Well of course terroristic threats or incitements to violence would be illegal regardless of religious content, but so what? What does that have to do with the debate.
Maybe you guys need to define the term “agent”. She certianly doesn’t speak for the school, as would the principal if he/she were to give a speach. She speaks for herself. She was chosen by the school, but then so would Condi Rice be if she had been invited to speak at the school. So she’s an agent of the shcool in the sense that she was chosen by the administration, but she doesn’t represent the school officially.
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know. From a legal standpoint I don’t know when a reasonable expectation becomes a contract of sorts. Lawyers? Bricker?
But that assumes that zero mention of religion is allowed. I don’t think that is your opinion, as you stated in this same post.
That’s exaclty wrong. At least from the idea of valedictorian that I remember. It is earned. In my school it went to the kid with the best GPA. If a kid gets the highest GPA, he not only has the right to be V., he is the V.
I think it reasonable to say that there is (theoretically, at least) some value in hearing what the most successful among us have to say. Would you ask Steve Jobs as to why he thinks Apple is enjoying such success of late and then chose what part of his answer you deem worthy or appropriate? The idea is that the V. has a pretty good handle on what it takes for someone in her situation to be successful, and that other kids can benefit from that knowledge.
Probably true, but that is not the point.
So what? It’s just someone’s opinion. The whole speech is one person’s opinion. Why can she say “Studying hard helped me. Having good friends helped me. Having Jesus in my life helped me. I think those are the same things that will help me in my next challenge. I think they are the same things that can help all of us in all our challenges.”?
They’re not telling her what to think, they’re telling her what to tell others she thinks. In a way, that’s even worse. But I’m glad to see that you think that ANY mention of her religion is automatically off limits.
I thiink that the distinction is objective versus subjective. If it is based on something achieved, or won even, like a drawing, then she is not an agent of the school. If she is chosen, she is an agent of the school and I agree her speech can be curtailed.
By the way, would you mind giviing your response to my Posts 40 and 48? Thanks.
Magellan, a contranitpick: To set criteria is to make a choice. If I say, and later do, “I will promote the salesman with the highest new-account orders this quarter to sales manager,” I have made a choice. I’ve simply publicly prespecified the criteria for my choice, to permit fair competition to be the person I will choose. The valedictorian is traditionally the person with the highest four-year average grade. But it need not be. I recall vaguely a story where a given school’s probable valedictorian on the high-marks basis was arrested (and released in his own custody) two weeks before graduation – and was disqualified and the putative salutatorian made valedictorian. Other than certain legal issues, there’s nothing inherently invalid in whatever criteria the school chooses to use: overcoming a handicap, say, or “best combination of high grades and community service.” (Presumably “gives the principal the best blowjobs” would not be a valid criterion.) I stand by “chosen.”
See my response and request for lawyers in my previous post to you.
Why not?-? How can it possibly be both? A thing is either earned or given. No?
Not to be redundant, see my previous post.
So, if in my school I have apolicy that the valedictorian will be the kid with the highest GPA, but I won’t know who that kid is for four years, I’ve chosen him? Assuming you don’t have a time machine, how is that even remotely possible? Once you set objective criteria you take it out of anyone’s hands. The choosing of someone is subjective. Once objective criteria are in place the title is earned, not handed over.
I’d counter by arguing that the President’s speach is a matter of general interest and historical importance, while Rhonda Religous’s speach is not. Exposing the citizens to a public statement by the President serves the secular purpose of educating students about public policy, and the political positions taken by the President. The students may well wish to consider this information in deciding how to, or even whether to cast their ballots when they reach voting age. Allowing a public forum to a private citizen to address a captive audience regarding her personal religous beliefs just does not rise to the same level of legitimate secular purpose. Rhonda is not an electable official, she does not have launch authority over nuclear weapons, and she is not generally regarded as an important historical figure, at least at this point in her life.
Also, I think you are disregarding the rights of the audience here. The question of whether providing the microphone equals state endorsement is open to debate. I like the reasoning in the Santa Fe case which indicates that yes, providing the microphone equals state sponsorship to some degree. The other students, as well as their families attending this milestone event should not have to particpate in a religous display that may be counter to the tenets of their own faith, or otherwise offensive–as was recognized above in the quote from the evangelical Christian who took great offense when exposed to what he considered an affront to his religion by a pagan priest. I know** Magellan01** says he would be willing to let Sammy Satanic or Wendy Wiccan give the address on the same terms as Jenny Jesus, and I commend him for being fair–but I do not believe that the majority of the population, and certainly not the majority of evangelical Christians would be willing to extend the same rights they demand for themselves to minority faiths.
Taking the hot tag from Dio (as the crowd chants OAKIE! OAKIE!), I wrote that statement to make it as offensive as possible, to illustrate a point. The point being is that in the eyes of the law, all religions are equal. It matters not whether the religion teaches “Praise Jesus”, “Put the Infidel to the Sword”, “Hare Krishna”, “Thor Rules” or “Drink Christian Baby Blood”. The State can’t say “Praise Jesus” is ok, but “Drink Christian Baby Blood” is not ok without violating the Establishment Clause.
Be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it. If you want little Jenny Jesus to be able express her faith, you oughta be willing to let Sammy Satanic do the same thing. To do otherwise would be to prefer one religion over another–which again, the State may not do.
I’m not saying that’s unreasonable, I’m just saying… who cares, I guess is what I’m saying. Yes, a valedictorian might have good advice about how to succeed in school. So what? Why does she have this absolute right to talk about it precisely the terms she wants, in front of a captive audience, on the state’s dime?
Yes, but as valedictorian, speaking at graduation, there’s an implied endorsement of her opinion from the school, and that can lead them into shakey legal territory. However, as a valedictorian, speaking at graduation, the school also has every right to dictate what she’s allowed to say during her speech. It’s the school’s graduation, not just an event thrown to honor the valedictorian.
Not only do I not see how that’s worse, I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with that at all.
First, I don’t understand how you’re using objective and subjective in this context. Second, what do you do if there’s more than one student with a perfect GPA? I seem to recall you rolling your eyes at mention of co-valedictorians, so the school’s got to pick one of these students for the honor. Does that make the valedictorian an agent?
All schools choose their valedictorian. Academic merit is just the criteria they use to make that choice. Often, the criteria is strict enough that it limits the pool of potentials to one. Sometimes it doesn’t, and they’ve got to make a choice. In either instance, it does not change the relationship between the valedictorian and the school.
Sure.
Because it’s the school newspaper, not an official graduation ceremony. There’s no appearance that something published in the school newspaper is endorsed by the school administration. Of course, if the school decides it doesn’t want those remarks published in its paper, it still has the right to forbid them from being published.
During the ceremony, yes.
If I were principle, and I allowed those remarks to be said during graduation, I think it would be fair to assume that I endorsed those remarks. Would I ban them myself? Hard to say. I might balk at the second one, because it’s disrespectful to all the teachers (also in attendence) who had to put up with the little monsters for four years. I’d probably let the third one go except for the party reference, since I’d probably be trying to endorse a drug-and-alcohol-free school party to keep kids sober and off the roads on grad night.
The cat thing I’d let go. Even though I don’t actually endorse it, it doesn’t really matter if people think that I do.
Isn’t that also the opinion of the Court?
Oh, also from post 48:
Actually, I think the honor is putting “Valedictorian” on your college application, not on boring your classmates for fifteen minutes in the hot sun. And since it is the high school that is dispensing the honor, the high school gets to determine what form that honor comes in. If the honor is, “Give a non-religious speech,” the honor is “give a non-religious speech.”
Winning an Olympic gold is an honor, too, but the winner does get to decide the medal comes with a matching Ferrari. The honor consists of exactly what the Olympic committee says it consists of, and nothing more.
“Be true to yourself. Don’t listen to your parents, or your teachers. You know what’s best for you.”
Actually, that was the theme of my speech when I was selected Faculty Speaker at our graduation a few years ago. Nobody said anything negative about it. 
It is entirely relevant. You’re the one who claimed that there was no legal distinction between the two statements. I pointed out that one of them – the one that was dedicated to Chthulu – was an incitement to violence, which automatically makes the comparison invalid.
Does this automatically make the statement “Thank Jesus!” permissible? No, which is why I never made that claim. I’m merely point out that a particular line of reasoning is invalid.
Your comparison is both inequitable and invalid. The problem with the statements "Slay the Christians, and aid us to drink the blood of their babies to the greater glory of Cthulu!"and “Drink Christian baby blood” is NOT that they violate the establishment clause. Rather, the problem is that they are calls to commit cold-blooded murder.
That is why it is specious to say that if we allow “Praise Jesus!” to be uttered during a valedictory speech, then we must also allow a prayer that calls for the ritualistic murder of Christians and infants. That conclusion simply does not follow.
With all due respect, counselor, that’s just handwaving. All you’ve shown is that president’s speech serves a different secular purpose, not that it’s any less secular. All that the Lemon test requires is that there be a legitimate secular purpose, not that it be any particular secular purpose. Rhonda isn’t being chosen because of her religious views, and she needn’t address them if she doesn’t want. Does it matter whether she says “I’d like to thank my parents, the school factulty, my friends, and my God” or whether she quotes George Washington saying much the same thing?
You’re right, they shouldn’t. That’s why prozelytizing is not allowed. But a mere casual reference to God cannot in good faith (no pun intended) be called “a religious display”. The issue in Santa Fe was a student, who was designated a “chpalain” reading a prayer over the public address system. Rhonda thanking God is hardly comparable.
And yet you’d allow political speech that some might find offensive. There are many people who hate Geroge Bush with a passion. Would you object to Rhonda stating that she admires Bush and quoting from him? Surely that would offend many people. The constitution simply doesn’t proctect us against every and all offense.
Tough cookies. (Sorry, couldn’t resist that.)
This court is ready to step in and protect Sammy and Wendy from being censored by those who would censure her. That is the proper function of the first amendment, not the banishment of all mention of religion from the public sphere.
Depends on what is actually meant by a “religious speech”. I don’t think anyone is advocating that the student should be allowed to read a prayer and she certainly shouldn’t prozelytize. But **Dio **objects to the mere mention of God in the speech.
Would you object to a teacher saying “thank Jesus” in a classroom?
Irrelevant. A valedictorian does not represent the school in the same way that a teacher does, nor does a valedictory address serve the same function as a classroom lecture.
You’re right. The Constitution does not protect against every form of offense. However, it does protect us from a State establishment of religion. My position remains that by providing the microphone for a religous message, the State violates the Establishment Clause. Rhonda can take the pulpit in the church of her choice, and testify all day long, no problem. When she takes the stick at graduation, she needs to leave her bible at home.
Besides what **JT **said, it would depend on the context.
Would you object to a teacher wearing a neckless that said “Thank Jesus”?