News Religious valedictorian sues Nevada school

  • Thread starter Thread starter loseyourname
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    School
Click For Summary
A high school valedictorian, Brittany McComb, has filed a lawsuit against school officials after her microphone was cut off during her commencement speech when she mentioned Jesus Christ. McComb claims her rights to religious freedom and free speech were violated. The school justified this action based on a 9th Circuit Court ruling that prohibits proselytizing in public school speeches. McComb had been warned to adhere to an approved script that omitted religious references but chose to include them anyway.The forum discussion highlights differing opinions on the balance between free speech and the separation of church and state in public schools. Some argue that the school acted within its rights to prevent religious endorsement at a school event, while others believe this censorship infringes on students' rights to express their beliefs. The conversation also touches on broader themes of tolerance and the implications of restricting religious expression in educational settings. Participants express concerns about the potential for perceived intolerance and the implications of such actions on students' understanding of freedom of speech and religious expression.
  • #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 )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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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?
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
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!"
 
  • #38
I don't know how valedictorians are chosen in the states, I hear it's different though. In my high school 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)
 
Last edited:
  • #39
kyleb said:
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.
 
  • #40
kyleb said:
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. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
BobG said:
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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
arildno said:
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:
 
  • #44
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 high school 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.
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
arildno said:
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:
 
  • #47
MeJennifer said:
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.
 
  • #48
arildno said:
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." http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jul/13/071310623.html"

Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #51
MeJennifer said:
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).
 
  • #52
arildno said:
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:
 
  • #53
Not surprising, in light of your previous posts.
 
  • #54
MeJennifer said:
""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." 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
woah, Americans are so weird.
 
  • #56
(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.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Smurf said:
woah, Americans are so weird.


Which weirdness are you commenting on here?
 
  • #58
I am Norweirdish, not American...
 
  • #59
selfAdjoint said:
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.
 
  • #60
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..)