It’s student, family who are owed apology
Officials at Monument’s Lewis-Palmer High School and members of the Lewis-Palmer School District 38 School Board are lucky (“Reprimanded for invoking God in ’06, valedictorian sues,” Aug. 31). If that were my child, I would have encouraged her to not apologize. This is nothing more than blackmail on the part of the public school system, and exhibits a flagrant disregard for freedom of speech!
But this isn’t the first time we as a society, here in one of the supposedly freest countries on Earth, have been around this bush. I think it’s amazing how many of these stories make it into the Rocky Mountain News but no follow-up is ever done. Why is that? Do the students often win and we, as a society, can’t know that because, God forbid, other students would find out they too can do the same thing?
I think the student and parents need to apologize for apologizing and the public school system needs to publish in all local and state papers an apology to this family for trampling this student’s rights.
Last-minute speech changes, intentional or not, are common. I can pretty much bet that if she included some school pride thing at the end of her speech she would not have been penalized for changing her speech.
Harry Keith, Golden
So if she had been a Wiccan or Satanist, you would have been quite OK with her taking the opportunity to extol the virtues of nature-worship or satanic rites respectively?
Would you have congratulated the school on providing a platform for her to exercise her freedom of speech, or would you have written a vitriolic letter to the Rocky Mountain News on how this was a flagrant disregard for the separation of church and state and that you didn’t want your tax dollars going to any school that encouraged students to spread their private religious beliefs?
Posted by Bango Skank on September 6, 2007 12:48 AMlets see our US congress starts each session with a Prayer and a school district gets their shorts all up in a twist because a student references God.
maybe the school district should apologize to all of the kids that walk away from school having learned nothing other than how to be pc about everything.
a reference to any higher power in a high school speech is still free speech and should not be punished because they didnt follow the 'approved' school district format. and yes bango that could include you example and would be a wonderful one to show how the country still values free speech.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 05:20 AMHmm, Banged Skank wants to know if this young lady would have been critisised if she refered to a wiccan or a satanic belief. Well would sahe have been praised in the paper and by the left if she made a p.c. speach going after conservatives? Yes she would have been.
The speach at a graduation should talk about what has shaped the lives of the students and the particular student being honored. His/her values, goals and the future.
If a little praise be to the Lord almighty is done. Then this speaks of ones morals and values as much as stateing the belief in Wiccan.
The school system is practiceing censorship in its leftist form. Denying the right to speak ones mind.
Remember you have the right to say what ever you want, however you are responsible for what you say.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 05:40 AMLittle by little our freedoms are being limited or banned entirely. Anybody else notice this???
I hope the student and her family win their law suit....enough of this pc crappola is enough!
"...our US congress starts each session with a Prayer and a school district gets their shorts all up in a twist because a student references God."
You're right, it's time to eliminate the official prayer before congressional sessions.
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 06:40 AMMaybe she should have just called for "Bong hits for Jesus". Or has everyone so quickly forgotten that public schools are not free democratic institutions, and students are not granted the same free speech rights as the rest of the country. After all, if they were allowed free speech they might descend into chaos, burning desks and breaking windows, right?
Posted by Chris on September 6, 2007 06:50 AMChris:
"After all, if they were allowed free speech they might descend into chaos, burning desks and breaking windows, right?"
True. Have you ever seen the documentary "Rock-n-Roll High School"?
"If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church".
Posted by Thomas on September 6, 2007 07:49 AMThis student was not expressing her belief, which is appropriate, she went on step further. She preached that her belief should be considered by others because it worked for her. This steps beyond what is appropriate at a high school commencement which should have to do with education, learning and the golden future ahead of the graduating classnot with any promotion of a particular religion. There are many times and places when such proselytizing is acceptable but I would suggest that this student was maybe overly emotional, understandably, and because of her strong belief, the words just guhed out of her mouth. I say forget the lawsuit, forget the whole episode, forget the arguments pro or con and just let the girl get on with her life. Parents don't take a situation that involves their child's embarrassment, don't argue with me, ask her, that's what the result was whether she will admit it our not, and heap more peer preasure and embarrassment on her already unduely effected life. Leave her alone to figure it out, you saw her through her education now let her use it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 6, 2007 07:57 AM5:20,
I listened to the opening prayer this morning on C-Span and the (fill-in) chaplain involked the name Jesus in his prayer to the House. This is not appropriate to those who do not believe in Jesus and the prayer opening does not belong in any operation of the government.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 08:56 AMInteresting that those who preach the gospel of tolerance within these posts, are the most intolerant of people.
Posted by Breeze on September 6, 2007 09:12 AMI have mixed feelings about this.
I believe in free speech.
I cringe though when someone tells me I should let Jesus Christ into my life.
I think she went a little too far. She could have kept it personal and not infringed on other peoples lives by preaching to them.
However I do believe that had she proclaimed Wicca or Satanism as her religion, the ACLU would have been at her side filing a lawsuit in 10 mins.
The usual self righteous - "I'm more moral than you" crowd" rears it's radiant head! The young lady in question had a captive audience with which to proselytize her beliefs. A simple reference to God, it was not. Students are not at graduation to hear a sales pitch - whether it be for God, satan, or Dirt Devil vacuums - it was not the time nor place. There were many more students involved, not just the speaker.
A lawsuit? - just another "I've been wronged! Pay me, pay me, pay me!" squawker. It's your tax dollars going to her pockets.
Posted by Coco on September 6, 2007 09:25 AMCan I get an AMEN! on September 6, 2007 09:22 AM
AMEN!!! All religions, whether it be atheistic, pagan, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any part thereof or not included, should be treat exactly equal in the eyes of the law or self styled protectors of rights (ACLU). Defend one, defend all; fight to exclude one, exclude all.
This gal has a right to thank her religious icon for making her what she is; but had no right to preach or recommend conversion.
And that's my 2 cents worth
Posted by on September 6, 2007 09:32 AMInteresting that those who preach the gospel of tolerance within these posts, are the most intolerant of people.
Posted by Breeze on September 6, 2007 09:12 AM
Interesting that those whop PUSH the gospel and are intolerant of anyone that doesn't believe as they do have become so adept at deflecting to avoid taking any responsibility.
It's called action and reaction, Breeze.
You stop acting and we'll stop reacting.
And...also intersting that people who preach the gospel...seem to have the hardest time turning the other cheek, but they arrogantly expect everyone else to.
Posted by Thomas on September 6, 2007 09:43 AMOnce again, a young girl made a mistake, get over it and let her get on with her life, Shes not the problem people, it is her indoctrination, which she no doubt had no choice in as it was statrted at an early age. Life holds many more such reality moments in store for her, in spite of her too young taught about beliefs. I just hope her parents don't add injury to insult and make this a more traumatic experience than necessary for the girl. It's really not that big a deal, is it?
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 6, 2007 10:05 AMFor those like me who didn't read the article, and for those who could use a reminder, here are some excerpts:
"Then, deviating from the 30-second speech that had been approved by the principal, she began speaking about "someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. His name is Jesus Christ, if you don't already know him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you."
"She knew she wanted to honor God in her remarks, but she didn't do so in her practice speech because she knew there was a chance Brewer would prohibit the comments."
"Before she was granted her diploma, Corder was required to apologize in an e-mail to the entire school community."
"In a lawsuit filed in federal court this week, Corder says the school violated her rights to free speech and equal protection."
While the article does not speak to that, I would imagine that the school officials were responding to her failure to get the advance approval of the school to what she was going to say rather than because she spoke of Jesus and encouraged others to learn more about him.
While I don't know how widespread the practice is of requiring advance approval, that does not seem to me to be unreasonable, although I would think that a school should afford considerable latitude to a student.
My own feeling is that it was not a good idea for the school to demand the apology as a condition to getting her diploma since that was based on pretty hard work for a number of years. I think the school would have done better to find some lesser means to reprimand her for being devious and violating the school policy. I do think that the school had a problem since her action could open the door to a lot of future attempts to include controversial remarks in such speeches. I personally think that it should have been OK if she had simply wanted to say that her religion was among the factors that helped her, but I can see that the proselytizing part would create undo controversy and would therefore be inappropriate.
Posted by Truth on September 6, 2007 10:21 AMYou PC idiots are about as twisted as you can get. The young lady thanked her 'GOD" and made reference to encouraging people to look into the sacrifices he made for everyone. For this you want to burn her at the stake (deny her a diploma).
Is this all you have to do with you life? Sitting around until you can find something to complain about. How sad!!
Posted by jgd777 on September 6, 2007 10:46 AMAnother frivolous lawsuit. Invoking Jesus to sue for money you should not receive is sinful.
Posted by It's True on September 6, 2007 10:53 AMInvoking the name of "God" into the public arena reminds us of the "God"ly orchestration of 9/11 and if "God" means the "jew" from the "loins of David" who will orchestrate Holy Genocide in which billions of humans will be cast into hell, I don't want to hear it. Keep your personal "God" in your home, your psyche, your church, but keep him away from me or I will slay him as the Deicide that I am and then you won't have a "God." Grimes: r22037yahoo
Deicide Corner: “The bible was written at a time when people thought the Earth was flat, when the wheelbarrow was high tech. Are its teachings applicable to the challenges we now face as a civilization?. . .” -- Sam Harris
Ps: Abraham's "God" is called: Jehovah, Allah, Jesus Christ, a "jew" transmogrified into a Christian anti-Semitic "God:" Silly stuff believed by credulous humans.
Posted by rg on September 6, 2007 10:58 AMRG,
You played quite a bit of hockey before the mandatory helmet rule, didn't you?
Posted by jgd777 on September 6, 2007 11:04 AMI find it interesting that will all the ACLU bashing you find on all these commentaries, not a single one of these people have probably ever visited the ACLU website (www.aclu.org). The ACLU DOES protect the rights of Christians to their beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not trample on the rights of others. Because we live in a society that loves to blame everyone else for their own shortcomings, and we have a news media that (liberal, conservative, progressive, whatever) still panders to this whole Christian Martyr Syndrome, you never hear of the lawsuits the ACLU brings forth to protect the rights of Christians - because this would show how hypocritical the Christians (read fundamentalist, right wing, ultra conservative, etc) really are.
Posted by Lyle on September 6, 2007 11:10 AMLyle,
Could you name any RECENT lawsuits, ones after they were highjacked by the America haters?
jgd777, by the way does that have some meaning, but I digress from the point needed. She did not reference to her "GOD" (why the quote marks ? ) she said, as cited above, "His name is Jesus Christ and if you don't already know him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you". That can not be defined as anything other than proselytizing.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 6, 2007 11:21 AMIf she had simply thanked "my teachers, my friends, my parents, and Jesus Christ". I would have cringed but it wouldn't have been that bad. Instead, she said:
"someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. His name is Jesus Christ, if you don't already know him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you."
That's proselytizing and a graduation speech is not the time or the place for it. As much as I like free speech, she should also learn a lesson about consequences for actions.
Posted by Roger on September 6, 2007 11:27 AMShe was recruiting for crying out loud! She was fishing for souls from the platform of a public school! This was NOT the place for her to make such remarks. Why are the catholics so self-centered that they keep demanding to include their god where it is not appropriate? Get over yourselves, and keep your faith to yourself. Please stop forcing it down the rest of our throats!
And Thomas, great line! Why is it in quotes? Who said it?
Posted by shaupeen on September 6, 2007 11:38 AMI did shaupeen, and I believe, as with most young people at graduation, a truely major moment in their young lives, she got carried away with the emotion of it and with the obviously training she has had in the christian religion. Whether or not it was intensionally planned is a question only she can answer. I would not assume either way because I can see many possible reasons, some right, some wrong, why she said what she said. However, in the last analysis, I have to agree it was not appropriate for a high school graduation.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 6, 2007 12:08 PMLest we forget the First Amendment to the Constiution, "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof, nor abridging the freedom of speech..."
Since this was not the school administration, nor school policy of what this STUDENT AND CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES spoke of in her valedictorian address to her fellow students, faculty, and guests, not only was her constitutional right to free speech violated, so was her constitutional ability to freely exercise her religious beliefs. As Truth pointed out in his post from the news article, she simply stated: "someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. His name is Jesus Christ, if you don't already know him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you."
At no time did she attempt to establish Christianity (whatever her version of Christianity may be) as school policy, nor did she encourage anyone to become Christian, or recruit. She encouraged people to research what sacrifice Jesus made. That is it.
The violation of her 14th Amendment rights, having to apologize for deviating from her approved speech to receive her diploma, should win on it's merits alone. She had earned her diploma through her course work, and the additional requirement to receive her diploma has nothing to do with her scholastic achievement. And, unless the school has written policy that "all speeches must be pre-approved and may not, under any circumstance, be deviated from..." there may in fact be nothing that she actually violated in the first place. We would also need to review all the other speeches and assure that they were presented verbatim as the approved speech.
Bango Skank asks would this be ok if it was a message other than Christianity? Of course it would be ok. Our Constitution here in the US, Bango, protects this type of thing specifically.
Mr. Keith,
I encourage you to do your own follow up to this story. As this is a matter of public record, you may request an open record inquiry into whatever court this case will be heard, even if it settles (as that record is also a matter of public information, unless sealed). But don't rely on the news to actually report accurate news. Look it up for yourself and read it with only one bias, yours.
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 12:08 PMACLU sucks! They pick their agenda. It should be called AACLU. ANTI-American CLU.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 12:25 PMTo back up my previous post, I will refer you to the following Supreme Court cases that have demonstrated my researched opinion:
Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972)
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990)
And, just to show that this is not a "conservative, or liberal" issue, but a constitutional one, this is a memorandum from Attorney General Reno, and Education Secretary Riley to President Clinton in 1995:
"As our courts have reaffirmed ... nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the schoolhouse door. While the government may not use schools to coerce the conscience of our students or to convey official endorsement of religion, the government's schools also may not discriminate against private religious expression during the school day.
I have been advised by the Department of Justice and the Department of Education that the First Amendment permits-and protects-a greater degree of religious expression in public schools than many Americans may now understand."
There should be no issue in resolving this case, as the Lewis-Palmer High School and members of the Lewis-Palmer School District 38 School Board would be wise to settle this case. A violation of our most basic and sacred liberties, so important that they were the very first guarantee to our citizens, deserves and demands restitution. The school board and principal violated this young woman's rights. As Mr. Keith wrote, at minimum, they owe her an apology.
Dan2,
How does that square with the "bongs hits for Jesus" decision?
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 12:54 PMLooks like jgd777 is a card-carrying Dominionist that won't be satisfied until we live in a theocracy and everyone is a "Christocrat."
Posted by Beavis on September 6, 2007 01:01 PMDanII,
We're walking a pretty tight rope on proselytization when someone uses the word "encourage" in her text. Still, the school was wrong to require her to apologize before giving her a diploma, especially if her apology was insincere. Me thinks the young lady was pushing her religion on others in a captive situation.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 6, 2007 01:03 PMCharles,
The Supreme Court ruling was decisive on the term "Bong Hits" and the students inability to express that this was a religious belief or practice. In Justice Alito's decision, supported by Justice Souter and Bryer, if the student would have stated this was a religious message, his constitutional rights would have been violated. As he did not demonstrate that, the sign, while during a "school function" was in violation of the school policy to not promote or encourage the use of drugs. It was "common knowledge" that "bong hits" refers to the smoking of marijuana. That is the difference.
Stan,
The student's exact words were, "..if you don't already know him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you."
I find that no different in meaning than saying, "if you don't already know a member of the armed services, I encourage you to find out more about their sacrifices." It is a take it or leave it statement. I would encourage most people to read the opinions of the Supreme Court, to actually read the Constitution. You don't have to do any of that.
Captive audience or not, that student has the absolute right to state what she did, without retribution from the Government. He school district violated her first amendment rights. She is an individual, and the suppression of religious speech is guaranteed. She can push any religious belief she wants, as is her right. She was not speaking for, nor representing any government, or government policy. She stated HER opinion and belief, and that is protected, ESPECIALLY when it deals with religion. Constitutionally and legally, the school district violated her rights.
Regardless of your own personal opinions on this subject, or if you would have been "offended" by her mention of Jesus Christ, has no bearing on this matter at all. She has the individual liberty to do and say exactly what she did, WITHOUT punishment from the government. She could have been chastised and booed from the crowd, made fun of and picked on, and those that did that would have THAT right. But the government (and as we all know public schools are part of a government function) are strictly prohibited from punishing anyone for expressing religious beliefs.
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 01:29 PMAnyone catch that "daddy" works for Focus on the Family? hhhhmmmmm.
I wonder how she came up with the idea? I wonder why she didn't inform her principal, as required?
OH NOES. WE'RE PERSECUTING THOSE HOLY CHRISTIANS AGAIN.
perhaps their god will strike us down?
Posted by Joanna on September 6, 2007 01:30 PMJoanna,
She could have sued the school district for violating her rights to freely express her religious beliefs if they would have denied her the inclusion of her message in speech.
This is not a question, or issue, about God or even Christianity. This issue is about constitutional law, and personal liberty. The government is forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. I encourage you to review those Supreme Court decisions I posted at 12:31 pm (pun intended).
Personally, and a little off the topic, I am sick and tired of hearing about people being "offended" so often. I want to say, honestly, shut the f up already, grow up, and quit being such a cry baby! Sorry for the vent...
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 01:43 PMOoops...
My comment above "and the suppression of religious speech is guaranteed." should have been forbidden. Big difference in words. Sorry about that.
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 01:47 PMRight-on Dan2. She should have stated her message to the principal, then sued if he didn't allow her to exercise her rights. Instead, she (or her parents) chose to change her message.
Funny thing is, these Focus folks are great at deception. Bait and switch, so to speak. It would seem to be against their basic principles but they use these tactics as a tool to acheive their goals. A kind of "gotcha" mentality. It's sick.
wow all this over a kid graduating from high school. I am sure not one of you blogg maggots has ever made a mistake or been caught up in the moment, and expressed your true feelings. have you?
why not get upset with the almighty aclu and their defense of the government of Minnesota installing foot baths at the airport for muslims to wash their feet before going to a new muslim only prayer room at the airport. now that does sound like it is government backed religion, but we dont want to make them mad so it is ok.
ok now lets go beat this kid for her remarks.
Stan,
I know nothing of Focus on the Family, nor do I really care to. They can do whatever they want, as far as I am concerned.
I did do a little research on the school district. There is no formal policy, for the district, or within the Student Handbook for Lewis Palmer High School that states students must have prior authorization of their valedictorian speeches by the Principal. In this instance, Principal Mark Brewer listened to each of the 15 proposed speeches. This was not a school policy violation, nor a district violation.
Posted by Dan2 on September 6, 2007 03:17 PMThose darned litigious Christians, just trying to line the pockets of the trial lawyers!
If a white witch wants a graduation speech made up, I will write one, then watch the ACLU and see if they jump on this. To judge them before they act on an issue, is, well, bias. Yes?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 03:46 PMSharon B.,
Perhaps you could go back to school under cover..
I see it as an edgy romantic comedy with familiar undertones....
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 04:11 PMShe had the right to do and say as she did. Remember, our constitution prohibits us from being ruled by theocrats, but it also protects the right of freedom of religion. She may have damaged some self righteous sensibilities, but that's tough.
It would have been just as proper for our own Charlie Boy (or a younger clone thereof) to have gotten on stage and said something along the lines of:
"...thank my ...and am proud to be able to say that through the rejection of myths, ghosts and superstitions about supreme beings with an afterlife, I accomplished this on my own. If you haven't considered such a reality, I encourage you to try it as I'm sure you would be both pleasantly surprised and happy with the results.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 04:19 PMYou don't get free speech at school.
Period.
End of Story.
But, go ahead, sue away. damn liberals always suing for something
4:43
You don't get free speech in school?
What a great learning experience for the students.
Where exactly do we get "free speech"?
Posted by jgd777 on September 6, 2007 05:23 PMAnon 4:19 - You know darn well Charles B would've used some much choicer words than that.
Probably would have been arrested too.
Posted by KW on September 6, 2007 05:26 PM"You know darn well Charles B would've used some much choicer words than that."
Yeah, you're probably right, KW. He would have called them all kinds of names and ridiculed them for being stupid and idiotic for believing in such crap. Would have reinforced their belief that the forces of evil are present in the world and attacking their faith.
I think Charles B is probably more effective in driving people into the bosom of their beliefs in deity than he is at separating them. But, his style and tactics are for him to determine and implement.
Posted by mongoose on September 6, 2007 05:51 PM
Well, if you're privately speaking with others at school, feel free to exercise your right to free speech.
When you're speaking at an assembly or other official school function, NO YOU DON'T HAVE FREE SPEECH.
This "girl" is yet another persecuted christian attention whore.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:08 PMWWJD? (what would jesus do?)
WWFSMD? (what would flying spagetti monster do?
WWAD? (waht would allah do?)
WWRD? (what would ra do?)
WWZD? (what would zeus do?)
WHO CARES?
Your faith should be between you and your god. Please don't poison my child's mind.
Posted by on September 6, 2007 06:11 PMMongoose:
Yes, I poke with a sharp stick, but it's only sharp because the target is so soft.
Kid gloves has gotten me nowhere in the past...
Posted by Charles B on September 6, 2007 07:18 PMChristian attention whore is sexist. Christian attention junkie is better.
It really is a shame the kids didn`t boo and throw stuff at her. Then the meaning of the word consequences would have been clearer to her.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 6, 2007 08:08 PMJust to rebut Skank's first comment to me on "So if she had been a Wiccan or Satanist, "you would have been quite OK with her taking the opportunity to extol the virtues of nature-worship or satanic rites respectively?"
As a matter of fact I would be uncomfortable with it but under the constitution yes her freedom of speech would have also been trampled and I would have said the same thing.
Yes Virginia, I do believe in Christ and consider myself one of His disciples.
Posted by Harry on September 6, 2007 09:29 PM6:11,
I wouldn't worry about your child's mind being poisoned, obviously you have already done a good job of that.
Posted by jgd777 on September 6, 2007 09:47 PMSharon B:
No she just would have learned more intimately that even here in the US, one of the most free countries in the world, persecution is alive and well.
Posted by Harry on September 6, 2007 09:55 PMOh persecution.. Since we are short on lions these days you guys look for little puffs of persecution wherever you can find it.
She set this up, got just what her family planned and now will just not let it go (lawsuit coming) because they have a mission.
But she will have to set aside time to feel persecuted when we pagans don`t say Merry Christmas every day, starting about November 1st.
My, my what a busy schedule, make a scene at graduation, anticipate holidays, plan another "gotha" event. Wonder how she has time to study.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 01:20 AMThat "jew" from the "loins of David" with his Holy Genocide imminent beginning within a generation of his assisted suicide is a one-jew plague on the world. In Luke 19:27 (his fan club said [because the jew never reduced one word of what he allegedly said to print]) the jew said to kill all those who would not that a king should reign over them so more than Saddam needed killing this jew needs to die and this Deicide, is the guy to do to the jew what he would do to the Deicide. Ah! This god crap is so ridiculous giving meaning to "God is a spoke in the wheel of shit."
Deicide Corner: “Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” -- John Morley
Posted by Richard Grimes (ffrf.org and ask for a free copy of FreeThought Today on September 7, 2007 09:27 AMThat "jew" from the "loins of David" with his Holy Genocide imminent beginning within a generation of his assisted suicide is a one-jew plague on the world. In Luke 19:27 (his fan club said [because the jew never reduced one word of what he allegedly said to print]) the jew said to kill all those who would not that a king should reign over them so more than Saddam needed killing this jew needs to die and this Deicide, is the guy to do to the jew what he would do to the Deicide. Ah! This god crap is so ridiculous giving meaning to "God is a spoke in the wheel of shit."
Deicide Corner: “Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” -- John Morley
Posted by Richard Grimes (ffrf.org and ask for a free copy of FreeThought Today on September 7, 2007 09:45 AMI find it interesting a little bit that the same people that so vehemently feel that the Patriot Act, and the illegal wire-taps are as terrible as they are, are so overtly hypocritical for our other constitutionally protected rights and liberties.
I would ask Sharon, Allan Campbell, Richard Grimes the risen ape deicider - free thought provider and owner of non-sensical comments; the same question that I asked Keith and the other arch conservatives, is what you find offensive to you personally more important than the liberties provided all citizens in the Constitution?
Or would you rather see only the Amendments and protections YOU agree with not trampled, and to hell with the others?
Do you see how your partisanship is just as bad and damaging as conservative partisanship? And I thought "liberals" were supposed to the one's with an open mind... All I can do is shake my head in sorrow for you.
Posted by Dan2 on September 7, 2007 10:49 AMThe student and family owed an apology, right just as soon as they apologize for preaching to me about their GOD and Religion being the only correct way to be served. She knew from the start that what she said would not be allowed. If she truely felt like she said she would have rehearsed the speech like she delivered it and then fought to be allowed to say what she did. So NO APOLOGY is owed except by her and her family. I applaud the School and the District for their actions. If I had stated my GOD and Religion was the only way I would have been railroaded out of town by the Christian's.
Posted by Chris on September 7, 2007 03:52 PMI don’t think anybody owes anybody else an apology.
The girl had her chance to say something memorable and what she thought was important, and she took it.
What she said was heartfelt as it was pitiful, and a bit embarrassing to others and maybe to her future self.
If I was in that audience I would have felt a twinge of embarrassment for her sake, and a frisson of irritation at being a captive to her earnest but harmless drivel.
The school on the other hand has other concerns, because if they don’t rebuke her and show action they could be sued for preventing other people from expressing their various whacky existential and religious beliefs, and they fear that unless they put a crimp in this, they will soon have all kinds of high jinks and foolishness embarrassing their institution.
So, yeah, whatever young miss, now will the next person please step up and say their little say so we can all pretend their education was a serious and meaningful thing, that they might turn out to be the next Louis Pasteur, and that this was a grand momentous occasion.
The girl is likely to have a dull and uninteresting stay on this planet, so give her this little moment to remember, will you – it may well be the highlight of her life.
Dan2, to answer your question: No, No, and well thank you, but we all have Gods and we only have so much time at graduation ceremonies, so let us keep this about what happened one day, and not drag in the whole of society.
Make graduation a God free zone while they are on the public address system. Clever use of public, yes?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 06:46 PMDoes not the word Appropriated have any meaning anymore? I have no rpoblem with what she said, the problem is it was not meaningful to the intended purpose of the graduation exercise, except to her. While her free speech rights are not to be violated, does not she also have a responsibility, as a valedictorian representing her class, to speak to the class on the importance of education, wishing a bright future for those who strived to learn and also to instill purpose in undergraduates, without inviting controversy to the ceremony. Under the circumstances, I think her reference to religion was unappropriate.
That said, she had every right, foolish as it may have been , to say what she said.
Dan2, I know there are people who arise in the morning wtih the specific intent of going forth in the world looking for something to get offended about. I think they do this because it is the only way in which they can get attention because they are unremarkable in every other way. Surely lawyers have had something to do with it as well.
In any case, I still think this is, " much ado about nothing " and " ----a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". People have gotten in the very bad habit of making everything as important as everything else to the extent that what is really important looses any significance whatsoever.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 07:34 AMDan2,
If you're not a lawyer, you missed your calling.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 8, 2007 03:44 PMThank you Dan 2: You put me in good company. Grimes: Deicide/Risen Ape.
Deicide Corner: “Men of simple understanding, little inquisitive and little instructed, make good Christians.” -- Michel de Montaigne
Posted by rg ~~~~ r22037yahoo on September 9, 2007 02:52 PM