But your argument was simply that some people might take offense. That cannot be the deciding factor since there are clearly people who take offense by the 10 Commandments being on the lawn in front of that Texas courthouse that the SCOTUS said was OK.
Nice try, but that doesn’t work. The statement I wrote lacks the specificity and immediacy to qualify as an incitement to violence. It’s generic enough that it poses no danger to any person. It would be different if the speaker said “Kill that Christian, right now”.
Now, please forget about the baby blood thing and answer my question: Would you or would you not extend the same rights to a Satanist (or other minority religion that you find unpleasant) that you demand for a Christian?
What about my habit of prefacing each week’s history quiz with an announcement that “It’s Ecclesiastes Time!”? 
SCOTUS said it was OK in the context of a historical display. They also said it was not OK as a stand alone deal in a courthouse elsewhere. This is entirely different from the issues involved in a religious speach, arguably endorsed by the state, at a milestone event before a captive audience.
My argument is and has always been that the State may not prefer one religion over another, nor may they prefer religion over non-religion. To do so violates the Establishment Clause.
She has the right to relate her feelings as far as what contributed to, and will contribute to, her success accurately. Why should she have to lie or dance around something that she might feel was vital to her success. And if the state’s dime is so much the issue I hope you are willing to monitor every hallway and meeting, because some kids might speak about their religion too loudly and harm the little ears of non-believers—all on the state’s dime.
And evidently all of us in this thread “care”.
Not that I buy that it’s an endorsement, implied or otherwise, but let’s say you’re right here. How is that not solved by that little preamble: “Miss Andrews here is now going to share a few words with you. Let me just remind everyone that these are Miss Andrews own thoughts and not, necessarily, those of the school.”? It’s clunky, but you get the idea?
But the more they dictate, the less it her speech, the less meaningful it becomes. I don’t think the honor is to have her stand at a microphone and utter words, it’s for her to share her thoughts. If she feels that God or Jesus or Satan or her cat or her pet unicorn helped her get there, she deserves the right to say that, if she so desires.
I’ll ask you, what is the big deal?
I think it’s worse because she is supposed to share her thoughts on past and future challanges and successes, and someone is telliing her that she has to profess an opinion she doesn’t believe in. I find that nothing shy of disgusting.
Objective: highest GPA, highest GPA plus extra-curricular activities (point system), drawing a name out of a hat. Subjective: "Psst, fellow teacher, let’s find a way to have Julie the V., she’ll say the right things and won’t say the wrong things.
If it is subjective, I’d say yes. If they flip a coin or move down to a predetermined second tier of qualification (clubs, sports, volunteering), then no, they’re not an agent.
See above.
Schools impose guidelines on their papers all the time. No profanity, for instance. Why not religious expression? All those little eyes that will have to read all those horrible words, not to mention their parents. I don’t mean to be smart-ass about it, but whay doesn’t your “on the state’s dime” apply here?
Again, couldn’t a little preamble take care whatever problem may exist there? And as a previous poster said, it might have been Mace, do you really think that if you asked the students in the audience if they thought that the school endorsedthe words in the speech or if they were the sole opinions of the V., what do you think they would answer?
I thiink we have a very different default concerning the degree to which people ascribe these types of speeches to the school. I’d ask you, when Noam Chomsky or Pat Buchanan or Howard Zinn or Bill Bennett or MIchael Moore or Charleton Heston speaks at a graduation, do you think the school approves of everything they say?
Why, so her father, the judge, can use it to swear in elected officials and witnesses in his court room?
Not to sidetrack this thread, but the Establishment Clause simply says that congress shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of religion. Possibly allowing a Christian kid to mention his faith in a speech one year and a Jewish kid or a Muslim kid the next, or an Atheist or a Satanist the year after that doesn’t come near what the establishment clause actually says.
But you haven’t shown how they are different. A courthouse has a captive audience-- most people who go there have no choice but to do so. And I think we’ve already agreed that the school can announce in advance that the particulars of the speech do not represent the views of the school or the state. The valedictorian’s speech has a long historical tradition as well, and many such speeches have contained casual references to God.
And that would be a good argument if the role of valedictorian were reserved for only members of a particular religion, or if the valedictorian were required to show evidence of either faith or lack of faith.
Nonsense. Immediacy is not a relevant factor. It doesn’t matter if someone says “We must kill all homosexuals” or “We must kill all homosexuals right now!!!” This appeal to a lack of immediacy is simply irrelevant.
Nor is there anything “non-specific” about the statement in question. It calls for the death of Christians and urges people to drink the blood of infants. That is pretty darned specific.
Moreover, even if we grant a measure of ambiguity to your statement, it still has an unmistakeably different tenor. Even if your statement does not specifically say, “We must kill all Christians now!” it can still be reasonably construed as a passionate plea for the death of fellow human beings. Not so with the simple phrase, “Thank you, Jesus.”
It isintellectual dishonesty to claim that the two statements should be treated identically. But if you want to insist that they are equivalent, be my guest. Sometimes, when someone is making a fool of himself, the best thing you can do is get out of the way.
You’re the one who raised the baby blood thing. If you didn’t want us to remember it, you shouldn’t be using it as an example.
If someone were to say “Thank Buddha,” “Thank Vishnu” or “Praise Allah,” I would have no problem with it. My sensibilities are not so delicate that I insist that the government silence these individuals simply because I do not share their religious views.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Read it and weep.
Don’t call me a fool again in this forum. You wanna take it to the Pit, I’ll be more than happy to meet you there.
Ah, but that’s not really the debate here. What if the student started in on a lengthy discussion of why Allah was the only true God and how you must keep Allah in your thoughts?
Even if you say you are okay with that, do you really want me to believe that virtually every right wing conservative PAC and pundit wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder over it?
That is not what I asked. I want to know if you would give a minority faith which you find repulsive the same rights you demand for Christians. I mentioned Satanists, but Wiccans, Druids, or Cthulu worshippers will do. Will you or won’t you?
Assuming you won’t, kindly cite controlling legal authority in support of your position.
Is that the debate? I think different people are debating different things. I’m certainly not advocating any “lengthy discussions” on any religious topics. I’m personally just taking about casual remarks that cannot be considered proselytizing.
Way too close to a direct personal attack.
Back off.
[ /Moderating ]
And that’s precisely what I gave. I have serious problems with Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, all of which are minority religions. As I said, I would have no problem with someone expressing thanks from any such viewpoint, despite my objections to their views.
Ah, now you’re shifting the goalposts again. You originally asked if I would “extend the same rights to a Satanist (or other minority religion that you find unpleasant)” (emphasis added). Apparently, since I did not give the reaction that you desired, you now want me to address specific belief systems – not just “other minority religions that * find unpleasant.”
If you must know, I would certainly have an intense visceral reaction to any such invocation of Satan or Chthulu. (Less so with Wiccans, and probably no more than a twinge when it comes to druidism.) However, unlike some on this forum, I do not pretend that my emotional reaction is legally binding. In other words, I may have personal objections to such speech, but I do not believe that it should necessarily be prohibited.
As I said, I recognize that free speech allows them to speak their mind on this matter. I may not like what they say, but unlike some people, I do not demand that they be silenced.
Oh, well, perhaps a thread can be started about that sometime. In this thread, we’re discussing the case of a girl’s remarks which apparently began with the suggestion that people keep Jesus in their hearts and then went on to cite bible verses and continue on at length in that vein. The school originally told her that was a no no and to tone it down to just thanking God, then freaked when it seemed like she reneged on that and was starting in on the original speech.
Because that’s the condition laid upon her when she accepted the honor.
No, that would violate the student’s rights to expression of religion, as they are required by law to attend school. No one is required by law to become valedictorian and speak at graduation. And, of course, the students aren’t speaking as agents of the school in that case, as they would be if they were giving a valedictorian speech.
I’m not sure as to the specific legal value of the phrase as a prophylactic. If it does absolve the administration of responsibility for the content of anything said during the ceremony, then there’s one part of the problem solved. However, the school still has a right to dictate what goes on in its own ceremony. If a school wants to keep mention of God out of the ceremony, that’s their right.
Why does she deserve that right? Where is this right guaranteed to her? What law establishes that she has this right?
I was going to ask you the same question. You seem awfully bent out of shape over the idea that a graduation speech might be less than entirely heartfelt. I say, who gives a shit? It’s a graduation speech. Nobody cares what she says, so long as it’s short. So long as no laws are violated, who cares what is or is not allowed to be said?
No, she’s just supposed to give a speech, and like virtually any speaking engagement, the people setting up the event have expectations about what will and will not be said during their event. No one is telling her to lie, and no one is forcing her to give a speech she doesn’t believe in. She can always decline to give the speech entirely, if there’s no way she can say something she really means without violating those requirments. I’d be a little surprised to find that there’s absolutely no way even the most devout religious person could fill five to ten minutes of talk without mention God or having to lie about their own motivations. They would have to be exceptionally shallow, otherwise, and I don’t think such a person would qualify for valedictorian in the first place.
Okay, I was kind of thrown when you mentioned things like “drawing the best picture” as a way of a student earning valedictorian honors, as opposed to be chosen for them. That seemed to be a pretty subjective criteria, so I wasn’t sure what you were talking about.
That’s the thing, though: that second tier of qualification is completely subjective. Billy did eight hours of volunteer work at a soup house, but Wendy worked with AIDS patients. Which of those volunteer activities is more deserving of the Valedictorian? That’s a subjective call. There’s no point system you can just look at and say, “That guy gives better charity.” In a situation like that, what the school board is deciding is, “Who would be a better representative for our school? The kid who cares about the homeless, or the kid who cares about the terminally ill?”
But this is all nonsense, anyway. Wether or not a particular title is earned or awarded has nothing to do with wether or not the person holding the title is speaking on behalf of the organization that granted it. What makes the valedictorian an agent of the school administration is the fact that the administration invited the valedictorian to speak during an official school function. That is all that matters. How they picked that person to speak is entirely immaterial.
Yes, they do have guidelines, and if the school wants those guidelines to include religious matter, that’s the school’s decision. If the school wants to keep all religion out of the paper, that’s also their decision. If a student wants to thank God in a graduation speech, and the administration is okay with it, I don’t have a problem with it. If the administration wants to keep all religion out of the graduation ceremony, once again, that’s their decision. The valedictorian does not have a right to speak about her religion during the graduation ceremony. There is, I think, an upper limit to how religious her speech can get before it starts getting into legally questionable grounds, and I don’t know where that limit is. I don’t blame school administrators from just banning religious speech altogether, just to be safe.
I’m guessing the answer would be something along the lines of, [sub]“i dunno, whatever.”[/sub]
Yes, of course. Otherwise, why were they invited?
If Harvard invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at graduation, and all he did was talk about how the Jews invented the Holocaust, would you defend Harvard on the grounds that, just because the guy spoke at their graduation, it doesn’t mean that Harvard agrees with his views?
OK, and how do you respond to Brandenburg v. Ohio with regards to my blood drinking example? To summarize:
The Court’s Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg’s right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
We are? I didn’t say anything about that in the OP. The OP referenced another thread in which a poster discussued a hypothetical valedictorian. Then we branched off into several different debates, this one about Rhonda Religious, clearly a hypothetical.