Religious valedictorian sues Nevada school [Archive]

Skyhunter

Jul15-06, 12:40 PM

I don't think she has much in the way of legal grounds. It was not her venue, nor was it an open venue. The school I feel was well within their rights to not allow her to use a commencement ceremony to solicit her religion.
It depends on what context she said it. If she said "I want to thank jesus, Jesus gives me strength" that's fine. If she was preaching about how we should all love Jesus and worship him, exit stage left!
This is a really graphic, forget the context, all this talk of blood and pain. :yuck:

"God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

I don't like the image that comes to mind when I think of blood covering my um....er.....shortcomings? :confused:

Personally I am open to all religious teaching. However I would be offended if I had gone to see my child's commencement ceremony and were subjected to some sort of gospel revival instead. Not that there is anything wrong with a gospel revival, just that I would feel as if I were being tricked. A little like bait and switch.

Even if I were going to hear a christian sermon I would prefer something that were not so full of ambiguious and emotionally charged words, phrases, and mental images.

I find concept of "sacrifice" to be antithetical to most other concepts and values perpetuated by religious mores.

MeJennifer

Jul15-06, 12:56 PM

I find it rather intolerant to ban someone from speaking because they express their religious beliefs. Those same people who want to ban this are usually the first to push things like tolerance classes for homosexuality.

They want to stop children from singing Christmas songs at school but at the same time they want to rewrite textbooks to show homosexual couples as a normal relationship.

It often seems that people's ideas of tolerance are very much one sided.
They want others to be tolerant about the things they believe in while at the same time they show intolerance for things they disagree with.

:smile:

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 01:04 PM

I hate the word "tolerance". It's just a BS word that basically means "everyone must believe what i believe". I don't see why they don't just call it that.

But you do have to admit... if they did allow it, it was close enough to a school endorsing a religion for it to be unconstitutional.

MeJennifer

Jul15-06, 01:12 PM

But you do have to admit... if they did allow it, it was close enough to a school endorsing a religion for it to be unconstitutional.
Well I do not see someone speaking about "Christ this" or "God that" in a speech on a school as the school is endorsing a religion.

What kind of a message do we give the children when someone starts to talk about "God ......" and the plug from the mic is pulled? Do you think we teach them tolerance? Do we perhaps teach them tolerance when we force them to attend a gay tolerance class instead?

Again, people's ideas on tolerance are often very one-sided.

Gokul43201

Jul15-06, 01:15 PM

This is a really graphic, forget the context, all this talk of blood and pain. :yuck: Yeah, religion ought to be rated R! :biggrin:

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 01:17 PM

Well, ya know, rulings like that are meant to target the studipest type of human that can go "oh wow, the school's valedictorian is talking about christianity and asking me to join and im too weak minded to resist!" so you need to really just cover as many bases as you can by banning things like this.

Gokul43201

Jul15-06, 01:23 PM

Well I do not see someone speaking about "Christ this" or "God that" in a speech on a school as the school is endorsing a religion.

What kind of a message do we give the children when someone starts to talk about "God ......" and the plug from the mic is pulled? Do you think we teach them tolerance? Do we perhaps teach them tolerance when we force them to attend a gay tolerance class instead?Heck, do we teach them tolerance when we force them to answer in an exam that the earth is billions of years old, when their preacher tells them that it is a few thousand, and that misrepresenting the true word of god is a sin?

Hurkyl

Jul15-06, 01:24 PM

I find it rather intolerant to ban someone from speaking because they express their religious beliefs.
It doesn't sound like that's why she was banned. It sounds like she was banned from speaking because she was expressing her religous beliefs in an official, school-endorsed context.

Gokul43201

Jul15-06, 01:25 PM

Well, ya know, rulings like that are meant to target the studipest type of human that can go "oh wow, the school's valedictorian is talking about christianity and asking me to join and im too weak minded to resist!" The weak minded and the people that insist that someone's blood is their ticket to heaven...but I repeat myself.

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 01:27 PM

Heck, do we teach them tolerance when we force them to answer in an exam that the earth is billions of years old, when their preacher tells them that it is a few thousand, and that misrepresenting the true word of god is a sin?

See, thats why i hate the word "tolerance". Total crap. Tolerance is being open to all ideas. Being practical means having to pick one idea and teach it less you want Tom Cruise coming into your classroom explaining the facts of psychology. Schools are practical, not tolerant.

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 01:27 PM

The weak minded and the people that insist that someone's blood is their ticket to heaven...but I repeat myself.

How intolerant of you :biggrin:

Gokul43201

Jul15-06, 01:30 PM

How intolerant of you :biggrin:Yeah, I missed out on those tolerance classes. To me tolerance is about how carefully I need to machine a part.

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 01:34 PM

Yeah, I missed out on those tolerance classes. To me tolerance is about how carefully I need to machine a part.

Well you offended me within 0.005mm. Jerk. Use digital.

haha use digital.. oh man that reminds me back in one of my physics labs... we were talking about uncertainties and we were asked "how could we get more accurate measurements" and we go "use a digital device" and when the professor asked "how does digital guarantee more accurate readings" and we just stared at eachother.

Good times...

But anyhow back to the subject... this lawsuit is as stupid as those idiots who demand war memorials be removed of anything resembling a cross.

Skyhunter

Jul15-06, 01:48 PM

I find it rather intolerant to ban someone from speaking because they express their religious beliefs. Those same people who want to ban this are usually the first to push things like tolerance classes for homosexuality.

No one is banning her from expressing her religious beliefs or infringing on her rights. She has no right to use the schools venue to market her religion.

Intolerance can lead to violence. If intolerance exists, then what is wrong with teaching tolerance and peace?

Better than tolerance, tolerating others who are different, would be acceptance, accepting others as they are.

They want to stop children from singing Christmas songs at school but at the same time they want to rewrite textbooks to show homosexual couples as a normal relationship.
I don't believe there is any re-writing going on, just recognition of the fact that many historical figures were homosexuals.

There are many faiths that do not celebrate Christmas. I don't have a problem with not forcing kids to sing in school.

I mean isn't choir an elective? If a kid wants to sing let her sing, let him or her make a choice. Don't force them to sing with the other kids in a classroom, especially if the songs are of a religious nature.

Homosexuality exists in many species including humans.

Why would you consider a naturally occurring phenomenon to be abnormal?

It often seems that people's ideas of tolerance are very much one sided.
They want others to be tolerant about the things they believe in while at the same time they show intolerance for things they disagree with.

:smile:
As I said before, tolerance is tolerating what you don't agree with. I may not agree with your view of homosexuality, but I am tolerant of you expressing them on an open forum. And I am accepting of you, since, because we share the same universe, we must belong here. :smile:

I think perhaps you have have not read, or misread the article. It wasn't that she was not allowed to express her beliefs, but rather that she could not co-opt a school event for that purpose.

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 02:03 PM

I believe the whole idea of "tolerance" being in the same thought pattern as banning someone from speaking their mind about religion is kind of absurd. The courts have ruled that you can't speak your mind about religion at a government sponsored event. Fair enough. Don't say its "tolerance" that allows someone to be banned from speaking their mind however.

No one is banning her from expressing her religious beliefs or infringing on her rights. She has no right to use the schools venue to market her religion.

Theres a perfect example. Its intolerance that says she doesn't have the right to speak her mind but its a necessary evil at times to keep things from getting out of control. I'm perfectly ok saying people shouldn't have the right to preach at a school... but don't call it tolerance.

MeJennifer

Jul15-06, 02:08 PM

No one is banning her from expressing her religious beliefs or infringing on her rights. She has no right to use the schools venue to market her religion.

Well I see that differently. :smile:

Intolerance can lead to violence. If intolerance exists, then what is wrong with teaching tolerance and peace?

Tolerance cannot be taught.
One is either tolerant towards something or one is not, it is called freedom of tought.
Do you have tolerance for that?

Perhaps in a few decades we have the ability to implant a little device in each person's brain giving a small electrical pain shock each time someone thinks something that is not politically correct. I suppose that some might see this as an effectively way to "teach" people to see the benefits of the "ideal, tolerant, green pasture worlds".

Better than tolerance, tolerating others who are different, would be acceptance, accepting others as they are.

I do not see a problem with accepting people as they are. :smile:
I rather see that as having common sense!
But to force people to think like that is not particularly tolerant.

There are many faiths that do not celebrate Christmas. I don't have a problem with not forcing kids to sing in school.

Neither do I.
But to stop children from singing a Christmas song in school is intolerant in my opinion.

Don't force them to sing with the other kids in a classroom, especially if the songs are of a religious nature.

Who is talking about forcing children to sing Christmas songs? :confused:

Why would you consider a naturally occurring phenomenon to be abnormal?

Sure why not, for instance mental illness is also a naturally occuring phenomenon right? Or is it now also politically incorrect to call being mentally ill abnormal?

As I said before, tolerance is tolerating what you don't agree with. I may not agree with your view of homosexuality, but I am tolerant of you expressing them on an open forum. And I am accepting of you, since, because we share the same universe, we must belong here. :smile:

Well I have not expressed my views on homosexuality and neither have I expressed my views on religion.
But in case you want to know. I am an atheist and frankly I do not care what kind of relationships people decide to have.

I think perhaps you have have not read, or misread the article. It wasn't that she was not allowed to express her beliefs, but rather that she could not co-opt a school event for that purpose.
Don't worry I understand the matter.

To insist that her speech would be some sort of proof that the school was endorsing Christianity is simply absurd. What we have here is simply a person who has strong beliefs and likes to express them, it has nothing to do with the school endorsing a religion.

Hurkyl

Jul15-06, 02:13 PM

Why would you consider a naturally occurring phenomenon to be abnormal?
When it is "deviating from the normal or average".

(ref: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abnormal )

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 02:28 PM

Alright, im getting out of this thread before it starts becoming too P&WA for me.

Hurkyl

Jul15-06, 02:34 PM

Wow, I thought it was in P&WA!

Pengwuino

Jul15-06, 02:36 PM

Wow, I thought it was in P&WA!

I haven't seen religious people outright insulted yet so it just doesn't feel right... :biggrin:

slugcountry

Jul15-06, 04:57 PM

When it is "deviating from the normal or average".

(ref: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/abnormal )

Hi, I would argue that homosexuality is far from a deviation.

Virtually every species exhibits homosexuality. Natural selection dictates therefor, that it is desirable that approximately 10 percent of the population of a species is homosexual.

There are those who posit that a homosexual, by not having a child, would join in caring for other children in the group, thereby helping to ensure the survival of the group. I tend to agree with that.

It is both hilarious and sad therefor that people would say that a completely naturally occuring process is "against nature."

Astronuc

Jul15-06, 05:00 PM

Who is talking about forcing children to sing Christmas songs? The comment "I don't have a problem with not forcing kids to sing in school." is an example of children being encouraged or forced to do something that would be incompatible with a non-Christian tradition - and that was very much the case when I went to school. Each class learned Christmas songs to sing at Christmas time - there was no consideration for non-Christian traditions. Mind you - that was in Texas.

We were supposed to say the pledge, which invoked 'God', and not to say it would invite punishment.

In 7th grade, many of us decided not to stand and recite the pledge. It caused a stir, upset several authorities, but they eventually agreed. We were fine with sitting quietly while anyone who felt they had to stand and recite the pledge could do so. We did not criticize anyone who did. I just don't want to stand and recite something with which I don't agree - nor do I want to be punished for doing so.

Perhaps in a few decades we have the ability to implant a little device in each person's brain giving a small electrical pain shock each time someone thinks something that is not politically correct. No one else has suggested that one's thinking be controlled.

Perhaps the school did over-react. They could have offered a disclaimer. On the other hand, allowing McComb to proceed with her speech as it was could have been construed as tacit approval by the school of what McComb was saying. The school could not allow that.

Hurkyl

Jul15-06, 06:18 PM

Hi, I would argue that homosexuality is far from a deviation.

Virtually every species exhibits homosexuality.
From this, it would follow that it is normal for a species to have homosexual members. That's quite a different proposition than saying that homosexuality is the norm in Homo Sapien, or any other species.

Natural selection dictates therefor, that it is desirable that approximately 10 percent of the population of a species is homosexual.
Natural selection certainly doesn't dictate that it's desirable for 10% of humans to be homosexual, and with a brief search I can't even find evidence that, due to natural selection, it's even normal for a species to have a 10% homosexuality rate. (though I did find a page suggesting that the 10% figure is a lie (http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/2002-06-03b.asp))

There are those who posit that a homosexual, by not having a child, would join in caring for other children in the group, thereby helping to ensure the survival of the group. I tend to agree with that.
Again, that does not make homosexuality the norm. And besides, this sounds like rationalization -- is there any evidence that this is the reason homosexuality is seen in nature? If we're just speculating, then one can easily come up with very, very negative reasons just as easily as positive reasons.

It is both hilarious and sad therefor that people would say that a completely naturally occuring process is "against nature."
Nobody (here) said it's "against nature", so I rather suspect that you're just trying to preach the merits of homosexuality, rather than participate in the discussion -- if so, you really should create a thread for that purpose instead of doing it in someone else's.

(P.S. I hope you haven't bought into the fallacy that just because something is "natural", that it must be good. For example, the bubonic plague was natural... :wink:)

slugcountry

Jul15-06, 08:32 PM

From this, it would follow that it is normal for a species to have homosexual members. That's quite a different proposition than saying that homosexuality is the norm in Homo Sapien, or any other species.

Natural selection certainly doesn't dictate that it's desirable for 10% of humans to be homosexual, and with a brief search I can't even find evidence that, due to natural selection, it's even normal for a species to have a 10% homosexuality rate. (though I did find a page suggesting that the 10% figure is a lie (http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/2002-06-03b.asp))

Again, that does not make homosexuality the norm. And besides, this sounds like rationalization -- is there any evidence that this is the reason homosexuality is seen in nature? If we're just speculating, then one can easily come up with very, very negative reasons just as easily as positive reasons.

Nobody (here) said it's "against nature", so I rather suspect that you're just trying to preach the merits of homosexuality, rather than participate in the discussion -- if so, you really should create a thread for that purpose instead of doing it in someone else's.

(P.S. I hope you haven't bought into the fallacy that just because something is "natural", that it must be good. For example, the bubonic plague was natural... :wink:)

lol hurkyl, I am not trying to "preach the merits of homosexuality" ... hahaah i can't believe you... as for finding a negative reason, I'll just point to natural selection and say after tens of thousands of years it hasn't been weeded out. Neither have eye balls by the way.

And I am not trying to hijack this thread in any way, I was merely refuting your statement. While it may not be a statistical "norm" for the average homosapien to be a homosexual, a notable percentage certainly are (and in exit polls from the 2004 election, 4% self reported that they were... and those are just the ones that self reported) And so I don't think anyone in their right mind would call homosexuality abnormal.. especially considering the far higher prevalence of homosexuality among both males and females in developing countries.

p.s that was one hell of a corellation you made there.... I hope you haven't bought into the fallacy that just because someone doesn't share your opinion, they must be wrong.

Hurkyl

Jul15-06, 09:41 PM

as for finding a negative reason, I'll just point to natural selection and say after tens of thousands of years it hasn't been weeded out. Neither have eye balls by the way.
Neither have appendices, diabetes, murderers, and lactose intolerance.

I won't give a hypothetical "negative" reason why homosexuality might have evolved, because someone will jump into the discussion, see my post, ignore all the context, think I actually believe it, and we'll all be annoyed. :rolleyes: (Just use your imagination. Sheesh!)

Face it: "it survived through evolution, so it must be a Good Thing" is a fallacous argument.

a notable percentage certainly are [homosexual] ... I don't think anyone in their right mind would call homosexuality abnormal
We already have had someone in their right mind call homosexuality abnormal. The only reason I would not is because, while I would use the word to mean "not the norm", people will misinterpret me and think I meant something else. :rolleyes:

By the way, it almost sounds as if you're trying to use percentages to argue that homosexuality is normal -- would you also say that diabetes is normal?

I hope you haven't bought into the fallacy that just because someone doesn't share your opinion, they must be wrong.
Nope. If you notice, I'm attacking your argument, not your conclusion. At the moment I don't care one whit to make an arguement for or against homosexuality.

selfAdjoint

Jul15-06, 09:45 PM

arildno

Jul16-06, 04:52 AM

The 10% rate for homosexuality was published by Kinsey based on his pioneering researches. He defined "homosexual" to mean "ever had a homosexual contact". And the rate of men fitting that definition is around 10%. The rate of men living a homosexual lifestyle is much lower, perhaps under 5%.
Incorrect.
In the Kinsey report, 37% of the respondents said that they had had a homosexual contact. This was the real shocker back then.

10% was the number for dominant/exclusive homosexuality.

The Kinsey report, however, has been proven to be an extremely unreliable report. It should not be regarded as scientifically valid.
(Major reason being that the respondents were unrepresentative of the population at large, Kinsey typically found his respondents among the artistic/bohemian milieus at universities).

These are a few data from the Kinsey institute:
Homosexuality
Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time. (See Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale.)

Instances of at least one same-sex experience to orgasm:

37% of males
13% of females, (p. 650, Male, p. 475, Female)
Males:

10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55
8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. (p. 651, Male)
4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews, (p. 651, Male).

As of now, 2% seems to be the best estimate of the percentage of exclusive homosexuals in the population.

BobG

Jul17-06, 09:08 PM

No one else has suggested that one's thinking be controlled.

Perhaps the school did over-react. They could have offered a disclaimer. On the other hand, allowing McComb to proceed with her speech as it was could have been construed as tacit approval by the school of what McComb was saying. The school could not allow that.

The school is giving the students a chance to share their advice and secrets of success in recognition of the students' achievements. The only way to ensure that no students say anything that the school might not endorse to do away with these graduation speeches completely. It's a better option than selective censorship.

Should Tom Lyons have been allowed to give a graduation speech filled with irony and sarcasm telling folks that all was not well within their high school, specifically targeting a guidance counselor that had tried to steer Lyons away from attending college? Son, About Your Graduation Speech (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/COLUMNIST36/606010559) (technically, this isn't a great example, since Lyons submitted a different draft of his speech than he actually gave to avoid being censored).

Or how about Cranor's graduation speech where she uses a different book besides the Bible as the source for a quote doling out advice on life. Cranor Graduation Speech (http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/grad.html)
My uncle ordered popovers
from the restaurant's bill of fare.
And when they were served,
he regarded them
with a penetrating stare . . .
Then he spoke great Words of Wisdom
as he sat there on that chair:
"To eat these things,"
said my uncle,
"you must excercise great care.
You may swallow down what's solid . . .
BUT . . .
you must spit out the air!"

What's the difference between her advice and McComb's except McComb uses an organized religion for her source while Cranor uses Dr. Seuss?

kyleb

Jul17-06, 09:45 PM

This isn't selective censorship; it is the distinct separation between religion and government, the same standard which restricts teachers from proselytizing their faiths in the classrooms as well.

Office_Shredder

Jul17-06, 09:48 PM

The difference is that Cranor didn't go up and say "I'd like to thank the Lilac for blessing me with his arboreal powers. By sacrificing himself to save the forest, he has cleansed us all of sin. You too can join us of the Lilac Cult, and absolve yourself of your prosetic ways! All hail the Lilac!"

Smurf

Jul18-06, 12:24 AM

I don't know how valedictorians are chosen in the states, I hear it's different though. In my highschool though the valedictorian was voted on by the student body. Religion in my school wouldn't have been an issue because someone with such strong religious beliefs (and outspoken enough to say them in such a position) would never have been voted in. But if she had, I would have said it's her right to say whatever she wants. However, I would also complain that, because we couldn't at my school, any student who didn't want to listen should be able to walk out of the assembly. (Just like they shouldn't be forced to take tolerate-homosexuality classes)

Smurf

Jul18-06, 12:26 AM

This isn't selective censorship; it is the distinct separation between religion and government, the same standard which restricts teachers from proselytizing their faiths in the classrooms as well.
Personally I think that's a completely different issue. People have to listen to teachers every day, and they're also perceived authority figures. A Valedictorian is neither.

BobG

Jul18-06, 08:27 AM

This isn't selective censorship; it is the distinct separation between religion and government, the same standard which restricts teachers from proselytizing their faiths in the classrooms as well.
McCombs isn't a teacher. She has the same relationship with the school as a customer winning a Big Mac in McDonald's Monopoly game. Likewise, the school bears the same responsibility for her conduct as the manager of a McDonald's has for the conduct of its customers.

You're also overstating the amount of separation between religion and government. The government can't be a proponent of any particular religion or of religion, period. That doesn't mean all government employees lose their religious rights as soon as they walk in the door to work. Muslim Police Officers Can Keep Their Beards (http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/219.html). The key is whether the employee is expressing the government's official position or whether they are expressing their own personal opinion.

Astronuc

Jul18-06, 09:22 AM

What's the difference between her advice and McComb's except McComb uses an organized religion for her source while Cranor uses Dr. Seuss? I think the difference is what or how she said what she said.
"God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace." That is very specific to a particular religion - in a secular environment - or rather at a social gathering in a government facility.

"I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period." Fine, if McComb had said something like that, then it would have been OK.

The school's position (motivation for pulling the plug) -
"Proselytizing is improper in school-sponsored speech at valedictorian graduations," he said, adding the ACLU had sued in the past to ensure proselytizing was prevented at school-sponsored events.

arildno

Jul18-06, 10:20 AM

Curious3141

Jul18-06, 10:41 AM

I don't see why people are arguing about this issue.
The student in question had been warned by the school beforehand (and they had every right to do so), yet in her own disgusting self-importance CHOSE to defy that.
She is nothing but a wilful, arrogant girl who believes ordinary rules don't apply to her just because she is "saved" by Jesus.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. We had one of these arrogant proselytizers plaguing the WRX board where I moderate. We banned him to high heaven. :rolleyes:

kyleb

Jul18-06, 10:42 AM

Where are these confusions on the concept of Valedictorian coming from; "voted on by the student body", "winning a Big Mac in McDonald's Monopoly game"? The title of Valedictorian is pretty much the highest academic honor you can receive in a highschool environment. As for the Valedictorian speech, like any other activity in a public school, it is a state organized event and hence restricted by the rules which we place upon our state. Yeah, people are within their rights to wear a beard in accordance we various Muslim as well as other religious standards even when otherwise not permitted, as also people are within their rights to were various hats required by various Amish beliefs and those of other faiths even when hats aren't normally allowed; but people are most certainly not within their rights when they proselytize though the power of the state.

arildno

Jul18-06, 11:19 AM

Just a further note:
Anyone should, of course, be free and uncensored when it comes to saying what have been the sources of inspiration/success for themselves.

However, this is not what this girl did.
Rather, she demanded that the shool should become the audience for her doctrinal ravings.

MeJennifer

Jul18-06, 11:30 AM

Just a further note:
Anyone should, of course, be free and uncensored when it comes to saying what have been the sources of inspiration/success for themselves.

Well that is exactly was she was was trying to do, and she was censored.

Sorry but only an idiot would think that if a student makes a speech and mentions religion that that implies that the school is endorsing religion.

I suspect this is more like:

This is a public school, she mentions Jesus, I don't like Jesus. So how can I use 'reason" to block here from saying it.

So much for tolerance.
:smile:

arildno

Jul18-06, 11:35 AM

Well that is exactly was she was was trying to do, and she was censored.

Sorry but only an idiot would think that if a student makes a speech and mentions religion that that implies that the school is endorsing religion.

I suspect this is more like:

This is a public school, she mentions Jesus, I don't like Jesus. So how can I use 'reason" to block here from saying it.

So much for tolerance.
:smile:
Don't bother to try coming off as the neutral observer. You are not, you are a partisan.
This is what she said:
God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

This is intolerant, disrespectful, doctrinal raving and nothing else.
It is totally off-topic in a valedictorian speech.

MeJennifer

Jul18-06, 11:40 AM

This is intolerant, disrespectful, doctrinal raving and nothing else.

I am curious what you think is intolerant and disrespectful about that?

And by the way I am an atheist.
:smile:

""In my heart I couldn't say the edited version because it wasn't what I wanted to say," she told The Associated Press. "I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period." source (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/13/071310623.html)

Makes sense to me.

arildno

Jul18-06, 11:47 AM

It is irrelevant whether you are an atheist or animist.

It is intolerant and disrespectful to heap unto non-believers doctrinal trash. Religious people can speak doctrine within their own assembly houses.

MeJennifer

Jul18-06, 11:52 AM

It is intolerant and disrespectful to heap unto non-believers doctrinal trash.
Well I respectfully disagree. :smile:

I consider it greatly intolerant not to allow someone to express their religious beliefs. And I completely do not get why someone would consider it disrespectful?

Seems to me you got the meaning of intolerance mixed up.

arildno

Jul18-06, 12:13 PM

Well I respectfully disagree. :smile:

I consider it greatly intolerant not to allow someone to express their religious beliefs.
Again, you deliberately twist the issue. She made her valedictorian speech into a preaching sermon, something that was totally out of order, and that she had been told beforehand was not acceptable.

No one would have protested if she had said that her faith had been a source of inspiration, strength and solace to her during her studies, but that is not what she did.

Rather, she showed by holding this sermon that she only regards the Bible and fellow Christians to have any sort of moral authority, that she belongs to the clique of the righteous few, and that everyone else are moral and human non-entities.
Against them, she can do whatever she pleases, not bothering about how they might feel about it.

And that is deeply disrespectful of her towards the audience (and humanity at large).

MeJennifer

Jul18-06, 12:18 PM

Again, you deliberately twist the issue. She made her valedictorian speech into a preaching sermon, something that was totally out of order, and that she had been told beforehand was not acceptable.

No one would have protested if she had said that her faith had been a source of inspiration, strength and solace to her during her studies, but that is not what she did.

Rather, she showed by holding this sermon that she only regards the Bible and fellow Christians to have any sort of moral authority, that she belongs to the clique of the righteous few, and that everyone else are moral and human non-entities.
Against them, she can do whatever she pleases, not bothering about how they might feel about it.

And that is deeply disrespectful of her towards the audience (and humanity at large).
Well I am sorry but this whole posting does not make a lot of sense to me.

Must be me :smile:

arildno

Jul18-06, 12:23 PM

Not surprising, in light of your previous posts.

Astronuc

Jul18-06, 12:43 PM

""In my heart I couldn't say the edited version because it wasn't what I wanted to say," she told The Associated Press. "I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period." source (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/13/071310623.html)

Makes sense to me. If McComb had stated "I was inspired by God and his only son to work hard, . . . " and left it at that, it probably would have been fine. Or she might have been restricted to "I am inspired by my religion (religious beliefs), Church, parents, . . .".

But I think she went over the line when she started preaching (or proselytizing) with
God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

She had been warned, and she simply ignored the officials (which shows contempt for others who do not believe the same way), and delivered her message. She abused the privilege given to her - which in itself is rather hypocritical.

Smurf

Jul18-06, 02:13 PM

woah, Americans are so weird.

arildno

Jul18-06, 02:47 PM

(This is a comment to a now deleted post):
Hmm..why should exactly 3 abortions be conducive to her academic success? :confused:
Unless she actually shows that this is, indeed, conducive for her academic success, it is irrelevant information of a too private nature.

However, that a personal faith may impart a sense of purpose, that your life is seen as meaningful, and at times, helpful as a crying pillow is well known.
Hence its relevance.
It by no means follow from this that hammering religious DOCTRINE into her public as she did is acceptable.
In particular since she had agreed not to do so.

selfAdjoint

Jul18-06, 03:38 PM

woah, Americans are so weird.

Which weirdness are you commenting on here?

arildno

Jul18-06, 03:41 PM

I am Norweirdish, not American...

kyleb

Jul18-06, 04:03 PM

Which weirdness are you commenting on here?
I'm sure he is talking about those of us who respect the separation of church and state.

arildno

Jul18-06, 04:09 PM

Hmm, coming from a Canadian, I would think he referred to the actual existence of churches in the US..
(I've heard there are a couple of such buildings in Quebec, but I'm not sure..)

SpaceTiger

Jul18-06, 05:16 PM

It seems pretty clear to me that a student shouldn't be allowed to proselytize in a school commencement speech. She was warned too...if I were running the school, I would have done more than cut off her mic.

selfAdjoint

Jul18-06, 05:27 PM

I'm sure he is talking about those of us who respect the separation of church and state.

I thought it was maybe the somewhat incoherent behavior of priding ourselves on our prescriptive right to freedom of speech, and then tying ourselves in knots when somebody excercises, according to her own lights, that right.

BobG

Jul18-06, 06:16 PM

She had been warned, and she simply ignored the officials (which shows contempt for others who do not believe the same way), and delivered her message. She abused the privilege given to her - which in itself is rather hypocritical.
To be complete, she had been warned, asked for justification for the decision, received an ambiguous response (the reason was ambiguous, not how the school would respond), and then decided to ignore the officials.

The issue is whether the school had the right to censor the speech in the first place based solely on religious reasons and whether the school even followed national guidelines.

When it comes to the content of graduation speeches, the school has to be religiously neutral. That means the school shouldn't use the religious content (or lack of religious content) as the reason for prohibiting or censoring a graduation speech - it doesn't mean the speech has to be religiously neutral.

Of course, that is just my interpretation of a 'guideline' that is really just a long case history of numerous lawsuits that have occurred nationally. While school districts are required to have guidelines on what they have to avoid or what they have to allow, it's kind of hard to avoid being ambiguous when policy is based on court cases. If the cases avoid conflicting with each other, they only do so because the cases are decided on some fine point of law vs a defining principle that someone could base a policy on.

The Department of Education gives some guidance:

Prayer at Graduation

School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker’s and not the school’s.

That's easy for the Department of Education to say, but lawyers for individual school districts are more interested in finding a path through a mine field of lawsuits.

In general, schools can't actively promote school prayer at a graduation. That would include having a school official lead the prayer, arranging for some outside speaker to lead the graduation prayer, selecting a student to lead a school prayer. Schools also need to avoid giving the impression of endorsing religion by allowing religious content in graduation speeches while prohibiting other topics (i.e - the school can't get around the rules by only selecting speakers who they know will include religious content). It also includes putting the issue of school prayer up to majority vote by the students. Schools may think they're avoiding playing an active role by letting the students decide, but they're playing an active role in the process by holding the vote in the first place.

Schools also have to ensure they don't violate the First Amendment rights of their students or their community. They can't censor or prohibit a graduation speech or decide against a particular speaker solely because of the religious content of the person's speech. They also can't put the issue of who could lead a school prayer up to majority vote (the school gets slammed on both sides for this one, since the majority vote ensures religions in the minority never get expressed - hence a violation of the First Amendment rights of students in a minority religion). The school also can't bar religious organizations from using school facilities after hours if the school makes the facilities open to other community groups.

The only leg the school has to stand on is that they may require the student to delete content that falls outside the scope of the purpose for the presentation. I haven't seen a transcript of the speech, but if she is crediting religion for motivating her to be successful, the school is going to have a hard time saying the content falls outside the scope of the purpose. In fact, so far, it seems news articles all quote the same single sentence that occurred immediately prior to the microphone being cut off, but also say there were other religious references in the speech. A single sentence isn't a religious 'sermon' and 'other references' is pretty ambiguous.

I also like the part where schools can "make appropriate, neutral disclaimers". If the school isn't careful, they can get themselves in trouble with their disclaimers, as well. They really are walking through a minefield when it comes to religion, but they stepped on one of the mines in this case.

kyleb

Jul18-06, 08:52 PM

I thought it was maybe the somewhat incoherent behavior of priding ourselves on our prescriptive right to freedom of speech, and then tying ourselves in knots when somebody excercises, according to her own lights, that right.
Yet it isn't here right to freedom of speech that is taken issue with here; but rather, again, her attempt to proselytize though the power of the state.

Office_Shredder

Jul18-06, 09:36 PM

For a full transcript:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-20-Tue-2006/opinion/8027170.html

pcorbett

Jul18-06, 10:12 PM

Students in schools do not have the freedom of speech that citizens in public do.

This doesn't address any point made so far. Since administrative restriction of free speech is permissible to achieve certain educational aims and is not discretionary, it is not sufficient to point to such a diminution is justification for restraining or punishing a student's expression. See Sante Fe ISD v. Doe, Widmar v. Vincent, and West Virginia v. Barnette. You can start with Santa Fe [1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-62)].

Neither do soldiers in the army or employees at work.

Neither situation is comparable in the sense you imply. Public school students are minors, receive no renumeration for being students, and do not volunteer into such status. Even so, the point stands that employees, public and private, enjoy free speech protections. Once again, it isn't sufficient to point to dimunition as evidence of administrative discretion in restricting speech.

In all these cases there is legal authority to squelch, censor, bleep and delete speech that is incompatible with the authority's purposes. And this is all part of US law and conformable (say the courts) to our constitutional liberties.

See above.

The Cardinal of Chicago can't go with a bull horn and hector women going into an abortion clinic either. He calls it counseling and considers the ban a restriction on his freedom of speech.

Wow. Where'd you get that idea? [2 (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-1118.pdf)]

Smurf

Jul19-06, 03:49 AM

Which weirdness are you commenting on here?
All of them? :rofl:

vanesch

Jul19-06, 06:39 AM

(This is a comment to a now deleted post):
Hmm..why should exactly 3 abortions be conducive to her academic success?
:confused:

I deleted my post because after re-reading I found it not very appropriate in the conversation - sorry that you already replied.

As to your question: academic achievement is in a (large) part a social convention: you're judged by people on not always objectively measurable criteria. As is well known, pleasing your judges in one or another way might give you a favorable bias :devil:

However, that a personal faith may impart a sense of purpose, that your life is seen as meaningful, and at times, helpful as a crying pillow is well known.
Hence its relevance.
It by no means follow from this that hammering religious DOCTRINE into her public as she did is acceptable.
In particular since she had agreed not to do so.

I think nobody would have objected her saying that her religion helped her through hard times, motivated her, gave her wings :tongue2: . That her belief in [...] was a source of inspiration. Etc... But that wasn't what she was saying. She was stating elements of her religion as facts without a relationship to her success.

arildno

Jul19-06, 07:00 AM

daveb

Jul19-06, 07:43 AM

Religious content aside, is it me or are all valedictorian speeches that self-centered and self-indulgent?

Astronuc

Jul19-06, 08:25 AM

Religious content aside, is it me or are all valedictorian speeches that self-centered and self-indulgent? Not all, but some tend to be.

BTW - in the US, from my experience, the valedictorian is selected on the basis of grades and participation in school and community activities. It is supposed to be impartial.

arildno

Jul19-06, 08:52 AM

Religious content aside, ...
Then she would have had to remain mute. Which would have been for the best.
is it me or are all valedictorian speeches that self-centered and self-indulgent?
Eeh, it rather has to do with the self-centredness of religious fanatics of her ilk.

Gokul43201

Jul19-06, 09:14 AM

Personally, it doesn't rattle me that she essentially took the pupit to give a sermon. Heck, she could be urging the audience to murder, pillage and plunder, for all I care. Nor does it astonish me that all the audience wanted. I really couldn't care less.

What I do take away from this is to try and make sure no one I give a damn about goes to Foothill High (fortunately, I know no one in Vegas) - if the best they (the school) could do was that twit, it must be a pretty pathetic school.

Danger

Jul19-06, 09:16 AM

The reference at the end of her first paragraph wasn't too bad; it's what I'm used to hearing from just about everyone expressing good luck or whatever.
If I had been a member of the audience, student or otherwise, I would have been extremely offended and walked out when she got into it about half-way through. No one should have to put up with that kind of crap unless they go someplace specifically to hear it. It's a whole different situation than if one went to a church or even a concert with a musician whose religious views are known. This nut-burger ruined what should have been a joyous occassion for her classmates.

I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's.
No wonder she's so screwed up, if she doesn't even know what sex she belongs to. :rolleyes:

Gokul43201

Jul19-06, 09:19 AM

If I had been a member of the audience, student or otherwise, I would have been extremely offended and walked out when she got into it about half-way through. No one should have to put up with that kind of crap unless they go someplace specifically to hear it. It's a whole different situation than if one went to a church or even a concert with a musician who religious views are known. This nut-burger ruined what should have been a joyous occassion for her classmates.Did you not see the video? The audience was booing the school for pulling the plug. The girl became an instant hero and celebrity with the audience, and got a standing ovation for her canting.

arildno

Jul19-06, 09:22 AM

Did you not see the video? The audience was booing the school for pulling the plug. The girl became an instant hero and celebrity with the audience, and got a standing ovation for her canting.
The video wasn't working for me.
Seems like a disgusting neighboorhood where the Christians are holding everyone in the iron grip of orthodoxy, and the sole light of sanity is the headmaster at this school.

This is akin to the type of petty, dangerous religious brainwash mentality scientists had to battle against in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Danger

Jul19-06, 09:23 AM

No, I didn't see the video; I doubt that I could stomach it. The point, however, is that the whole situation with the audience would never have arisen in the first place if she hadn't ignored the guidelines.

kyleb

Jul19-06, 01:04 PM

Personally, it doesn't rattle me that she essentially took the pupit to give a sermon. Heck, she could be urging the audience to murder, pillage and plunder, for all I care. Nor does it astonish me that all the audience wanted. I really couldn't care less.
That is of course your choice not care here, but using the power of the state to insight such a riot isn't covered by freedom of speech either.

BobG

Jul19-06, 01:19 PM

I urge everyone to actually read that girl's "valedictorian" speech.
It is nothing of that sort, in fact, it is quite clear that she couldn't care less about holding a speech RELEVANT for this particular audience.

It is, simply, a SERMON, where everything else than her religious devotion is deemed irrelevant and without significance.

That alone makes her speech wholly inappropriate and irrelevant as a valedictorian speech.
You've got a point about what message she wanted to send. It was a recruitment speech for Christianity squeezed into the cut-out of a graduation speech.

However, if after the fourth paragraph, instead of talking about God and Jesus, she had talked about how she had discovered the relationships she developed with friends and teachers were far more important than any of her personal achievements, thanked those that had meant so much to her during her high school years, and urged her fellow students to remember their relationships with friends and families would always dwarf their personal achievements or failures, would the speech have been acceptable?

If so, then the speech she gave is probably going to be deemed as acceptable. Whether the speech offends people or makes them feel good about their high school days isn't a factor in determining the relevance of the speech. You have to look at all graduation speeches and hers only has to be as relevant as other speeches that are typically given at graduation. I think it's usually a pretty lenient standard - especially if a school has allowed other speeches only slightly relevant just because they liked the speech - they've redefined the standard for how relevant speeches have to be.

The school's lawyer misinterpreted court rulings (or, more likely, felt that very strong coercion preventing controversial speeches in the first place carried less risk than a small chance of the school being associated with religious speeches). The argument that the school could be found responsible for the student's speech won't hold water unless the school actually does something to at least increase the odds of students giving religious speeches.

They'd be on more solid ground to argue the speech was clearly aimed at recruiting new Christians and was only superficially related to graduation. Even that's a tough road because so much leniency is normally given on whether a speech is relevant to the graduation ceremony or not.

arildno

Jul19-06, 01:23 PM

kyleb

Jul19-06, 01:43 PM

The school's lawyer misinterpreted court rulings (or, more likely, felt that very strong coercion preventing controversial speeches in the first place carried less risk than a small chance of the school being associated with religious speeches). The argument that the school could be found responsible for the student's speech won't hold water unless the school actually does something to at least increase the odds of students giving religious speeches.
They did increase the odds of students giving religious speeches by aranging audince for a girl who showed clear intention to use her opertunity to proselytize in public. That is why they asked her not to, and that is why they are required to pull the plug on her as well.

BobG

Jul20-06, 01:20 PM

They did increase the odds of students giving religious speeches by aranging audince for a girl who showed clear intention to use her opertunity to proselytize in public. That is why they asked her not to, and that is why they are required to pull the plug on her as well.
If the first time they ever had the valedictorian give a speech at graduation, then, yes, the coincidence that the person chosen was going to give a Christian infomercial would raise some suspicion about why the school suddenly decided valedictorians should give graduation speeches.

There is a definite chance someone could bring a lawsuit if the school had allowed her to give her speech the way she wanted. There is even a remote chance that the court could find the school responsible for the speech. It would be a ludicrous decision in this instance, but it would be possible.

Deciding her speech was inappropriate because of its religious content is a violation of the constitution if the religious content resulted in a different standard being applied. To be on sound legal footing, the school has to have a different reason than the religious content.

They will be on more solid footing if they compare the situation to a student taking advantage of the opportunity to speak by trying to sell Amway products in the middle of the graduation ceremony. That gives a reasonable chance that a judge would dismiss the case before it ever gets to court (after all, the student was gaming the system by relying on legal technicalities - her speech was superficially related back to something pertinent to graduation, but the intent of the speech was clear).

If the case does make it to court, the court will get the opportunity to read past graduation speeches that were approved so they could compare the standards those speeches were held to to the standards that McComb's speech was held to.

I just doubt there's much of a standard to compare to. If the speech doesn't contain foul language or strong sexual content, I'm guessing students were allowed to say just about anthing they wanted. After all, aside from the speaker and their family, and maybe an individual or two mentioned in the speech, no one is going to remember what the valedictorian said, anyway. Most of the things said at a graduation are to fill up time and provide a little more 'pomp and circumstance' than would be provided by just having students stand in line in the cafeteria to pick up their diplomas.

I doubt the school will even go to court in that position. If a judge doesn't toss the case immediately, the school will settle out of court with monetary damages and an apology.

Even so, this is nothing more than a Super Bowl bet. There's enough conflicting cases that you can't know how it will turn out. You can bet on who you want to win, or you can bet on who you think will win, but there is no clear cut up or down here.

As far as who I think should win? In general, I'd fall towards being very lenient on what you allow the students to say. In this case, I'm a little ambivalent. She definitely gamed the system, so she doesn't get a lot of sympathy. Still, there's a lot less damage done by allowing her to speak than there is by censoring speeches based on whether someone agrees or disagrees with her. I'd say she should win.

BobG

Jul20-06, 01:34 PM

The difference is that God cannot be shown to exist, it remains a personal fantasy, whereas friends demonstrably exist.

Don't degrade real, actual friendships by comparing them with subjective flights of fancy.

A proper analogy would rather have been:
If she prattled on about leprechauns and unicorns in her valedictorian speech, would you regard it as appropriate that the plug was pulled when she started this?

(She had, of course, been warned beforehand that she should not talk about Mickey the fat Leprechaun).
Your analogy is a proper analogy.

You're not going to have a court declare that God exists or that God does not exist. You won't even get a court to declare that leprechauns or unicorns exist or don't exist. In fact, you won't get a court to declare that gravity exists. That's not the type of thing that's in the purview of the courts.

You could have a state legislature decide to pass a law saying God exists or a law saying God does not exist. You could even have a legislature pass a law saying gravity or leprechauns exist. None of these things are within the purview of legislature either, but politicians are silly enough that nothing is completely out of the question.

If you think the issue depends on whether God does, in fact, exist or does in fact, not exist, then you don't understand the concept between separation between religion and state. Which is correct is irrelevant when religion doesn't even fall under the purview of government.

There's only two issues: Was a government organization endorsing a particular religion? Does the student have the right to express her views?

loseyourname

Jul20-06, 05:42 PM

kyleb

Jul20-06, 11:11 PM

"he who giveth the stage can taketh it away?"
And he who giveth the stage has the reasonability to taketh it away when the person on the stage oversteps the rights of he who's stage it is.

Gokul43201

Jul20-06, 11:56 PM

If I stand up in a restaurant or movie theater and generally start behaving idiotically, would the management be violating my rights by having security throw me out?

Isn't there also - in addition to the argument on separation - the argument that the audience came to attend a Graduation ceremony, and not a sermon, and hence were having their rights infringed upon?

And finally, is a school a democracy? May schools not have rules that curb the individual freedoms (afforded by the Constitution) within the school environment? Haven't school uniforms, for instance, survived such a challenge?

arildno

Jul21-06, 08:12 AM

Your analogy is a proper analogy.

You're not going to have a court declare that God exists or that God does not exist. You won't even get a court to declare that leprechauns or unicorns exist or don't exist. In fact, you won't get a court to declare that gravity exists. That's not the type of thing that's in the purview of the courts.

You could have a state legislature decide to pass a law saying God exists or a law saying God does not exist. You could even have a legislature pass a law saying gravity or leprechauns exist. None of these things are within the purview of legislature either, but politicians are silly enough that nothing is completely out of the question.

If you think the issue depends on whether God does, in fact, exist or does in fact, not exist, then you don't understand the concept between separation between religion and state. Which is correct is irrelevant when religion doesn't even fall under the purview of government.

There's only two issues: Was a government organization endorsing a particular religion? Does the student have the right to express her views?
No, the issue is should the student be allowed to blather on about irrelevant religious doctrines when she has been told not do so?

BobG

Jul21-06, 08:48 AM

Isn't there a third issue as well? Sort of "he who giveth the stage can taketh it away?" She was not standing out on the street or in her frontyard with a crowd of people gathered to listen to her speak about her religious leanings. She was provided with a stage, an audience, and a microphone by the school. It would seem they have the right to take any of those things away for any reason whatsoever. Or is it actually written into law that a valedictorian has the right to speak at a commencement ceremony? I was under the impression it was simply custom and the school was under no legal obligation to let her speak at all about anything.
Yes, there is. Schools could decide these things are just more trouble than they're worth and drop them completely. They just can't selectively give the right or withhold the right based on the speaker's personal views.

In fact, eliminating student speeches and guest speakers will probably be the eventual outcome in many school districts.

Groups wanting to ban prayers from graduation (reasonable) and to ban speakers even mentioning religion (unreasonable) use lawsuits as their weapons. Even if the school could win a lawsuit, they're facing legal costs and at least the risk of losing the lawsuit. The safest solution winds up being to settle out of court to minimize the risk, but it's a solution that definitely impacts the school's budget. Prevention winds up being the best solution. Avoid any risk of someone bringing a lawsuit about the school's association with religious statements.

With groups wanting school prayer and a closer association between schools and religion also bringing lawsuits, there is no safe route. The school faces the risk of a lawsuit whichever option they take. Of the two groups, the advantage tends to go towards the side promoting religion, since that group also tends to support school vouchers (people who would rather send their kids to religious schools tend to support school vouchers - don't they realize that anti-religious groups would then just bring lawsuits to prevent religious schools from promoting religion at government expense?). The pro-school voucher side is less likely to worry about damage to the public school system.

Dealing with lawsuits just becomes a permanent part of school budgets unless they just avoid the whole situation by eliminating speakers they can't control. Only official school officials will be able to speak at graduations.