Religious valedictorian sues Nevada school

  • News
  • Thread starter loseyourname
  • Start date
  • Tags
    School
In summary, Brittany McComb, a high school valedictorian, was given the option to speak about Jesus Christ or have her speech cut off due to a 9th district court of appeals ruling that proselytizing in public school speeches is forbidden. McComb decided to speak anyway, and the school cut off her microphone after she started preaching about Jesus. McComb is suing the school, claiming her rights to religious freedom and free speech were trampled. Opinion on this case seems to be divided, with some finding the school's actions to be justified and others finding them to be an infringement of McComb's rights.
  • #1
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,830
5
LAS VEGAS - A high school valedictorian who had the plug pulled on her microphone as she gave an address referring to Jesus Christ has filed a lawsuit against school officials, claiming her rights to religious freedom and free speech were trampled.

Brittany McComb, 18, said she was giving her June 15 commencement address to some 400 graduates of Foothill High School and their family members when the sound was cut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_us/religious_valedictorian" [Broken]

The school did this because of a 9th district court of appeals ruling that proselytizing in public school speeches is forbidden and is to be censored. What does the forum think? Reeks of overbearing authority to me, but it's not like she was cut off while speaking out in the street. The school gave her the stage and the mic and the audience and she really doesn't have any right to say beyond what they let her say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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!
 
  • #3
Oh nevermind, after reading the full article...

McComb said she was warned that her speech would be cut off if she did not follow an approved script that deleted references to Christ and invitations for others to join the faith. But she memorized the deleted parts and said them anyway.

Since it's a public school, it's pretty much their job to make sure a school doesn't appear to be endorsing any religion.

Do we ever actually bother to read anything cyrus...
 
Last edited:
  • #4
"invitations for others to join the faith"

Wow! That's messed up.
 
  • #5
Students in schools do not have the freedom of speech that citizens in public do. Neither do soldiers in the army or employees at work. 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.

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.
 
  • #6
McComb said she was warned that her speech would be cut off if she did not follow an approved script that deleted references to Christ and invitations for others to join the faith.
I think this comment posted by Pengwuino pretty much defeats her arguement. She was warned, and this is not an issue of free speech. She was granted a privilege to speak to an audience - she did not invite the audience to hear her speech. Students' speeches are generally reviewed (consored in some cases) for content and quality.

If McComb had been speaking at her church, or at a function in which people were invited to hear her speak on the subject of her choice, then that would be an entirely different matter.
 
  • #7
And bottom line, the school can't show a favoritism towards any religion. Bottom line, not up for debate or interpretation.
 
  • #8
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.
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #9
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:
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
  • #12
Skyhunter said:
This is a really graphic, forget the context, all this talk of blood and pain. :yuck:
Yeah, religion ought to be rated R! :biggrin:
 
  • #13
Well, you 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 I am too weak minded to resist!" so you need to really just cover as many bases as you can by banning things like this.
 
  • #14
MeJennifer said:
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?
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
Pengwuino said:
Well, you 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 I am 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.
 
  • #17
Gokul43201 said:
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, that's 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.
 
  • #18
Gokul43201 said:
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:
 
  • #19
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
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 each other.

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.
 
  • #21
MeJennifer said:
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.

MeJennifer said:
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?

MeJennifer said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
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.

skyhunter said:
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.
 
  • #23
Skyhunter said:
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 occurring 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Skyhunter said:
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 )
 
  • #25
Alright, I am getting out of this thread before it starts becoming too P&WA for me.
 
  • #26
Wow, I thought it was in P&WA!
 
  • #27
Hurkyl said:
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:
 
  • #28
Hurkyl said:
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 occurring process is "against nature."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
slugcountry said:
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 http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/2002-06-03b.asp [Broken])

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 occurring 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:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Hurkyl said:
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 http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/2002-06-03b.asp [Broken])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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
slugcountry said:
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 argument for or against homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
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%.
 
  • #34
selfAdjoint said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Astronuc said:
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? 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
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?
 
Back
Top