So the “right” of someone in the audience to not be offended trumps the student’s right to freedom of speech.
Sweet.
do you really believe that is the issue?
That student has free speech. They can stand on the street and announce their beliefs at the top of the lungs. They write and distibute pamphlets, write to the papers, post online, meet and discuss with others on their own time.
See, the graduation ceremony isn’t their own time. it’s the public school’s time, which kinda makes it a government sponsored event. That’s the issue. It comes off as an official endorsement of Christianity.
I asked a question of Shodan a few posts up. Maybe you could read it and answer it also. I would like your opinion on the matter.
If the question is:
“Would you say “Hey, let the kids say what they want. The Muslim speaker, too. They’re the majority, after all.” Or would you have some qualms about it? Would you feel differently if your child was a student there? I’d like to know.”
I’ve already indicated that I believe in free speech. If the Validictorian decided to wear a Shriner’s fez and attribute her success to her worship of Cthulhu, at worst I’d nudge Ms. Balle_M and mumble, “Jeez…what a nutjob.” I would NOT run crying to the first judge I could find and whine about being offended.
Well, instead of making a dishonest characterization of my posting, you could haul off and realize that the rest of the crowd also has rights–and that’s what the judge is issuing his orders to protect.
Hmm, yes, but (at least in this state) finding a cop willing to make the arrest, a DA willing to prosecute, and a jury willing to convict are another matter. Even if I could manage to do all of that, I’d be screwing myself. Why? Because in this state there’d be a media frenzy over the whole business, and I’d immediately lose my job. (My boss being a devout Christian.) Now, sure I could sue him, and I’d no doubt win (eventually). However, since it’s taken me three bloody years to a get a job in the industry I’m interested in, and since the media spectacle would make it well-nigh impossible for me to get another job in the field (at least in this state), I think I’ll pass. I’ve been homeless and I’ve done without food in the past, it’s not something I care to repeat.
**
Ah, but they haven’t had quite the run of it that religion has had, now have they? You’ve got the various Soviet dictators, potentially Adolf Hitler, a few scattered throughout history and that’s pretty much it. The Catholic Church alone is responsible for a goodly number, and when you factor in the other branches of Christianity, Islam, Judism, Hinduism, and Zoasterians (to name but a few) I’d say that the blood on religions hands is greater than that of atheism. **
I’ll see your Madlyn Murray-O’Hair and raise you a Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Jones, and Franklin Graham.**
So, it’s okay with you if a student gets up a graduation ceremony and says, “There is no God, you pathetic losers!”? Using a state sponsored function which is not intended to have a discussion about theology, but is merely a celebration of those who’ve managed to show up the required number of days for 13 years?
**
Are you familiar with the phrase “hate speech”? I do have the right, if the ideas which are being expressed are morally repugnant to me to complain, and if those ideas are of a religious nature, in a state sponsored setting, and are given with the expressed desire of “furthering the message” by an elected official, then that is an attempt at state sponsored religion, and is quite clearly against the Constitution. And lest you cry that the Founding Fathers of this country were Christians, you should take a gander at this passage from Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography
**
As others have shown far better than I: Wrong.
**
It can and does, when those expressions are used by elected officials to foist a state sponsored religion on the populace.
Oh, and don’t assume that because I agree with the judge that I’m an atheist. I do not discuss my religion with other folks. That way, I’m only slightly annoying, instead of incredibly annoying.
Thank you for the response. For what it’s worth, that’s the way I’d react to it, too.
But I get a little nippy about what I percieve as the hypocritical reaction from some of our Christian brothers and sisters. I ain’t naming no names [sub]coughjeryyfallwellbilloriellypatrobertsoncough[/sub], but some of them would be absolutely livid, on the verge of coniption, if Allah or Jehova were honored in such a way, or if the Torah or Quaran (sp?) were read from in such a ceremony in front of their kids.
I am sure there must be any number of ACLU lawyers who are slavering for cases such as the one you claim.
If it were me being kidnapped and held for hours, I would be a little more likely to follow thru.
Apart from the last three words, yes.
I am indeed. It has nothing to do with a student expressing religious faith in public.
So a judge determining that some prayers are allowed, and others prohibited, is not a religious test of speech?
Prayers are clearly speech. The judge has clearly set up a test. The test is clearly religious, since the judge expressly defines it as such. Which part of this syllogism do you contest?
You mean like a judge determining which prayers in public are OK and which are forbidden?
He is sponsoring a certain form of religion, and foisting it on the populace. Or are you arguing that students are elected officials?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan:
Yes- the judge determined that non-denominational prayers were OK and was laying out guidelines for what was acceptable. The key word is non-denominational, which you don’t seem to acknowledge. As I stated before, the type of prayers that you’ve given as examples of acceptable under his ruling are not non-denominational and while they may not violate the letter of the judges specific examples, they sure violate the spirit. I’d be willing to bet that if you gave a school prayer thanking Mohammed and were cited for contempt, your “but he’s not a deity!” excuse wouldn’t wash.
No, I don’t have a cite for this. And there’s a lot of stuff that falls under free speech that isn’t allowed at a graduation ceremony. If they want to stand out in the parking lot and thank Jesus (or their deity of choice) they’re allowed to do that.
Shodan is right: this is a dubious religious test, and it is not acceptable. It isn’t the government’s business to determine what SORT of religious activity is acceptable and what isn’t, whta constitutes non-denominational, and what doesn’t. It’s the government’s business to stay out of religious matters entirely, not to become an expert on theology. Judges are not qualified to rule on matters of theology, nor are they empowered to do so.
The Catholic Church, at least directly, can’t claim more than a few hundred thousand, though obviously that figure changes depending on what you consider to be their fault. However, one could easily aruge that in many cases their acts had more to do with politics than religion.
However, if we distinguish between someone merely being an atheist and being killed in the name of anti-religion, then Hitler et al’s count diminishes quite a bit as well. Further, lives aren’t the only things of importance: both religious and anti-religious regimes created climates of terror and intimidation for non-believers and believers both.
This is not really a useful endeavor, however, this counting up of crimes. it’s irrelevant to the subejct.
Perhaps, but despite impressions to the contrary, the ACLU is not a fat cat organization and they are highly selective of the cases they handle. They’re not going to jump on every case which they feel violates the law. Indeed, the time I spoke to them, they recommended that I speak to a private attorney if I wanted a response in a short period of time. (Gee guys, if I had the money to speak to a lawyer, I wouldn’t be calling you.)
**
[/quote]
If it were me being kidnapped and held for hours, I would be a little more likely to follow thru.**
[/quote]
Who said anything about hours?
**
Frankly, I can’t add anything better than what Mojob has said, at this point.
While I would like the Court to rule that “ceremonial deism” is a dodge and just rule the whole thing UnConstitutional, kick out the Congressional Chaplains and knock off all the prayers, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon. Kent’s ruling in this case was essentially that a non-denominational prayer fit the mold a ceremonial deism, like the opening prayers in the Supreme Court or “In God We Trust” on the money.
Precisely. The judge decided that certain kinds of prayers were acceptable, and no others.
Which is a religious test, an establishment of religion, and an interference with the free practice of religion, all rolled into one.
Regards,
Shodan
WRONG again Shodan.
Ceremonial Deism. The tradition is why it is allowed at graduation ceremonies but not at football games. I disagree and think it should be banned in both places; but at least it’s better than having an Altar Call at graduation.
Something about “protected from establishment clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.”
Which is pretty much an inevitable circumstance when a religion becomes associated with a government. It’s a very simple philosophical (rather than chemical) reaction…government corrupts religion. It rots it. It empties it of all meaning and significance. Every time religion has reached out to take the government’s hand, it’s been made a tool of that government.
You’d think the religious people clamoring for government recognition and favoritism would realize this and react strongly against such a mingling.
Shodan, how was it an interference with the free practice of religion?
You aren’t making any sense.
If they are having altar calls at a graduation, then it isn’t ceremonial deism. If it has lost meaning thru rote repetition, then it should be just as allowable at a football game as at a graduation. And when you call for banning public prayer, you are interfering with the free practice of religion.
As I said, this is a particularly stupid ruling, with something in it to offend against the rights of practically everyone.
Regards,
Shodan
This ruling is in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in several cases and specifically lines up with Brennan’s concurrance in Abington Township v. Schempp about Ceremonial Deism. It was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was not a stupid ruling.
Plessy v. Ferguson was upheld, too.
Of course it is a stupid ruling.
Regards,
Shodan
WorldNewsDaily is run by Joseph Farrah. who started it as a Clinton scandal sheet funded by theWestern Journalism Center, which he co-founded.
The WJC is funded in turn by Richard Mellon-Scaife, the billionaire who made Clinton-bashing into a growth industry. The WJC is the organization that brought the world all the half-baked Vince Foster suicide mystery bullshit.
So the OP cite is prolly inflammatory nonsense- has anyone found any independent confirmation of law-enforcement activity against Jesus-talkers? This is the second thread in as many days hydro has opened with a nutty-right cite, then jumped out of the bullring (the previous was the famed “Ann Coulter: Goebbels with tits” exchange). Hydrocortizone, what’s your honest opinion?
Do you think students should get (etc.)… word ‘Jesus’? Do you think there was ever serious danger of prison time over this one? Or is it more of a ‘do not remove this label under penalty of law’ kinda thing?
So, **Shodan[/b[, are you willing to give up the Congressional Chaplains, Invocations, “In God We Trust” on the money and “Under God” in the Pledge? Because those are allowed as Ceremonial Deism. Otherwise they’d be disallowed. There’s only one way to go with this issue. You get what you got or you give it all up. Personally, I’d like to see it all go.