforce whatever anger they hold.

Here we go, get stuck into this story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=478755&in_page_id=1770) from today's paper.

Baptist minister bans toddlers from church hall because their yoga class is 'unchristian'

1) woman wants to use local church hall
2) village church says no

The Daily Mail. Our biggest selling national newspaper. If this makes you feel ANGRY then this is the paper for you. ;)



*estimate based on UK numbers*

[drkitten]

Does anyone have any evidence that the courts consider valedictorian (or other student graduation speakers) school officials (or representatives)?


See post #137.

See also Cole v. Oroville Union High School (1999), where this point was specifically decided.

[ponderingturtle]

Does anyone have any evidence that the courts consider valedictorian (or other student graduation speakers) school officials (or representatives)?


For the same reason you can say any speaker at any event is representing the group having the event.

[ponderingturtle]

We agree with you on this issue. Joe... and I. We just don't agree on the "science is faith" issue. We, like you, think this girl clearly violated the establishment clause and the punishment (apology) was no big deal-- she made it big and others excuse her behavior because Christianity gets special dispensation in our culture. I think she should have been required to write the establishment clause 100 times-- :)

That is not what I said, and this is not the place for that debate.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Arti's favourite strawman of religion - believe or burn in hell. Funny that the girl never mentioned damnation, torture or hell, but why bother with facts?


Puh-lease. The little (RULE 8) is a Christian. While damnation is not always be mentioned, it is ALWAYS implied.

[Meadmaker]

According to this article:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html

"Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing,..."

The article goes on to give the relevant court rulings:

"Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied."


So is this enough evidence, or does the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just have too much time on their hands?


Just in case anyone is misled by the above, the quotes are from Allen Lichtenstein, a lawyer with the ACLU. His legal opinions are not generally held to be definitive in such cases, and the actual rulings of the 9th circuit court are not quoted in the linked article.

[articulett]

Umm, could people please learn to read? :rolleyes:

She gave the statement of acceptance that the school required, that she had broken the rule (they never asked for an apology), and was given her certificate!


There are several different episodes of this event being discussed. The OP was handled differently than the one you are referring too. This is happening more frequently in recent years because of the ballsiness of the religionists. I don't remember anyone sneaking preaching into their speeches when I was a teen and it would have been considered wacky to do so. I look forward to it being considered wacky again... rather than a sign of "righteousness".

[drkitten]

Just in case anyone is misled by the above, the quotes are from Allen Lichtenstein, a lawyer with the ACLU. His legal opinions are not generally held to be definitive in such cases, and the actual rulings of the 9th circuit court are not quoted in the linked article.

So we should take your unsupported opinion about what the court cases say over the lawyer's words?

Here's a quote, in case you care:


The invocation would not have been private speech, because the District authorized an invocation as part of the graduation ceremony held on District property, allowed only a student selected [...] to give an invocation and no doubt would have used a microphone or public address system to amplify the invocation to the audience at the graduation ceremony.

And regarding the valedictory speech itself:


First, the District authorizes the valedictory speech as part of the District-administered graduation ceremony, which is held on District property and financed in part by District funds and in which only selected students are allowed to speak. Second, the principal retains supervisory control over all aspects of the graduation, and has final authority to approve the content of student speeches.

Which of these elements do you feel do not apply to the present case?

[NobbyNobbs]

I see valedictorians as representing themselves. I suppose it could be argued. I see the student body as citizens of the school.

Er...a valedictorian is a member of the student body.



She broke the rules. No question about it. Whether the rule is an appropriate one is another debate.

I wonder...would it be different if, instead of professing her admiration for Jesus, instead she had professed her admiration for the KKK?

[drkitten]

Er...a valedictorian is a member of the student body.

... but in this case, representing the school.

I'm not sure what you consider unreasonable or inappropriate about the rule. Perhaps I can make it a bit clearer if I turn it around.

Meadmaker, mijo, jim, et al. say that the student is representing only herself; that the school should exercise no control whatsoever over the content of her speech. So let's take them at their word :

At San Seraph High school, the valedictorian decided to make his speech a length five-minute slander of local dignitaries, in which he accused them, by name, of a number of immoral and in some cases criminal actions. The dignitaries promptly sued both the student and the administration of San Seraph High. San Seraph says, "Yes, we knew that there were going to be fifteen hundred visitors there to hear the speech, including invited members of the press. Yes, we knew beforehand about the contents of the speech, and we knew that it was likely to damage the plaintiffs' reputations. Yes, we could have taken steps to prevent this such as inviting someone else to give the speech or demanding changes to his speech. Yes, we are legally responsible for maintaining law and order on school property and during school events.

"But despite the fact that we knew how much trouble it would cause, we provided a forum and a microphone for the speaker.

"But we aren't in any way responsible for the injuries suffered."

Is that really a viable position to take?

[bjb]

Just in case anyone is misled by the above, the quotes are from Allen Lichtenstein, a lawyer with the ACLU. His legal opinions are not generally held to be definitive in such cases, and the actual rulings of the 9th circuit court are not quoted in the linked article.

I have to ask, in what way was Lichtenstein's quote misleading? Is it misleading because he's from the Anti-Christian Lawyer's Union? Anyway, the relevant ruling is quoted in post #145, which also contains a few articles referring to a few other cases that were pretty much the same where the rulings went just as Lichtenstein described.

[andyandy]

Yes, we knew beforehand about the contents of the speech, and we knew that it was likely to damage the plaintiffs' reputations.

surely this is the salient part which provides the crux of the matter - if the school are aware of what was going to be said, then they are culpable. If they are not aware, and have been deceived, or taken reasonable measures against such an eventuality then they should not be culpable. (at least in my eyes...i've no idea what eyes the law sees through sometimes ;))

i haven't been following this thread in full, so apologies if your debate has moved on somewhat from the OP.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Fnord http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2921852#post2921852)
Religious persecution by Secular Authority, plain and simple.

Express your religious beliefs, and lose your diploma.
Say that you were wrong to do so, and get it back.

There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speach, even when the speach includes a religious tract. It's just those Atheists trying to cram their non-religion down our throats.

Wow, I almost believed that you meant that!:rolleyes:

You should.
I did.
Every word.

[ponderingturtle]

Umm, could people please learn to read? :rolleyes:

She gave the statement of acceptance that the school required, that she had broken the rule (they never asked for an apology), and was given her certificate!

That is totaly not related to the article cited in the OP, so what the hell are you talking about

A student who said she was told she wouldn't get her diploma unless she apologized for a commencement speech in which she mentioned Jesus has filed a lawsuit alleging her free speech rights were violated

Link (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/14009954/detail.html)

[drkitten]

surely this is the salient part which provides the crux of the matter - if the school are aware of what was going to be said, then they are culpable.

Well, if they are deliberately unaware, they are also culpable. They have a responsibility to be aware of what is supposed to go on at a school-sponsored event.

Of course, if they are actively deceived -- they asked for a draft of the speech, and then the student knowingly departed from that draft -- then the school has done everything it reasonably can.

On that we are agreed.

In the case of the OP, that's exactly what happened -- she deceived the school.


i haven't been following this thread in full, so apologies if your debate has moved on somewhat from the OP.

It's moved on somewhat, but you're still on the right page. My point is not to damn the school -- quite the contrary; I think the school has both the right and the duty to enforce the law at their own events. My point is that if the circumstances were reversed -- if something bad had happend and the school had attempted to disclaim any responsibility for graduation speeches -- it would simply not have flown.

The idea that a valedictorian represents only herself is ludicrous. (The courts have agreed.) Somehow, a few of the liars-for-Jesus disagree. My point is to provide a non-religious example of just how ludicrous it is.

[drkitten]

That is totaly not related to the article cited in the OP, so what the hell are you talking about



Link (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/14009954/detail.html)


Um, re-read the article.

She was asked to write a statement acknowledging her misdeeds, or she would not receive her diploma.

She complied. She received her diploma.

She is now suing, not to get her diploma (which she already has), but "just because I want to make sure the school understands what they did was wrong."

I suspect that the school understands no such thing; I suspect that the courts will also understand no such thing. Unfortunately, she will still end up costing the district substantial lawyers' fees, which may be enough from her perspective. If the district understands that what they did was absolutely right, but expensive, that may be enough ((unfortunately) to keep them from doing it again.

[Meadmaker]

Which of these elements do you feel do not apply to the present case?

The key is that the principal ought to give up supervisory control of the speech. Here's your mike, kid. Have at it.

Now some might argue that this would be an abbrogation of his responsibilities. He has an obligation,some would say,to protect us from the possibility of the harm that might be done by allowing teenagers with strong academic achievements unfettered access to amplification equipment and several minutes of time in which to inflict their odious ideas onto an unwilling public.

Thanks goodness there are people in the world who will protect us from that.:rolleyes:

[Ichneumonwasp]

The key is that the principal ought to give up supervisory control of the speech. Here's your mike, kid. Have at it.

Now some might argue that this would be an abbrogation of his responsibilities. He has an obligation,some would say,to protect us from the possibility of the harm that might be done by allowing teenagers with strong academic achievements unfettered access to amplification equipment and several minutes of time in which to inflict their odious ideas onto an unwilling public.

Thanks goodness there are people in the world who will protect us from that.:rolleyes:

I suspect the rules for most schools have a very prosaic origin and that they began with students jabbing pointedly at the administration during their speeches.

[Invidious]

The key is that the principal ought to give up supervisory control of the speech. Here's your mike, kid. Have at it.

Now some might argue that this would be an abbrogation of his responsibilities. He has an obligation,some would say,to protect us from the possibility of the harm that might be done by allowing teenagers with strong academic achievements unfettered access to amplification equipment and several minutes of time in which to inflict their odious ideas onto an unwilling public.

Thanks goodness there are people in the world who will protect us from that.:rolleyes:
I see. So, in your opinion, should the principal be allowed to say whatever he/she wants during commencement? Even if it's about, say, a student who is technically no longer part of the school? (eg. I always thought that you were a brown-nosing little bastard, Jeff. Good luck at college)

[articulett]

I suspect the rules for most schools have a very prosaic origin and that they began with students jabbing pointedly at the administration during their speeches.

Whatever the history, it goes back for many years... and when I was asked to submit my speech, I just assumed it was to make sure it was appropriate and within the time limits so they could have a nice program for anyone. I never thought it might be because someone would think a public school graduation was a forum to praise Jesus and spread the notion that he died for people-- because religionists weren't so presumptuous in those days... and they embarrassment of such evangelism would have kept any self respecting kid from doing something so creepy.

I wish we could dismantle this insane notion that faith is good and worth deferring to. I am offended when people say "Jesus died for you" or "all people were born in original sin" as if that was some accepted fact on not part of some inane unproveable nonsensical myth that supposedly makes believers more moral.

I'm sure Muslims and Jews woud have a case against the school if they knowingly allowed jesus endorsement and all the apologists would not be saying it was no big deal if the girl thanked her wiccan studies or authoritarian discipline learned at the hands of her Aryan Supremacist Group.

The fact that people think that the secularists over-reacted rather than the Jesus-freak bugs me. Sure, it may not be a "big deal", but she knew it was forbidden and it certainly wasn't necessory nor was her delusion proffered as truth-- true.

I agree... as much as religionists want to pretend this has to do with anti-christianism-- this really just has to do with far more prosaic purposes... and it's only become an issue because of the increasing audacity of religionists.

[Meadmaker]

I see. So, in your opinion, should the principal be allowed to say whatever he/she wants during commencement? Even if it's about, say, a student who is technically no longer part of the school? (eg. I always thought that you were a brown-nosing little bastard, Jeff. Good luck at college)

The short answer is yes, although he, like the students, might face consequences and disapproval from the community.

The long answer takes more time than I have, but basically, words spoken at a commencement address should rarely if ever be part of a lawsuit, students and principals should be given plenty of free verbal rope.

[Meadmaker]

I agree... as much as religionists want to pretend this has to do with anti-christianism--

And, has anyone here said that?

[jimlintott]

... but in this case, representing the school.

I'm not sure what you consider unreasonable or inappropriate about the rule. Perhaps I can make it a bit clearer if I turn it around.

Meadmaker, mijo, jim, et al. say that the student is representing only herself; that the school should exercise no control whatsoever over the content of her speech. So let's take them at their word :

At San Seraph High school, the valedictorian decided to make his speech a length five-minute slander of local dignitaries, in which he accused them, by name, of a number of immoral and in some cases criminal actions. The dignitaries promptly sued both the student and the administration of San Seraph High. San Seraph says, "Yes, we knew that there were going to be fifteen hundred visitors there to hear the speech, including invited members of the press. Yes, we knew beforehand about the contents of the speech, and we knew that it was likely to damage the plaintiffs' reputations. Yes, we could have taken steps to prevent this such as inviting someone else to give the speech or demanding changes to his speech. Yes, we are legally responsible for maintaining law and order on school property and during school events.

"But despite the fact that we knew how much trouble it would cause, we provided a forum and a microphone for the speaker.

"But we aren't in any way responsible for the injuries suffered."

Is that really a viable position to take?

There's a well made point.

I have two separate answers. The first is based on my free speech, liberty loving emotional side. Let him say what he wants although it would be prudent to advise him about slander.

The realistic, pull my head out of the sand side, says that you have to protect the school. We know that in today's legal climate the law suits get aimed at the deepest pockets that the slightest amount of liability can be pinned on. While the right thing to do would be to sue the kid for a dollar, we know that isn't going to happen.

I don't consider either yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater or slander to be free speech. I also don't consider praising baby jeebus to be slander. Silly, but that's it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Whatever the history, it goes back for many years... and when I was asked to submit my speech, I just assumed it was to make sure it was appropriate and within the time limits so they could have a nice program for anyone. I never thought it might be because someone would think a public school graduation was a forum to praise Jesus and spread the notion that he died for people-- because religionists weren't so presumptuous in those days... and they embarrassment of such evangelism would have kept any self respecting kid from doing something so creepy.

I wish we could dismantle this insane notion that faith is good and worth deferring to. I am offended when people say "Jesus died for you" or "all people were born in original sin" as if that was some accepted fact on not part of some inane unproveable nonsensical myth that supposedly makes believers more moral.

I'm sure Muslims and Jews woud have a case against the school if they knowingly allowed jesus endorsement and all the apologists would not be saying it was no big deal if the girl thanked her wiccan studies or authoritarian discipline learned at the hands of her Aryan Supremacist Group.

The fact that people think that the secularists over-reacted rather than the Jesus-freak bugs me. Sure, it may not be a "big deal", but she knew it was forbidden and it certainly wasn't necessory nor was her delusion proffered as truth-- true.

I agree... as much as religionists want to pretend this has to do with anti-christianism-- this really just has to do with far more prosaic purposes... and it's only become an issue because of the increasing audacity of religionists.

Why do allow religion so much power over you?

[articulett]

The short answer is yes, although he, like the students, might face consequences and disapproval from the community.

The long answer takes more time than I have, but basically, words spoken at a commencement address should rarely if ever be part of a lawsuit, students and principals should be given plenty of free verbal rope.

So you think that the student was wrong to file a lawsuit?

[articulett]

And, has anyone here said that?

fnord

[articulett]

Why do allow religion so much power over you?

I try not to... but there is reprisal for those who don't show deference or who point out violations of church state separation. I tend to defer, but I wonder if I add to situations like this... which are clearly wrong by remaining silent for fear of this kind of thing happening to me or my child...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

Religion doesn't have much power over me anymore... but I spent many years trying to figure out how and what to believe to please the invisible guy who killed his kid for me. Even if it doesn't affect me anymore, I worry that not speaking out gives believers free reign to continue taking further and bigger liberties while pretending to take the moral highground free from scrutiny or laws.

[jimlintott]

Here is a problem that I am having with this.

I can easily connect the state to the public schools and see that the school is an agent of the state and therefore is obligated to be secular, just as the state is (should be). I cannot make the logical connection that this should be extended further onto the students making them an agent of the state with those same obligations.

Maybe someone can connect these dots for me.

Disclaimer: I am not a Supreme Court justice, a lawyer or even a citizen of the United States. Or even tremendously intelligent for that matter. ;)

[mijopaalmc]

I see. So, in your opinion, should the principal be allowed to say whatever he/she wants during commencement? Even if it's about, say, a student who is technically no longer part of the school? (eg. I always thought that you were a brown-nosing little bastard, Jeff. Good luck at college)

You know, I think that it is interesting that when the issue of allowing religious speech at school sponsored events comes up, the self-identified atheist resort to a "destruction of the social order" argument to support their position.

Would you case to explain how the above comment (which could be possibly considered slander) or "pointed jabs at the administration" are qualitatively similar to religious proselytizing?

[bignickel]

The speech was 30 seconds long. Hardly worth complaining about.

If I were in the audience, I would have been happy to hear her drivel. It would have kept me awake and given me a good laugh.
And if 95% of the students did the same speech?

But that's besides the point. If you'd like to listen to them all proselytize to you, that's your bag. But don't force me to listen.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, not just you. I had the same reaction. But apparently we are in the minority on this forum.While more consideration should probably go into people's posts I think the reaction is to the more general problem of being sick of having the Evangelical crowd trying to impose their beliefs on others by attacking laws which protect people's rights to believe as they wish. Proselytizing is one thing, imposing your beliefs on others is another.

Of course one man's free speech can impose on another man's right not to be forced to hear it. The Evangelicals see a number of things as interfering with their beliefs. Excluding their proselytizing in some arenas is one of those things. Thus you have incidents such as the Kitzmiller-Dover case.
Here is a problem that I am having with this.

I can easily connect the state to the public schools and see that the school is an agent of the state and therefore is obligated to be secular, just as the state is (should be). I cannot make the logical connection that this should be extended further onto the students making them an agent of the state with those same obligations.

Maybe someone can connect these dots for me...
Expressing one's religion with the appearance of it being an official school position is what the laws governing schools is supposed to be preventing. It isn't a law merely intended to make schools perfectly secular for the sake of separation of church and state. I think if there was a way to make this a personal statement by an individual rather than the statement of a school sponsored speaker at an official school event it might be more acceptable.

The school rightly considers graduation ceremonies as not the place for students to make their personal soapboxes. Did this girl pay for the event? Did she organize the event? No, so why does she have the right to say whatever she wants? If she wants to proselytize then she needs to pay for her own microphone and soapbox.

[articulett]

Here is a problem that I am having with this.

I can easily connect the state to the public schools and see that the school is an agent of the state and therefore is obligated to be secular, just as the state is (should be). I cannot make the logical connection that this should be extended further onto the students making them an agent of the state with those same obligations.

Maybe someone can connect these dots for me.

Disclaimer: I am not a Supreme Court justice, a lawyer or even a citizen of the United States. Or even tremendously intelligent for that matter. ;)

It was a school sponsored event... they can mention religion and god... they cannot use a public school sponsored event to endorse or promote one singular belief system. All schools hold the right to make such rules-- including dress codes, uniforms, language usage, and so forth. They are in charge of making sure that no religion is given special deference. To make exceptions for one... means that you must make exceptions for all or risk lawsuits from those "left out". It's just best not to open some cans of worms--hence school limitations on those given the privilege of a captive audience thanks to a school sponsored event. Everyone has a right not to have other peoples' religions inflicted upon them nor be forced into showing deference or implied respect for such nuttiness.

The school is who gets sued when the Muslim student isn't afforded the same privilege or the Christian parent makes a big stink about the Muslim students praising Allah... even if the school doesn't want to be held responsible you can bet they will be-- hence the normative practice of going over student speeches to make sure there isn't anything that might provoke riots, future problems, or lawsuits.

[cj.23]

"While we are disappointed that this matter has resulted in litigation, we are confident that all actions taken by school officials were constitutionally appropriate," the statement said. "As a result, we intend to vigorously defend the claims. Beyond that, it is the district's policy not to comment on pending litigation."

If by this they mean she breached US Constitutional separation of Church and State they are completely wrong, and as ACLU have proven in similar cases, and the school will lose and lose badly, costing the school and education system. :( This is a no win situation really, but there is no constitutional bar to a student expressing publicly whatever religious opinions they wish, and her legal right appears to be apparent?

cj x

[thaiboxerken]

If by this they mean she breached US Constitutional separation of Church and State they are completely wrong, and as ACLU have proven in similar cases, and the school will lose and lose badly, costing the school and education system. :( This is a no win situation really, but there is no constitutional bar to a student expressing publicly whatever religious opinions they wish, and her legal right appears to be apparent?

cj x

I don't think they mean that she violated the US Constitution, but that their actions did not violate the US Constitution or any laws.

[HghrSymmetry]

"We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don’t already know him personally I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with him."
She would be a very interesting case study for geriatrics. She is 2 millennia in age? Impressive!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Religious persecution by Secular Authority, plain and simple. Express your religious beliefs, and lose your diploma. Say that you were wrong to do so, and get it back.

The only apology should come from the School, not the graduate. There is nothing wrong with Freedom of Speach, even when the speach includes a religious tract. It's just those Atheists trying to cram their non-religion down our throats.Try again. Knowingly break the rules and lose a privilege. Apologize and get it back.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295432,00.html

The lawsuit said Brewer would not give Corder her diploma until she included a sentence saying, "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Corder received her diploma after complying.

BTW, the diploma in question was just the certificate. She was not stopped from actually graduating. And of course the lawsuit is actually being sponsored by some Evangelical law firm out of Florida

[JoeEllison]

You should.
I did.
Every word.You shouldn't admit to it, because you're dead wrong, completely. I'm assuming that your misrepresentation of the situation is accidental, and not a lie, but it is still wrong.

Plus, you know, before you try to (wrongly) defend freedom of SPEECH, you should learn how to spell it.:p

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of the lawsuit and while it's a bit of a side track, I think it is worth looking at the legal group behind this action because it shows that this is about proselytizing not about free speech. And while proselytizing might be a free speech issue, it is one which can impinge on the rights of others and needs balance, not outright defense of its unencumbered use.

From the OP linkCorder is represented by attorneys affiliated with Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Fla.-based group that says it is dedicated to advancing religious freedom.



Were they really just "dedicated to advancing religious freedom" as claimed by the reporter you might not expect the focus of their agenda reflected by these cases: (http://www.lc.org/)Liberty Counsel Responds to California's Failure to Vigorously Defend Marriage Laws

Vermont Same-Sex Civil Unions Argued At Virginia Supreme Court

CNN Headline News Interviews Mathew Staver About New Jersey Threatening Church For Not Allowing Same-Sex Ceremony

God's Christian Warriors Airs on CNN

CNN Presents: God's Warriors, Featuring Mathew Staver and Rev. Jerry Falwell

Liberty Counsel Defends Against Radical Attack On Traditional Marriage


If that isn't enough to show this legal group is not about freedom of religion, it is about dominance of their religious views, there's more here confirming what these people are really all about.

This article featured on their website, An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran; by David Barton; January, 2007, (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/ellison.pdf) is quite the propaganda piece. They go to great lengths to give their paper the appearance of an intellectual analysis complete with an extensive bibliography. But interwoven into what may appear to be a formal analysis are statements such asHe should not be allowed to do so – not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization. . . . [I]t is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism – my culture trumps America’s culture. . . . Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book: the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.While that is quoting a radio talk show critic of the swearing in on the Koran, the article describes the news coverage of the critics asThe media reaction to these two leaders and their outspoken criticism of Ellison’s plan included epithets such as “racist,” “bigoted,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “sexist,” “xenophobic,” “fascist,” etc. 4In conclusion to this paper they write3. Remember the Greater Danger
From a societal standpoint, there should be more concern over elected officials who are secularists and will swear an oath on no religious book, than for Muslims who swear on the Koran. After all, secularism presents a greater threat to American traditions and values than does Islam.


It's kind of hard to ignore the hypocrisy in their #2 conclusion:2. Practice Free-Market Pluralism
Because of Biblical influences and Christian civil leadership in colonial America, Americans early adopted a Free-Market approach to religion, establishing that approach in law and policy. Significantly, Christian leaders did not advocate this approach because they were indifferent to Christianity or because they believed all religions were equal; they held an opposite position on both points. However, based on Biblical teachings, Christians believed that individuals must make their own voluntary choices about their own faith, and then live with the consequences, even if that choice meant (from a Christian’s viewpoint) the difference between Heaven and Hell....The paper concludes with instructions about which actions to take:THIRD, Christians should exercise the opportunity to use America’s religious Free-Market system to befriend and evangelize Muslims. On the conviction that through God and the Holy Spirit eternal truth will prevail, share your faith and spiritual truth with Muslims. (The web is full of useful guides on sharing one’s faith with Muslims.)
FOURTH, Christians should do all they can to get other Christians out to vote – and to vote their values. In 2004, 28.9 million Evangelicals voted in the elections; 98 in this election, however, only 20.5 million voted 99 (a drop of 8.4 million Evangelicals). If citizens desire to see someone different than Keith Ellison elected to office, they must show up at the polls....

...FIFTH, if Christians are specifically concerned about Ellison’s Muslim faith, perhaps they should follow the example set by Francis Scott Key with John Randolph; get to know him, build a trusting friendship relationship with him, share your Christian faith with him, and see if he will convert to Christianity!


Notice throughout the article the Evangelical morality tenets are continually referred to as American values, rarely or never as Christian Evangelical values which is what they really are.

[JoeEllison]

Speaking of the lawsuit and while it's a bit of a side track, I think it is worth looking at the legal group behind this action because it shows that this is about proselytizing not about free speech. And while proselytizing might be a free speech issue, it is one which can impinge on the rights of others and needs balance, not outright defense of its unencumbered use.

From the OP link



Were they really just "dedicated to advancing religious freedom" as claimed by the reporter you might not expect the focus of their agenda reflected by these cases: (http://www.lc.org/)


If that isn't enough to show this legal group is not about freedom of religion, it is about dominance of their religious views, there's more here confirming what these people are really all about.

This article featured on their website, An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran; by David Barton; January, 2007, (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/misc/ellison.pdf) is quite the propaganda piece. They go to great lengths to give their paper the appearance of an intellectual analysis complete with an extensive bibliography. But interwoven into what may appear to be a formal analysis are statements such asWhile that is quoting a radio talk show critic of the swearing in on the Koran, the article describes the news coverage of the critics asIn conclusion to this paper they write


It's kind of hard to ignore the hypocrisy in their #2 conclusion:The paper concludes with instructions about which actions to take:


Notice throughout the article the Evangelical morality tenets are continually referred to as American values, rarely or never as Christian Evangelical values which is what they really are.

Have you ever managed to reconcile the fanatical "religion" of these people with their slavish devotion to lying at every opportunity? I sure haven't...

[Beth]

While more consideration should probably go into people's posts I think the reaction is to the more general problem of being sick of having the Evangelical crowd trying to impose their beliefs on others by attacking laws which protect people's rights to believe as they wish. Proselytizing is one thing, imposing your beliefs on others is another.

Of course one man's free speech can impose on another man's right not to be forced to hear it. The Evangelicals see a number of things as interfering with their beliefs. Excluding their proselytizing in some arenas is one of those things. Thus you have incidents such as the Kitzmiller-Dover case.

Expressing one's religion with the appearance of it being an official school position is what the laws governing schools is supposed to be preventing. It isn't a law merely intended to make schools perfectly secular for the sake of separation of church and state. I think if there was a way to make this a personal statement by an individual rather than the statement of a school sponsored speaker at an official school event it might be more acceptable.

The school rightly considers graduation ceremonies as not the place for students to make their personal soapboxes. Did this girl pay for the event? Did she organize the event? No, so why does she have the right to say whatever she wants? If she wants to proselytize then she needs to pay for her own microphone and soapbox.

Back when I was in high school, gradulations always had an official prayer led by one of the local clergy. God was frequently mentioned in the student speeches. But I can agree there are very good reasons to make such official speeches at public institutions illegal, particularly when people have few other reasonable options but to listen.

On the other hand, high school gradulation is an important ritual in our society and it's perfectly reasonable that people would like to include a religious element in such ceremonies. It is one more reason why I support school vouchers. It's also why I find the libertarian position eschewing all public support of education to be consistent with their general ideology. I can't agree with that position, but I can see why they do.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you ever managed to reconcile the fanatical "religion" of these people with their slavish devotion to lying at every opportunity? I sure haven't...
I thought of something very similar to that thought when I was reading all the stuff on this website being described so falsely as American values.

Do we have a smiley gagging itself?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree there are very good reasons to make such official speeches at public institutions illegal. On the other hand, high school gradulation is an important ritual in our society and it's perfectly reasonable that people would like to include a religious element in such ceremonies. It is one more reason why I support school vouchers. It's also why I find the libertarian position eschewing all public support of education to be consistent with their general ideology. I can't agree with that position, but I can see why they do.I really think there is a disconnect in this thread about what this person's 30 second speech on the podium was, what it was supposed to be, and what it means (in other words what you win) to be "chosen" to give the valedictorian address so I thought I'd see what a valedictorian and a valedictorian address were supposed to be.

valedictorian (http://www.answers.com/topic/valedictorian)In the United States and Canada, the title of valedictorian (an anglicized derivation from the Latin vale dicere, "to say farewell") is given to the top graduate of the graduating class (the Australia/New Zealand equivalent being dux, although some Australian universities use the American term) of an educational institution. The title comes from the valedictorian's traditional role as the last speaker at the graduation ceremony.

The graduation speech is a closing or farewell statement, address, or oration delivered at a graduation ceremony. It is an oration or address spoken at commencement in American high schools, colleges or seminaries by one of the graduates. The mode of discourse is generally inspirational and persuasive. The many aims of this address are to thank, inspire, affect, and above all say farewell to the high school, college, or seminary.


Valedictory Address (http://www.maniactive.com/states/2005/06/valedictorian-or-salutatorian-whats.html)"Valedictory addresses delivered by earnest young valedictorians at high school and college graduations are as much a rite of spring in the United States as Memorial Day. While we cannot say where the first valedictory address was given, we do know that the word was an institution at places like Harvard and Yale by the mid-1700s. Since a valedictory speech is given at the end of an academic career, it is perfectly in keeping with the meaning of its Latin ancestor, valedicere, which means "to say farewell."

If someone got up and said, "I thank the Lord for [fill in the blank]", then it would seem to be a harmless free speech issue. But to use the 30 seconds to proselytize is not in keeping with the tradition you have been chosen to give a farewell speech. And as a chosen valedictorian it would seem to me that while that meant you got to write the speech, it wasn't a forum to hawk your wares. If anything doing so was an affront to at least some of the students there who were at their special ceremony.

My son just graduated a few months ago. It was a big deal to those kids and while I'm sure such a speech would have been a minor thorn in a big day, it would have been disrespectful for any of the speakers to get up and spew their personal agendas be they political or religious.

[articulett]

I thought of something very similar to that thought when I was reading all the stuff on this website being described so falsely as American values.

Do we have a smiley gagging itself?

The KKK advertises itself similarly-- they are a Christian Organization first and formost--and all their literature says so.

Yeah... they want religious freedom for their religion. That's the problem with "religious morality"-- they only apply "do unto others" to others who think like the do. They don't mean that non-Christians should proselytize or that atheists should expound upon logic and reason.

Does religion make people hypocrites--or does it just blind them to it in themselves while imagining it in others. Why are the holier than thou so obnoxious and... well... immoral?

[JoeEllison]

The KKK advertises itself similarly-- they are a Christian Organization first and formost--and all their literature says so.

Yeah... they want religious freedom for their religion. That's the problem with "religious morality"-- they only apply "do unto others" to others who think like the do. They don't mean that non-Christians should proselytize or that atheists should expound upon logic and reason.

Does religion make people hypocrites--or does it just blind them to it in themselves while imagining it in others. Why are the holier than thou so obnoxious and... well... immoral?
Maybe it is hypocrites who made religion, in order to better justify their hypocrisy? Certainly, it is a sure bet that those folks lie as easily as normal folks breathe.

[wollery]

There are several different episodes of this event being discussed. The OP was handled differently than the one you are referring too. This is happening more frequently in recent years because of the ballsiness of the religionists. I don't remember anyone sneaking preaching into their speeches when I was a teen and it would have been considered wacky to do so. I look forward to it being considered wacky again... rather than a sign of "righteousness".

That is totaly not related to the article cited in the OP, so what the hell are you talking about

Link (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/14009954/detail.html)
From the link in the OP, the one you just provided!
The lawsuit said Brewer would not give Corder her diploma until she included a sentence saying, "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Corder received her diploma after complying.My previous statement stands. :rolleyes:

[cj.23]

Maybe it is hypocrites who made religion, in order to better justify their hypocrisy? .

No it was the homosexual agenda. You see they could not pass on their gay genes sexually, so religion developed as an extended phenotype to persecute them and force them in to heterosexual marriage hence perpetuating their sexuality. Isn't it obvious? :D

Incidentally for any Religious, Gay or Dawkins folks out there - I'm joking!

cj x

[Ichneumonwasp]

I try not to... but there is reprisal for those who don't show deference or who point out violations of church state separation. I tend to defer, but I wonder if I add to situations like this... which are clearly wrong by remaining silent for fear of this kind of thing happening to me or my child...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

Religion doesn't have much power over me anymore... but I spent many years trying to figure out how and what to believe to please the invisible guy who killed his kid for me. Even if it doesn't affect me anymore, I worry that not speaking out gives believers free reign to continue taking further and bigger liberties while pretending to take the moral highground free from scrutiny or laws.

OK, but it certainly seems that you expend quite a bit of energy on this.

Tribalism is, unfortunately, with us for the long haul. Religionists are one of many tribes that promote intolerance. I think it is important not to promote intolerance in the other direction. Fighting it is obviously fine -- as long as we don't cross the line into intolerance ourselves.

When it comes to the bigger picture -- fighting that brand of intolerance -- I think you are correct about humor and derision being the way to go. That way of speaking out I agree with.

We need a new Mark Twain, a new Douglas Adams.

[ponderingturtle]

The key is that the principal ought to give up supervisory control of the speech. Here's your mike, kid. Have at it.

Now some might argue that this would be an abbrogation of his responsibilities. He has an obligation,some would say,to protect us from the possibility of the harm that might be done by allowing teenagers with strong academic achievements unfettered access to amplification equipment and several minutes of time in which to inflict their odious ideas onto an unwilling public.

Thanks goodness there are people in the world who will protect us from that.:rolleyes:

So you do not support preventing representatives of the school from proselytizing. So you would favor the principle and teachers then being able to do the same thing on a regular basis.

[ponderingturtle]

The short answer is yes, although he, like the students, might face consequences and disapproval from the community.

The long answer takes more time than I have, but basically, words spoken at a commencement address should rarely if ever be part of a lawsuit, students and principals should be given plenty of free verbal rope.

So you don't like the supreme court decisions that got religion out of schools.

[ponderingturtle]

Here is a problem that I am having with this.

I can easily connect the state to the public schools and see that the school is an agent of the state and therefore is obligated to be secular, just as the state is (should be). I cannot make the logical connection that this should be extended further onto the students making them an agent of the state with those same obligations.


It extends to the students in the same way it extends to the teachers. WHen they are acting on behalf of the school they have limits on their speech. It is using the schools podium that makes what she did something that must not be allowed by the school.

Kind of like a teacher can preach all they want on their free time, to their coworkers for example, but not when representing the school to their students.

[ponderingturtle]

You know, I think that it is interesting that when the issue of allowing religious speech at school sponsored events comes up, the self-identified atheist resort to a "destruction of the social order" argument to support their position.

Would you case to explain how the above comment (which could be possibly considered slander) or "pointed jabs at the administration" are qualitatively similar to religious proselytizing?

Well legally the school has more of an obligation to prevent the religious speech than making fun of the administration. But it is their ceremony they can control what people say or do not say on their behalf. And they are required to prevent religious declarations.

[Mobyseven]

"Holy Zombie Jesus Batman! This thread is impervious to logic, and will not die!"

Seriously folks, how hard is this? A summary in five bullet points:

Valedictorian knowingly and deliberately breaks a school rule.
School rule has a solid grounding in the US Constitution, and fairly recent Supreme Court decisions.
Valedictorian has diploma (only the physical paper) taken away from her until she writes a statement acknowledging that she broke the rule.
Valedictorian complies and receives diploma.
Valedictorian files frivolous lawsuit against the school.

That's it. Really. And with any luck this case will be thrown out before the girl has a chance to say, "Jesus told me to."

I suspect the rules for most schools have a very prosaic origin and that they began with students jabbing pointedly at the administration during their speeches.

Heh, remind me someday to tell y'all about what I said at my valedictory assembly. (Note: In Australia, that doesn't refer to the top students, it refers to the entire graduating class. The top student is the dux, and I was not the dux.)

[drkitten]

The realistic, pull my head out of the sand side, says that you have to protect the school. We know that in today's legal climate the law suits get aimed at the deepest pockets that the slightest amount of liability can be pinned on. While the right thing to do would be to sue the kid for a dollar, we know that isn't going to happen.

I don't consider either yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater or slander to be free speech. I also don't consider praising baby jeebus to be slander. Silly, but that's it.

You're right. Praising Jesus isn't slander. It is, however, illegal if done by an agent of the state in an official capacity.

The whole question is whether or not the student is acting as an agent of the state while giving a valeditory address. As is obvious from an analysis of a slanderous speech, the answer is "yes, she is." She is performing a duty for the state (delivering an official speech at an official function) at the state's request). But if she's an agent of the state, then a) she's not allowed to proselytize as part of her official duties, and b) the state has both the right and the duty to supervise her to make sure she doesn't -- and to punish her if she does.

And case law supports this analysis. Read the quotes from Cole I posted earlier.

[drkitten]

If by this they mean she breached US Constitutional separation of Church and State they are completely wrong, and as ACLU have proven in similar cases, and the school will lose and lose badly, costing the school and education system.

Er, no. As far as I can tell,the most relevant case is Cole vs Oroville Union, and it
supports the school's position down to the ground. The Santa Fe case is also relevant and supports the school's position.

I can think of no post Lemon case that supports the idea that an agent of a public school can use her official capacity to proseletyze, or that a valedictorian at a public school graduation is not an agent of the school.

If you have a conflicting case you would like to suggest, I would like to see it.

there is no constitutional bar to a student expressing publicly whatever religious opinions they wish

Yes, there is. She wasn't acting as "a student," she was acting as "an official, state-sponsored, valedictorian." As such, she needs to remain neutral w.r.t. religion or run afoul of the Lemon test.

[triadboy]

"Holy Zombie Jesus Batman! This thread is impervious to logic, and will not die!"

Seriously folks, how hard is this? A summary in five bullet points:

Valedictorian knowingly and deliberately breaks a school rule.
School rule has a solid grounding in the US Constitution, and fairly recent Supreme Court decisions.
Valedictorian has diploma (only the physical paper) taken away from her until she writes a statement acknowledging that she broke the rule.
Valedictorian complies and receives diploma.
Valedictorian files frivolous lawsuit against the school.


There's a 6th bullet - she's suing 2 years later! She is now in college and dredging this back up.

So:

Does nobody else think the student has completely engineered this situation?

With Post #77 - Last of the Fraggles wins a brand new Buick! Congratulations!

[mijopaalmc]

See post #137.

See also Cole v. Oroville Union High School (1999), where this point was specifically decided.

I'd just like to point out that this decision is:


Not binding outside the 9th Circuit of which Colorado is not a part
Based on the fact that the District approved the speech
Based on the fact that the District would have provided a means of dissemination of religious dogma


In other words the limitations on what would otherwise be considered constitutionally protected speech are not as clear cut as the girl's detractors would like us to believe.

[patrick767]

The point is the double standard that you seem to miss... when an atheist complains about people over-stepping the church-state separation-- or expecting special deference for religion--they are called the radicals... no matter what the christian does, religion is not at fault, it's no big deal, people are over reacting. The student has as much right to burn a flag as they do to proselytize-- neither is appropriate... both are equally offensive-- the former is however legal-- unless in violates fire laws. Making people feel like they are "making a big deal" out of nothing is exactly how the religious right has slowly become more audacious and this idiotic notion that "faith is good" has permeated the public consciousness.

I'm not spouting "faith is good" stuff at all. I'm pointing out that comparing a 30 sec speech where she spouted off about Jesus is not at all comparable to standing up at commencement and torching a flag (dangerous fire code violation), peeing on anything (indecent exposure), or having an impromptu KKK rally (disrupting the ceremony with a rally, hate speech). I'm rather amazed people get so upset about some kid babbling about how great Jesus is for a few seconds.

I'm more disturbed by the reaction here. People calling her a scumbag and saying she should repeat a year of school because she's obviously an idiot, etc. etc. No, she's a 17-18 yr old girl with some silly ideas who perhaps made her brief statement in the wrong place. That doesn't make her a bad person or a total moron.

The hostility over such a small thing is really absurd and seems to indicate anger and mostly contempt toward anyone who is religious. That's not the way to change anyone's mind. They'll just be pissed off at the "arrogant" attitudes of non-religious people and cling even more strongly to their beliefs. I also think it would get tiresome holding most of the population in contempt. :boggled:

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'd just like to point out that this decision is:


Not binding outside the 9th Circuit of which Colorado is not a part
Based on the fact that the District approved the speech
Based on the fact that the District would have provided a means of dissemination of religious dogma


In other words the limitations on what would otherwise be considered constitutionally protected speech are not as clear cut as the girl's detractors would like us to believe.

And once again, this was not constitutionally protected speech. She was speaking within an institutional setting and institutions have the right to limit speech within their confines (or at their activities).

[fuelair]

"Holy Zombie Jesus Batman! This thread is impervious to logic, and will not die!"

Seriously folks, how hard is this? A summary in five bullet points:

Valedictorian knowingly and deliberately breaks a school rule.
School rule has a solid grounding in the US Constitution, and fairly recent Supreme Court decisions.
Valedictorian has diploma (only the physical paper) taken away from her until she writes a statement acknowledging that she broke the rule.
Valedictorian complies and receives diploma.
Valedictorian files frivolous lawsuit against the school.

That's it. Really. And with any luck this case will be thrown out before the girl has a chance to say, "Jesus told me to."



Heh, remind me someday to tell y'all about what I said at my valedictory assembly. (Note: In Australia, that doesn't refer to the top students, it refers to the entire graduating class. The top student is the dux, and I was not the dux.)
I have to ask: Anybody ever say/chant "Dux sux"? I am certain that would happen universally if that procedure followed here.

[mijopaalmc]

And once again, this was not constitutionally protected speech. She was speaking within an institutional setting and institutions have the right to limit speech within their confines (or at their activities).

And once again, the case that people are citing as establishing the precedent that allows school to limit students' religious speech is not binding in the given appellate circuit.

[fuelair]

And once again, the case that people are citing as establishing the precedent that allows school to limit students' religious speech is not binding in the given appellate circuit.Doesn't have to be binding to be a precedent and available for use/application/reference to.

[Ichneumonwasp]

And once again, the case that people are citing as establishing the precedent that allows school to limit students' religious speech is not binding in the given appellate circuit.

Which, once again, is completely immaterial to the arguments here.

Do you doubt that institutions are able to set limits on speech? Are students allowed complete freedom of speech/expression within schools? Are schools not able to set dress codes, codes of behavior, speech limitations?

Want court cases? Start with Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier in which the court found amongst other things:

(a) First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.

How about the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case? Should that speech be allowed in high school?

How about Bethel Schoold District vs. Fraser?

If you want to argue for her behavior you can always cite the Tinker rule -- if the behavior is not deemed to be disruptive, then it is permissable. But in that case we must remember that the rule against wearing black arm bands was created specifically because the administration found out about the upcoming protest. In this situation the rule was that she practice her speech and that the speeches not contain the sort of material that she decided upon. That rule long preceded her behavior and was not like the issue in the Tinker decision.

[mijopaalmc]

Doesn't have to be binding to be a precednt and available for use/application/reference to.

But saying that it is not a free speech issue, as if it is somehow definitively decided, misrepresent the true state of the matter.

If you can point to Supreme Court case law that says something similar, you might have a point.

[articulett]

The hostility over such a small thing is really absurd and seems to indicate anger and mostly contempt toward anyone who is religious. That's not the way to change anyone's mind. They'll just be pissed off at the "arrogant" attitudes of non-religious people and cling even more strongly to their beliefs. I also think it would get tiresome holding most of the population in contempt. :boggled:

I see your point... but if she was praising Allah, pushing Islam, and inferring that those who don't beileve as she does will go to hell, then I think you might understand the situation better. To allow the teen to do that would be to allow the reciprocal for other belief systems, but the Christians would be the one's suing the school if such was allowed for Muslims. It's the fact that every time you allow a little bit because it's harmless, you make believers more audacious-- and you make belief something people feel they must invoke at every opportunity. It's offensive and supports an anti-educational way of thinking--the notion that there are divine truths that you can access through magical thinking.

Yes, they will feel that everyone is picking on them because their religion tells them they will be persecuted. But that's not a reason to change the rules. Calling the girl a scumbag on a skeptics forum is harmless-- inferring that someone killed their kid for you so you better pay attention is not necessarily so. The more we treat these things as no big deal... the more of a big deal they become. Did you watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk

Isn't calling the religionists in this film scumbags on a skeptics forum less harmful then what they did to the non-believing teen? I just think religion mixes up peoples' priorities and makes bad guys out of the wrong people while covering for this notion that faith is "good". Good for what? If it's good for you, then keep that goodness to yourself--don't inflict it on a captive public. They just seem to lose the point in the rhetoric from what I can tell. She violated the longstanding rules that have been precedent for some time... she doesn't get special handling because people think it was harmless or that Jesus endorses such behavior. I don't like religion inflicted on me and I don't being cowed into deferring to a notion I find harmful. I think it's sick and twisted to promote this lie that god killed his kid because you are born a scumbag because of some damn fruit eating entrapment tale involving a talking snake.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But saying that it is not a free speech issue, as if it is somehow definitively decided, misrepresent the true state of the matter.

If you can point to Supreme Court case law that says something similar, you might have a point.

Are you honestly arguing that schools do not have the right to limit student speech?

Link (http://www.nsba.org/site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&DID=11452&CID=470) to a listing of several court decisions relating to religious speech in schools.

[mijopaalmc]

There seem to be limitations to the limitations of religious activities on public property:

Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

A school district violates the free-speech clause of the First Amendment by expressly prohibiting religious groups from using school facilities when it allows all other social, civic, and recreational groups to use the same facilities.

And no, I'm not arguing the a school has no right to limit its students' free speech; I'm just saying that the particular citation was poor in part because of its limited precedential value and other emphases that the court addressed in the opinion.

[Beth]

Are you honestly arguing that schools do not have the right to limit student speech?

Link (http://www.nsba.org/site/doc.asp?TRACKID=&DID=11452&CID=470) to a listing of several court decisions relating to religious speech in schools.

I haven't seen anyone arguing that schools don't have the right to limit student speeches in that setting. They have. They do. That's quite clear.

I think the question people are really answering is: 'Should' such content be forbidden by law?

Some are questioning whether it currently is. I think the arguments that it currently is are pretty solid, but judges sometimes rule differently than expected. Since it's currently seen as against the law, it's to the advantage of those who advocate allowing such speech in that setting to bring a lawsuit. Maybe they lose, maybe they win. Either way, if the expense of it is worth the publicity they get, it's a win-win situation for that side to bring a lawsuit. By the way, who's paying the legal fees for this lawsuit?

Some people here are arguing that the plaintiff is right. That such speech in that setting definitely should NOT be forbidden by law. There are some here who have suggested that that no limitations should be placed on those speeches, either by law or by school policy. Personally, I find their arguments to have a great deal of merit. While there are some very good arguments against state officials giving such a speech, I find myself as I write this deciding that I find the arguments for permitting such speech - a graduating senior at commencement - to be stronger. The risk of having it look like the state is endorsing a particular religion is quite small. I'd say the same thing about a kid who wanted to endorse an atheistic worldview, to thank allah, or even satan.

[Ichneumonwasp]

And no, I'm not arguing the a school has no right to limit its students' free speech; I'm just saying that the particular citation was poor in part because of its limited precedential value and other emphases that the court addressed in the opinion.

Ok, that's fine.

By the way, Milford concerned only the use of school property for religious groups when they allow other civic clubs to use school property for their purposes during non-school hours. There is a clear distinction in that case between the use of the property and what the school endorses.

There are many other cases that specifically limit religious speech and the distribution of religious information on public school campuses while school is in session. Non-demoninational prayers are fine. Anything endorsing a specific religious outlook is not.

The courts seem to be pretty consistent on this topic.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I haven't seen anyone arguing that schools don't have the right to limit student speeches in that setting. They have. They do. That's quite clear.

I think the question people are really answering is: 'Should' such content be forbidden by law?

I didn't say that anyone was. I was asking Mijo to clarify his position and he did. He seemed to be implying that this case was a free speech issue, which would further imply that he thinks schools don't have the right to limit speech in this way. He wasn't implying that, so the point is moot.

Some are questioning whether it currently is. I think the arguments that it currently is are pretty solid, but judges sometimes rule differently than expected. Since it's currently seen as against the law, it's to the advantage of those who advocate allowing such speech in that setting to bring a lawsuit. Maybe they lose, maybe they win. Either way, if the expense of it is worth the publicity they get, it's a win-win situation for that side to bring a lawsuit. By the way, who's paying the legal fees for this lawsuit?

Some people here are arguing that the plaintiff is right. That such speech in that setting definitely should NOT be forbidden by law. There are some here who have suggested that that no limitations should be placed on those speeches, either by law or by school policy. Personally, I find their arguments to have a great deal of merit. While there are some very good arguments against state officials giving such a speech, I find myself as I write this deciding that I find the arguments for permitting such speech - a graduating senior at commencement - to be stronger. The risk of having it look like the state is endorsing a particular religion is quite small. I'd say the same thing about a kid who wanted to endorse an atheistic worldview, to thank allah, or even satan.

I do not agree. I think it is plain and clear that insitutions have the right to limit speech. I do not think that no limitations should ever be the standard for individual institutions. That is an invitation to chaos.

Teachers should have no right to stop disruptive speech in the classroom? Students should be allowed to fling curses at the administration willy-nilly? KKK rallies in the girl's lockerroom? I don't think so.

Rules are placed so that schools can run smoothly in oder to meet educational objectives.

I think it makes sense to argue that you do not like this particular rule or that you disagree with the penalty, but I don't think it makes any sense to argue that speech cannot be limited in a school setting or in a school assembly.

[articulett]

Ok, that's fine.

By the way, Milford concerned only the use of school property for religious groups when they allow other civic clubs to use school property for their purposes during non-school hours. There is a clear distinction in that case between the use of the property and what the school endorses.

There are many other cases that specifically limit religious speech and the distribution of religious information on public school campuses while school is in session. Non-demoninational prayers are fine. Anything endorsing a specific religious outlook is not.

The courts seem to be pretty consistent on this topic.


And thankfully so, because the Christians would be the first to sue if a Muslim was allowed to preach and infer that those who who believed in Jesus believed in a false prophet but would hopefully come to learn the truth.

The girl is costing taxpayers money because she wants special treatment for her brand of proselytizing... she calls it a free speech issue.

And the same people helping fund this girls lawsuit would be the people protesting and following a religious discrimination lawsuit and a separation of church and state if a Muslim student proselytized in such a manner. Moreover, they'd be the outraged taxpayers som Muslim girl whose mike was cut filed a similar lawsuit as well. Protection from religious discrimination only seems to apply to Christians in these peoples' minds... and their freedom of speech is more protected as well.

(Can you imagine them responding civilly if someone thanked the Flying Spaghetti monster?-- would they be saying "freedom of speech!"-- "harmless"-- "no big deal?". Somehow, I doubt it. But whenever any religion is given special treatment, I advocate all others go for such treatment--it may be the only way to stop this nonsense. Sometimes it helps to make their double standard bite them in the butt.)

The U.S. government pays hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for a congressional chaplain whose job is to lead nondenominational prayers...they stopped this temporarily after they started this unnecessary nuttiness because various religions felt that their religion wasn't represented. It should have stayed stopped. As mentioned before... secularism is not because of atheists... it's because each religion demands special deference as the "true woo".

The tax payers are really paying for this nonsense--as a taxpayer, I hope my government keeps me from having to listen to this inanity and pay further when some non-christian religion tries to exercise their free speech similarly. I resent the huge amount of money spent on faith based programs that show no benefit, prayers, and a warm with some muddied version of Christianity behind it. (Jesus told George to invade Iraq??)

The girl is forcing tax payers to defend a lawsuit which carves out special privileges for her faith-- rights that she'd gladly deny to others if the law allowed. Does anyone seriously think that those advocating this girls rights to free speech would be willing to do the same for believers of faiths they found repulsive? And those who argue for her rights seem to ignore the most salient facts while belittling those who note that she knowingly crossed the line. They are also ignoring those who inform them that this has long been a precedent. Moreover, they'd be aware of this precedent and arguing for it if the Christian child was suing (as she is doing now) over the fact that someone spoke in a way that she found discriminatory against her beliefs.

I think school vouchers are a great way to keep brainwashed kids, brainwashed by whatever religion their parents happen to believe in... I would like my tax dollars to give them a chance at learning facts not dogma. But I'd rather the assorted believers inflict other believers with their "praise allah" speeches or whatever then force me to listen because I want to see my kid graduate.

Christians never think that what they are doing or asking for is a big deal until some non-Christian asks for the same privilege.

[Mobyseven]

I have to ask: Anybody ever say/chant "Dux sux"? I am certain that would happen universally if that procedure followed here.

Nope. I'm pretty sure the dux at my school could have incinerated anyone who did that using only old diodes, a shot of morphine and a rabid cat. He's a smart one, that boy.

[wollery]

There seem to be limitations to the limitations of religious activities on public property:

Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

A school district violates the free-speech clause of the First Amendment by expressly prohibiting religious groups from using school facilities when it allows all other social, civic, and recreational groups to use the same facilities.

And no, I'm not arguing the a school has no right to limit its students' free speech; I'm just saying that the particular citation was poor in part because of its limited precedential value and other emphases that the court addressed in the opinion.Not relevant to the discussion in this thread. This is simply the rather obvious statement that if a bunch of students want to hold a private meeting as a christian club on school property they have the right to do so, just as they have to allow the chess club. Preventing people from meeting privately to discuss what they want is a clear violation of their 1st amendment rights.

A private meeting of such a group is not "representing" the school, so that exception does not apply.

[cj.23]

Yes, there is. She wasn't acting as "a student," she was acting as "an official, state-sponsored, valedictorian." As such, she needs to remain neutral w.r.t. religion or run afoul of the Lemon test.


You are completely correct here: I had misunderstood the nature of the term "valedictorian" until it was properly explained. As she was representative of a class, and therefore an agent of the school, I agree completely having checked - I was completely wrong.

cj x

[Beth]

I do not agree. I think it is plain and clear that insitutions have the right to limit speech. I do not think that no limitations should ever be the standard for individual institutions. That is an invitation to chaos.

Teachers should have no right to stop disruptive speech in the classroom? Students should be allowed to fling curses at the administration willy-nilly? KKK rallies in the girl's lockerroom? I don't think so.

Rules are placed so that schools can run smoothly in oder to meet educational objectives.

I think it makes sense to argue that you do not like this particular rule or that you disagree with the penalty, but I don't think it makes any sense to argue that speech cannot be limited in a school setting or in a school assembly.


I agree that institutions, such as schools, have the right and responsibility to limit speech in some regards. But I don't think anyone was arguing for no limititions regarding student speeches ever in school.

I think there are some good arguments against placing any limitations on 30 second speeches by the top students at a graduation ceremony, though I'm not completely sold on that idea. At any rate, it's clear that schools can and do review and restrict the content of those speeches.

However, I agree that the limitation against religious content of such speeches is inappropriate.

[Meadmaker]

So you think that the student was wrong to file a lawsuit?

Short answer: Yes.

[triadboy]

Originally Posted by articulett
So you think that the student was wrong to file a lawsuit?

Short answer: Yes.

Shorter answer: Ye


******

And now I put this thread to rest. "Thank you for coming. Drive safely everyone. Good night!"

[Meadmaker]

While more consideration should probably go into people's posts I think the reaction is to the more general problem of being sick of having the Evangelical crowd trying to impose their beliefs on others by attacking laws which protect people's rights to believe as they wish. Proselytizing is one thing, imposing your beliefs on others is another.



Certainly a lot of people would have an adverse reation to the speech, and I don't doubt that that is what happened.

I originally commented on Joe's post in which he called the girl a "creep and scumbag" because she had no "discipline, respect, or basic decency". I found it ironic that someone would use the epithet "scumbag" toward a seventeen year old girl, and then complain about lack of discipline, lack of respect, or lack of basic decency. I just don't associate that particular word with any of those traits.

My favorite "scumbag" story occurred during the Clinton administration, when chairman Dan Burton called President Clinton a scumbag during some event. Asked about the event, presidential spokesman Mike McCurry said, "I think the use of a two syllable vulgarity by the chairman was rather ambitious."


Expressing one's religion with the appearance of it being an official school position is what the laws governing schools is supposed to be preventing. It isn't a law merely intended to make schools perfectly secular for the sake of separation of church and state. I think if there was a way to make this a personal statement by an individual rather than the statement of a school sponsored speaker at an official school event it might be more acceptable.

I fully support the limitation of religion in such circumstance. I just disagree that this is one of those circumstances. Are we to believe that a (former) student speaker, chosen on the basis of academic achievement, is expressing school policy in her speech? I can't see it. The one way to give credence to that view is to demand the right to prior censorship of the speech, which is of course common practice, and was part of this particular incident.

For my part, I think it is too common. Maybe it is just because I have been at that podium myself, and would have been mad as hell if the teacher or principal would have told me that I couldn't express myself the way I felt appropriate because of some religious or political consideration. As it was my speech was widely hailed by those who heard it as the finest oration they could remember at a graduation. Sadly, I don't recall anyone mentioning the content as the reason for their praise. Rather, the brevity was most often cited at the best aspect of the speech. Be that as it may, I did rehearse the speech with a teacher, but it never occurred to me that anything other than good taste was preventing me from saying what I was thinking.

If you censor the speakers, then you are not getting the words of the speaker, you are getting the words of the censor. It doesn't strike me as a worthwhile exercise.

[Meadmaker]

If someone got up and said, "I thank the Lord for [fill in the blank]", then it would seem to be a harmless free speech issue.

I doubt that most of the participants here would agree with you. The last time I remember a similar case to this one that got significant blog/forum/talk show time was a Nevada valedictorian who did exactly what you are describing, and the principal turned off her mike. I believe that was in 2005.

[Meadmaker]

Does religion make people hypocrites--or does it just blind them to it in themselves while imagining it in others. Why are the holier than thou so obnoxious and... well... immoral?

Apparently, religion is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to create those traits.

[wollery]

Does religion make people hypocrites--or does it just blind them to it in themselves while imagining it in others. Why are the holier than thou so obnoxious and... well... immoral?Please, the irony, it burns!

[thaiboxerken]

Apparently, religion is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to create those traits.

Not necessary but I would have to say it's certainly sufficient. Religion has a built-in hypocrisy that requires people to say one thing and do another, to believe one thing, but contradict themselves in action. A person need not be religious to be a hypocrite but it certainly helps.

[Meadmaker]

Some are questioning whether it currently is. I think the arguments that it currently is are pretty solid, but judges sometimes rule differently than expected.

I can't reconcile such a finding with the finding in the "Good News Club" case. It seems to me that the "Good News" precedent would say she has a right.

There is no directly comparable Supreme Court case to this one. "Good News" and "Santa Fe" have similarities, but also significant differences.

[jsfisher]

If the school hadn't taken action against her then it would have been very hard for them to ever take action against such things in the future.

Mention of god is okay, but as soon as she started to evangelise she was breaking the rules, and she knew it. Her case shouldn't have a hope of winning.

Had she misbehaved in class, she'd have gotten detention or possibly a brief suspension. For her transgression at the podium, how is denying her her diploma an acceptable consequence for her action?

[JoeEllison]

Had she misbehaved in class, she'd have gotten detention or possibly a brief suspension. For her transgression at the podium, how is denying her her diploma an acceptable consequence for her action?
Because smacking her in her face would be very slightly too extreme?

[wollery]

Had she misbehaved in class, she'd have gotten detention or possibly a brief suspension. For her transgression at the podium, how is denying her her diploma an acceptable consequence for her action?Because that was her last action as a member of the student body. They had no other punishment option.

You do understand what the purpose of a graduation ceremony is don't you?

[Beth]

I can't reconcile such a finding with the finding in the "Good News Club" case. It seems to me that the "Good News" precedent would say she has a right.

There is no directly comparable Supreme Court case to this one. "Good News" and "Santa Fe" have similarities, but also significant differences.

I'm not a scholar about such matters; I just find the arguments presented that it is currently illegal to be pretty convincing. I agree with you that it shouldn't be.

As to how a judge might rule on the case, well, my assessment that the probability of the girl winning her case is small could be completely off base. My point was that even if they lose, they may have gained more from the publicity for their cause than the lawsuit cost whoever is funding it.

[ponderingturtle]

Certainly a lot of people would have an adverse reation to the speech, and I don't doubt that that is what happened.

I originally commented on Joe's post in which he called the girl a "creep and scumbag" because she had no "discipline, respect, or basic decency". I found it ironic that someone would use the epithet "scumbag" toward a seventeen year old girl, and then complain about lack of discipline, lack of respect, or lack of basic decency. I just don't associate that particular word with any of those traits.

My favorite "scumbag" story occurred during the Clinton administration, when chairman Dan Burton called President Clinton a scumbag during some event. Asked about the event, presidential spokesman Mike McCurry said, "I think the use of a two syllable vulgarity by the chairman was rather ambitious."



I fully support the limitation of religion in such circumstance. I just disagree that this is one of those circumstances. Are we to believe that a (former) student speaker, chosen on the basis of academic achievement, is expressing school policy in her speech? I can't see it. The one way to give credence to that view is to demand the right to prior censorship of the speech, which is of course common practice, and was part of this particular incident.

For my part, I think it is too common. Maybe it is just because I have been at that podium myself, and would have been mad as hell if the teacher or principal would have told me that I couldn't express myself the way I felt appropriate because of some religious or political consideration. As it was my speech was widely hailed by those who heard it as the finest oration they could remember at a graduation. Sadly, I don't recall anyone mentioning the content as the reason for their praise. Rather, the brevity was most often cited at the best aspect of the speech. Be that as it may, I did rehearse the speech with a teacher, but it never occurred to me that anything other than good taste was preventing me from saying what I was thinking.

If you censor the speakers, then you are not getting the words of the speaker, you are getting the words of the censor. It doesn't strike me as a worthwhile exercise.


So you believe any organization that has anyone speaking at their events is morally bound to not control the speech in any fashion?

[ponderingturtle]

Had she misbehaved in class, she'd have gotten detention or possibly a brief suspension. For her transgression at the podium, how is denying her her diploma an acceptable consequence for her action?

So coercing an appology is unaceptable?

THen how do you get her to show up at detention as suspension is pointless at that time?


How could the school have punished her in any other fashion as the diploma was the only leverage that they had.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not a scholar about such matters; I just find the arguments presented that it is currently illegal to be pretty convincing. I agree with you that it shouldn't be.

As to how a judge might rule on the case, well, my assessment that the probability of the girl winning her case is small could be completely off base. My point was that even if they lose, they may have gained more from the publicity for their cause than the lawsuit cost whoever is funding it.

I think the odds of the girl winning are nil, as she is saying that a person speaking to an organization in a official fashion has an unlimited free speech right. This makes no sense.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nope. I'm pretty sure the dux at my school could have incinerated anyone who did that using only old diodes, a shot of morphine and a rabid cat. He's a smart one, that boy.

If he was that smart he could do it without the cat and the morphine.

And only diode. Broken.

[jsfisher]

Because that was her last action as a member of the student body. They had no other punishment option.

You do understand what the purpose of a graduation ceremony is don't you?


If it were just the graduation ceremony at stake, then I have no issue. The article said she wouldn't be allowed to graduate and she wouldn't receive a diploma. Upon re-reading it, I see the meaning is ambiguous.

ETA: No, I was too quick to post. Her comments were at the graduation ceremony. The school district, therefore, in my opinion, was just being heavy-handed and consumed with a sense of their own importance.

[SomeGuy]

I, as millitant atheist and apparent god-hater, am not 100% sure that I agree with forbidding these kind of speeches.

Let me see if I understood it correctly:

The girl would have been allowed to thank jesus or god, but she should not have told other that they should meet him. She's allowed to express her religion, but not to try and convert others.

Seeing how this is a graduation ceremony and a lot of the attendants have no real choice in attending or not, this does not seem all that unreasonable to me. While I personally think that such a restriction is mostly unnecessary and certainly has nothing to do with the seperation of state and church, it is not an entirely unreasonable restriction.

The girl had many ways to protest the restriction, she chose the most confrontational one, she's now reaping the rewards, this is such a non-story.

[jsfisher]

So coercing an appology is unaceptable?

Is extortion acceptable? Keep in mind, she had met all the requirements for her high-school diploma, so by all rights it was hers. The school district was threatening to retract it.

THen how do you get her to show up at detention as suspension is pointless at that time?


How could the school have punished her in any other fashion as the diploma was the only leverage that they had.

Why is it required the school district dispense punishment at all in this case (other than its own inflated sense of self-importance)? If some great civil wrong was committed, here, don't we already have a system in place to deal with such things?

[Meadmaker]

There has been some absurd prattling on about the idea that if one advocates noncensorship of a graduation speech, then that means absolutely no restrictions on the speech. Of course the speaker would be under all of the same limits that limit our speech every day in every venue. Slander, incitement to violence, obscenity that violates community standards, and anything else that would normally be prohibited anywhere else are also prohibited in graduation speeches.

I'm not a scholar about such matters; I just find the arguments presented that it is currently illegal to be pretty convincing. I agree with you that it shouldn't be.

As to how a judge might rule on the case, well, my assessment that the probability of the girl winning her case is small could be completely off base. My point was that even if they lose, they may have gained more from the publicity for their cause than the lawsuit cost whoever is funding it.

The legal scholars here overrate themselves. The issue here is whether or not the speaker could reasonably be considered a representative of the school. I seriously doubt that a court would find that any invited guest of the school district was a representative of that district. I haven't read the "Cole" case, but I note that it was a 9th circuit court of appeals decision. Conservative talk show hosts occasionally point out that the 9th circuit is overturned more often than any other circuit on appeal. At any rate, it's only binding in the 9th circuit, whether or not it's overturned.

However, in the brief excerpt from that case, one of the justifications for the censorship or for considering the valedictorian a representative of the school district was that the school administration exercised editorial control over the contents of the speech. That's very easy to remedy.

I don't know if this girl would win this case. The way she handled it would allow the school to say that the issue was not the content of the speech, but was actually the failure to follow rules. Also, she was allowed to speak (i.e. they didn't turn off the microphone or remove her from the podium), and she did get her diploma, so showing that there was harm done might be difficult, and they might not grant a hearing based on standing issues. However, I believe that if the current Supreme Court agreed to hear this case, they would issue a ruling that would say that school districts are not obligated to prohibit religious references in a speech, and they would probably rule that the district could not specifically prohibit religious references in a valedictory address.

That's just my reading of the case law. If Brown were participating, he could probably do much better in analyzing the case.

[wollery]

Is extortion acceptable? Keep in mind, she had met all the requirements for her high-school diploma, so by all rights it was hers. The school district was threatening to retract it.

Why is it required the school district dispense punishment at all in this case (other than its own inflated sense of self-importance)? If some great civil wrong was committed, here, don't we already have a system in place to deal with such things?If they hadn't taken action they would have been liable for a legal suit from other students.

[ponderingturtle]

Is extortion acceptable? Keep in mind, she had met all the requirements for her high-school diploma, so by all rights it was hers. The school district was threatening to retract it.

They where not blocking her graduation. So nothing non criminal can be punished at a graduation ceremony then?



Why is it required the school district dispense punishment at all in this case (other than its own inflated sense of self-importance)? If some great civil wrong was committed, here, don't we already have a system in place to deal with such things?

Well in a different setting she would know not to expect her speakers fees I would think.

So there should be no rules at graduation? You are against any way to enforce them.

[pgwenthold]

A few years before I got to high school, there was a case where one of the graduating seniors pulled some prank on the last day of school (cherry bomb in the toilet or something like that). As a punishment, they made him mow the football field with a pushmower, or he wouldn't graduate.

Now, was the school justified in doing so? He had violated school policy, but since it was the last day, they couldn't give him detention or anything. So they held his diploma over his head.

So let's throw out some of the arguments we have seen here. jsfischer, would you say they shouldn't hold his diploma because he had fulfilled all the requirements to graduate? Yeah, he broke school rules but it was only a little thing, no one got hurt, and it didn't even cause any damage (aside from a little water to mop up). Would those people who think that they shouldn't have withheld the diploma of this girl say the same thing about the guy from my school?

There is absolutely precedent for holding a diploma of a graduating senior who breaks school rules. What she did was the equivalent of a cherry bomb in the toilet.

[Ichneumonwasp]

There has been some absurd prattling on about the idea that if one advocates noncensorship of a graduation speech, then that means absolutely no restrictions on the speech. Of course the speaker would be under all of the same limits that limit our speech every day in every venue. Slander, incitement to violence, obscenity that violates community standards, and anything else that would normally be prohibited anywhere else are also prohibited in graduation speeches.

I may have missed that prattling. The issue, however, is not the restrictions on speech that we all have as citizens but the local restrictions on speech that institutions may place on their employees or schools on their students. Students are not allowed to say anything in school and employees are not allowed by their employers to say absolutely anything at work. There are rules imposed for the proper functioning of work and school. Those are not "free speech" issues relating to the constitution but rather issues of the proper functioning of institutions. You may disagree with institutions and their rules, but they have the right to impose them.

Philip Roth wrote a very good book recently about this very issue. A professor refers to a student as a "spook", meaning "ghost" because he is absent from class. Unfortunately for the professor, that student happens to be black. Hilarity ensues.



The legal scholars here overrate themselves. The issue here is whether or not the speaker could reasonably be considered a representative of the school. I seriously doubt that a court would find that any invited guest of the school district was a representative of that district. I haven't read the "Cole" case, but I note that it was a 9th circuit court of appeals decision. Conservative talk show hosts occasionally point out that the 9th circuit is overturned more often than any other circuit on appeal. At any rate, it's only binding in the 9th circuit, whether or not it's overturned.

However, in the brief excerpt from that case, one of the justifications for the censorship or for considering the valedictorian a representative of the school district was that the school administration exercised editorial control over the contents of the speech. That's very easy to remedy.

I don't know if this girl would win this case. The way she handled it would allow the school to say that the issue was not the content of the speech, but was actually the failure to follow rules. Also, she was allowed to speak (i.e. they didn't turn off the microphone or remove her from the podium), and she did get her diploma, so showing that there was harm done might be difficult, and they might not grant a hearing based on standing issues. However, I believe that if the current Supreme Court agreed to hear this case, they would issue a ruling that would say that school districts are not obligated to prohibit religious references in a speech, and they would probably rule that the district could not specifically prohibit religious references in a valedictory address.

That's just my reading of the case law. If Brown were participating, he could probably do much better in analyzing the case.


And I still maintain that it doesn't matter if she is a representative of the school or not. The school still has the right to limit her speech as related to school functions. The issue should rather be: is their rule proper and was punishment appropriate? The major deciding factor seems to be -- was the speech or action disruptive? There seem to be many cases dealing with religious speech and religious material distribution in schools and the consensus of those cases seems to be that if the God-talk is non-denominational then it is fine but if it is directed toward one religion alone then it can be limited.

[Meadmaker]

And I still maintain that it doesn't matter if she is a representative of the school or not. The school still has the right to limit her speech as related to school functions.

Some here have gone farther than that, asserting that the school has not merely the right, but the duty, to restrict her speech. I have not seen a Supreme Court case that supports that interpretation.

I believe they have the right to do so, and they ought to choose not to exercise that right.

ETA: My reading of the rights of the school might differ from others here as well. They have the right to restrict her speech, but they must be cautious in singling out the religious content of the speech as the basis for the restriction. A lot of people here think the court erred in the "Good News Club" decision, but the people who object are not on the Supreme Court.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I believe they have the right to do so, and they ought to choose not to exercise that right.



Fair enough. Can't argue with that. I'm not entirely sure where I fit on the opinion of whether or not they should have said anything. I tend toward thinking this whole thing is a buch of silliness.

[jsfisher]

If they hadn't taken action they would have been liable for a legal suit from other students.


Well, that may be, but how does that create a right for the school district withhold her diploma? Moreover, how did the did the school district's demand for an apology from her change the district's liability (especially since the apology was coerced)?