Jump to content


Overstepping, or OK?


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#1 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:35 PM

Interesting article - and I'm interested in your thoughts about the Student and the Principal's actions. 

 

A Texas high school principal threatened to sabotage a valedictorian’s appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy after the student delivered a speech that referenced God and the U.S. Constitution, Fox News has learned.

iram Sasser, director of litigation with the Liberty Institute, said Joshua High School principal Mick Cochran threatened to write a letter to the U.S. Naval Academy disparaging the character of Remington Reimer.

“It was intimidating having my high school principal threaten my future because I wanted to stand up for the Constitution and acknowledge my faith and not simply read a government approved speech, the teenager said.

Sasser is now representing the teenager and is calling for the Joshua Independent School District to issue a public statement exonerating him of any wrongdoing.

He said the speech was edited and reviewed by four different school officials – including an officer in the JROTC. Sasser said the censorship violated federal and state laws.

“All he did was simply follow state law and Joshua ISD policy,” he said.

Reimer, a senior at Joshua High School, made national headlines on June 6 when officials cut off his microphone in mid-speech after he strayed from pre-approved remarks and began talking about his relationship with Jesus Christ.

Reimer, who has received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world,” the Joshua Star reported.

The following day the principal met with Reimer’s father and informed him “that he intended to punish Remington for his perceived misdeed.”

GET TODD’S FREE WEEKLY AMERICAN DISPATCH DIGEST! CLICK HERE!!!

“Specifically, he threatened to send a letter to the United States Naval Academy advising them that Remington has poor character or words to that effect,” Sasser told Fox News.

After consulting with a school attorney, the principal temporarily retracted the threat, Sasser said.

“The principal said he wanted to try to ruin him for what he did – for talking about the Constitution and his faith,” Sasser said. “I don’t know if he’s going to be able to continue to be the principal of that school.”

Reimer, described by his classmates as quiet and soft-spoken, then talked about free speech and the Constitution and how “I was threatened with having the mic turned off.”

And that point – the audio feed was cut – leaving those in the audience confused. But Reimer kept on talking.

Following is a transcript of what the school district didn’t want graduates or their families to hear:

“We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished,” he said according to the Star. “Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or Constitutional rights from you.”

Principal Mick Cochran defended the school’s decision to cut off the audio feed.

“The district has reviewed the rules and policies regarding graduation speeches and has determined that the policy was followed last night,” he told the Star.

The Joshua ISD issued a statement to MyFoxDFW noting, “student speakers were told that if their speeches deviated from the prior-reviewed material, the microphone would be turned off, regardless of content. When one student’s speech deviated from the prior-reviewed speech, the microphone was turned off, pursuant to District policy and procedure.”

But Sasser said the school district violated state and federal laws by censoring Reimer’s speech. He said the law, along with local school policy, requires the school to distance itself from the valedictorian’s speech. That means not editing or drafting the speech.

The school was also required to publish a message in the graduation program that read in part, “the content of each student-speaker’s message is the private expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the District.”

Sasser said contrary to the law and its own policies the Joshua Independent School District failed to include the disclaimer and not only edited – but tried to control Reimer’s speech.

“These school officials broke the rules and violated state and federal law and their own board policy,” Sasser said. “They should be held accountable for violating school board policy and causing needless embarrassment for Joshua ISD and the Joshua community.”

Source: http://radio.foxnews...ademy-appt.html

 



#2 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:44 PM

Seems like the kid can't follow rules.  He's going to be a failure at the academy.  Nip it in the bud.  The world needs ditch diggers too.



#3 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:52 PM

The Principal was right to cut off the mike.  You can't use Taxpayer events to proselytize. A bit vindictive to take it any further than that, but it seems that small mindedness can exist anywhere.  He didn't write the letter, so there it is. Of course, now the NA knows about it because of the student going public on it. So there's plenty of small mindedness to go around.

 

He'll fit in well with the current state of the academies.  they're hotbeds of religiosity, and sexual assault.



#4 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:59 PM

The Principal was right to cut off the mike.  You can't use Taxpayer events to proselytize. A bit vindictive to take it any further than that, but it seems that small mindedness can exist anywhere.  He didn't write the letter, so there it is. Of course, now the NA knows about it because of the student going public on it. So there's plenty of small mindedness to go around.

 

He'll fit in well with the current state of the academies.  they're hotbeds of religiosity, and sexual assault.

 

A high-school graduation is a "taxpayer event"?  Since when is the content of a kid's valedictory speech government sponsored anything, OR?  Not pickin' at ya, but, it seems that your interpretation is overly broad, and is confusing the permission for a person to make personal comments w/the school adopting those comments as a sponsored position. 

 

Why do we feel that the schools need to do anything to vet a kid's speech?  Let 'em say what they want, and then let the chips fall where they may!  Censoring the kid, and then threatening to derail his Academy appointment because the principal is personally pissed off?  Seems a bit much, to me.  



#5 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:12 PM

I have family living in that area.  Public schools, events, stadiums etc. all funded by tax money.  These people are flag waving Jesus Christ loving all Americans.  Who are outraged that they can't proselytize their personal beliefs at public events.  

 

This would change the moment that say a Muslim was in the spotlight.  Or a gay atheist.  And the purpose of that speech isn't to provide a stage for the person, they are supposed to represent the class.  Everybody.  And I can guarantee that somebody in that group isn't a heterosexualjesuslovingsenior. 

 

edit:  And since this is FOX and we seem to be hearing the victim er student's side it would be interesting to see the other side of the pancake. 



#6 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:15 PM

If the kid can't follow orders, he clearly has no business being in the military.  Perhaps a career in lawn care is more appropriate.



#7 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:33 PM

I have family living in that area.  Public schools, events, stadiums etc. all funded by tax money.  These people are flag waving Jesus Christ loving all Americans.  Who are outraged that they can't proselytize their personal beliefs at public events.  

 

This would change the moment that say a Muslim was in the spotlight.  Or a gay atheist.  And the purpose of that speech isn't to provide a stage for the person, they are supposed to represent the class.  Everybody.  And I can guarantee that somebody in that group isn't a heterosexualjesuslovingsenior.

 

edit:  And since this is FOX and we seem to be hearing the victim er student's side it would be interesting to see the other side of the pancake. 

 

Good point. So - does the potential for someone in an audience to not like what's being said preclude the individual's right to utter their own personal thoughts? 



#8 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:37 PM

If his sermon was about the evils of gays, would that be OK?  or overstepping?



#9 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:39 PM

Given it's a PUBLIC school, and there are rules as to preaching on the public dime, yes, there is a right to restrict/censor/whatever.  Now, if he wanted to get the class together afterwards at a private location, or even in the public square, have at it. As long as it's a scheduled PUBLICLY funded event - sorry, leave your secular ideas in the closet.

 

 

That doesn't mean I don't think the principal was an asshat for threatening the kid.



#10 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:40 PM

If his sermon was about the evils of gays, would that be OK?  or overstepping?

 

What if he pulled up his robe and was spanking it?  Would that be OK?



#11 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:46 PM

Given it's a PUBLIC school, and there are rules as to preaching on the public dime, yes, there is a right to restrict/censor/whatever.  Now, if he wanted to get the class together afterwards at a private location, or even in the public square, have at it. As long as it's a scheduled PUBLICLY funded event - sorry, leave your secular ideas in the closet.

 

 

That doesn't mean I don't think the principal was an asshat for threatening the kid.

We're gettin' closer to the crux - there's nothing in law that prevents an individual student from making an expression of faith, ANY faith, in the public schools. One kid's statements don't indicate that that kid's position is approved or sponsored by the school.  What would you say about a Jewish kid wearing a Yarmulke, or a Muslim girl wearing a headscarf, or a Sikh kid wearing their turban (sorry, don't know what the proper name for the Sikh headwear is called)?  

 

If a Valedictory speech is supposed to be a presentation of the school's policies, then shouldn't the school just publish and print it? The Valedictory speech has always been an opportunity for the kid(s) to share what they think, and are thinking as they transition into the next phase of their lives - in other words, it's a personal message. 



#12 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:50 PM

If his sermon was about the evils of gays, would that be OK?  or overstepping?

 

Sermon?  Did you even read the article Specious? Answering your question more seriously than you ever entertain anyone else's, I would say it would be an off topic rant.  In his comments, he gave thanks for the personal beliefs and guidelines that he felt were responsible for his success.  That to me seems quite appropriate for the occasion.  Of course, if he'd praised the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead, you would be falling all over yourselves to congratulate his cleverness and wit. 



#13 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:02 PM

The school district has a policy. He knowingly violated that policy. 

 

Is your issue with the policy or the student's right to say anything he wants?  The speech btw isn't an opportunity for him to talk about himself, he is representing the senior class. 

 

If his issue was about the policy he could have addressed that, he didn't.  Why does everyone think they need to be Tim Tebow?   



#14 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:11 PM

My issue is both with the policy, and the principal's threatened actions after the fact. Additionally, I feel that, as represented by several of the opinions shared on this thread, that folks are willfully blurring the lines between the right of a person to make a personal statement with the separation clause of the 1st amendment.  

 

If a school official had said/done something like that without qualifying the comments as their personal opinion, then I'd feel differently. With the perceived authority that the words of a school official carries, there is a valid inference of sponsorship/advocacy.  To suggest that the personal opines of a graduating student somehow are reflective of "preaching on the taxpayer's dime" is a bit of a stretch, don't ya think? 

 

As to the "Tim Tebow" comment - I'm actually right there with ya.  



#15 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

Proselytizing is nothing new to commencements and is not exclusive to religion.  Read the transcript of Obama's address to Moorehouse College graduates (Link).  Not only does he mention "God" 3 times, he also works in Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Jim Crow, "Moses generation", and even worked in the Affordable Care Act. 

 

Now that was a sermon.

 

If the kid feels he owes thanks to Jesus, then he should be able to thank Jesus.  If he wants to preach at commencement and use it as a forum to convert his audience, that's a different story all together.  Alluding to one's personal faith is not "prostelytizing".



#16 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:38 PM

I don't necessarily agree with the school's take on what's acceptable, but it's their platform, therefore, their right to restrict the speech.

 

The kid wasn't "censored"  - as he agreed when getting up there to adhere to policy.

 

Then - when he doesn't, he goes public. Seems narcissistic to me.



#17 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,421 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:38 PM

If this was a gay guy wanting to break the established school rules by wearing a dress to prom the same people justifying the schools actions would be all over freedom of expression

#18 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:49 PM

Proselytizing is nothing new to commencements and is not exclusive to religion.  Read the transcript of Obama's address to Moorehouse College graduates (Link).  Not only does he mention "God" 3 times, he also works in Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Jim Crow, "Moses generation", and even worked in the Affordable Care Act. 
 
Now that was a sermon.
 
If the kid feels he owes thanks to Jesus, then he should be able to thank Jesus.  If he wants to preach at commencement and use it as a forum to convert his audience, that's a different story all together.  Alluding to one's personal faith is not "prostelytizing".

It's just personal preference of each audience member. To the Atheist, perhaps the mention of religion is that. To the Christian, perhaps even a closing remark which mentions Allah from a Muslim Valedictorian would cross the line.

The audience was presumably people of different faiths, it was their graduation too. I'm sure that the majority supported this kid, but it's like Ayn Rand wrote; "A majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority."

The kid has the protections of The Constitution to go to a Christian school instead, to worship as he pleases, to speak as he wants in a public place. It is thus a little douchy of him to take all these rights while trashing the rights of others. If he was in the audience listening to the B'hai valedictorian's relationship with Baha'u'llah, how much protest would he give over a cut mic?

#19 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 06:06 PM

If this was a gay guy wanting to break the established school rules by wearing a dress to prom the same people justifying the schools actions would be all over freedom of expression

 

He was already wearing a gown….



#20 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,936 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 06:16 PM

If this was a gay guy wanting to break the established school rules by wearing a dress to prom the same people justifying the schools actions would be all over freedom of expression

 

He was already wearing a gown….

:D :lol: B)



#21 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,650 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:01 PM

Reimer, who has received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, thanked God for “sending His only son to die for me and the rest of the world,” the Joshua Star reported.

 

Sounds like a personal statement and not one establishing a religion for the school district.  The valedictory address is simply  a farewell to classmates by someone who has earned the position.  There are plenty of other opportunities for the administrators, guest speakers, etc. to give statements of school policy.  The valedictory is a personal statement.



#22 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:03 PM

Proselytizing is nothing new to commencements and is not exclusive to religion.  Read the transcript of Obama's address to Moorehouse College graduates (Link).  Not only does he mention "God" 3 times, he also works in Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Jim Crow, "Moses generation", and even worked in the Affordable Care Act. 
 
Now that was a sermon.
 
If the kid feels he owes thanks to Jesus, then he should be able to thank Jesus.  If he wants to preach at commencement and use it as a forum to convert his audience, that's a different story all together.  Alluding to one's personal faith is not "prostelytizing".

It's just personal preference of each audience member. To the Atheist, perhaps the mention of religion is that. To the Christian, perhaps even a closing remark which mentions Allah from a Muslim Valedictorian would cross the line.

The audience was presumably people of different faiths, it was their graduation too. I'm sure that the majority supported this kid, but it's like Ayn Rand wrote; "A majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority."

The kid has the protections of The Constitution to go to a Christian school instead, to worship as he pleases, to speak as he wants in a public place. It is thus a little douchy of him to take all these rights while trashing the rights of others. If he was in the audience listening to the B'hai valedictorian's relationship with Baha'u'llah, how much protest would he give over a cut mic?

 

 

I think it was douchy for him to try and deceive the school administrators by submitting remarks which excluded what he planned to say.  He should have stuck with the script he submitted or refused the honor based on his own principles.

 

Your suggestion that mentioning Jesus was "trashing the rights of others" is pretty out there. 

 

If we were to restrict commencement addresses to only  things which might not offend others, those would be some very short speeches as well.  We wouldn't be able to thank parents for their guidance and support for fear of making an orphan feel self conscious. 



#23 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:11 PM

Sorry for the formatting.  Passed in Texas in 2007 (Link)--

 

 

 

 

H.B. No. 3678        

 

AN ACT relating to voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints in public schools.          

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:  SECTION 1.  This Act may be cited as the "Religious   Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" or the "Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act.".....

 

Article III - Student Speakers at Graduation Ceremonies.....

 

......In addition to the students giving the opening and closing   remarks, certain other students who have attained special positions   of honor based on neutral criteria, including, without limitation,   the valedictorian, will have speaking roles at graduation   ceremonies.  For each speaker, the school district shall set a   maximum time limit reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and   to the position held by the speaker.  For this purpose, the district   creates a limited public forum for these students to deliver the   addresses.  The subject of the addresses must be related to the   purpose of the graduation ceremony, marking and honoring the   occasion, honoring the participants and those in attendance, and   the student's perspective on purpose, achievement, life, school,   graduation, and looking forward to the future.

 

 

       The subject must be designated for each student speaker, the   student must stay on the subject, and the student may not engage in   obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech.  The school   district shall treat a student's voluntary expression of a   religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in   the same manner the district treats a student's voluntary   expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise   permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student   based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an   otherwise permissible subject.



#24 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,421 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 13 June 2013 - 07:18 PM


If this was a gay guy wanting to break the established school rules by wearing a dress to prom the same people justifying the schools actions would be all over freedom of expression

 
He was already wearing a gown.
:D :lol: B)
. Read my post again. The key word is. Prom.

#25 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:00 PM

In most of Texas, I'm guessing they won't let a guy go to Prom in a dress.  But it's just a guess.



#26 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:13 PM


Proselytizing is nothing new to commencements and is not exclusive to religion.  Read the transcript of Obama's address to Moorehouse College graduates (Link).  Not only does he mention "God" 3 times, he also works in Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Jim Crow, "Moses generation", and even worked in the Affordable Care Act. 
 
Now that was a sermon.
 
If the kid feels he owes thanks to Jesus, then he should be able to thank Jesus.  If he wants to preach at commencement and use it as a forum to convert his audience, that's a different story all together.  Alluding to one's personal faith is not "prostelytizing".

It's just personal preference of each audience member. To the Atheist, perhaps the mention of religion is that. To the Christian, perhaps even a closing remark which mentions Allah from a Muslim Valedictorian would cross the line.

The audience was presumably people of different faiths, it was their graduation too. I'm sure that the majority supported this kid, but it's like Ayn Rand wrote; "A majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority."

The kid has the protections of The Constitution to go to a Christian school instead, to worship as he pleases, to speak as he wants in a public place. It is thus a little douchy of him to take all these rights while trashing the rights of others. If he was in the audience listening to the B'hai valedictorian's relationship with Baha'u'llah, how much protest would he give over a cut mic?
 
 
I think it was douchy for him to try and deceive the school administrators by submitting remarks which excluded what he planned to say.  He should have stuck with the script he submitted or refused the honor based on his own principles.
 
Your suggestion that mentioning Jesus was "trashing the rights of others" is pretty out there. 
 
If we were to restrict commencement addresses to only  things which might not offend others, those would be some very short speeches as well.  We wouldn't be able to thank parents for their guidance and support for fear of making an orphan feel self conscious. 

It is trashing their rights. It's their graduation, they have a right to a pre-approved religion-free event, just as surely as he has a right to religion-filled event had he chosen a religious school or religious event.

If you attended the public graduation of one of your children and one of the speakers used the opportunity to make a Wiccan incantation to Goddess of harvest followed by another speaker who cried "Allah ackbar, hamdullah!" seven times in quick succession, would you feel your rights or your child's rights were trampled?

Personally, I would laugh my ass off if that happened, and wouldn't feel my rights were trampled at all, but then I grew up around constant prayers to Jesus in public groups, so a Wiccan and Muslim would be delightful change of pace.

#27 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:18 PM

Sorry for the formatting.  Passed in Texas in 2007 (Link)--
 
 
 
 
H.B. No. 3678        
 
AN ACT relating to voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints in public schools.          
 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:  SECTION 1.  This Act may be cited as the "Religious   Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act" or the "Schoolchildren's Religious Liberties Act.".....
 
Article III - Student Speakers at Graduation Ceremonies.....
 
......In addition to the students giving the opening and closing   remarks, certain other students who have attained special positions   of honor based on neutral criteria, including, without limitation,   the valedictorian, will have speaking roles at graduation   ceremonies.  For each speaker, the school district shall set a   maximum time limit reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and   to the position held by the speaker.  For this purpose, the district   creates a limited public forum for these students to deliver the   addresses.  The subject of the addresses must be related to the   purpose of the graduation ceremony, marking and honoring the   occasion, honoring the participants and those in attendance, and   the student's perspective on purpose, achievement, life, school,   graduation, and looking forward to the future.
 
 
       The subject must be designated for each student speaker, the   student must stay on the subject, and the student may not engage in   obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech.  The school   district shall treat a student's voluntary expression of a   religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in   the same manner the district treats a student's voluntary   expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise   permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student   based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an   otherwise permissible subject.

Hey wait, what's wrong with lewd and indecent speech?

I attend the Congregation of the Most Holy Fuckshitdamn and we find this kind of speech enlightening. I have a personal and loving relationship with the Spiritual Son of The One Eyed Crack Whore and it is my holy duty to spread the gospel of Fuckshitdamnism.

A key component of our faith is to help our children attain valedictorian status and then preach our gospel of hope and proctology using mechanical megaphones in front of large groups of public school students.

#28 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:22 PM

 

 


Proselytizing is nothing new to commencements and is not exclusive to religion.  Read the transcript of Obama's address to Moorehouse College graduates (Link).  Not only does he mention "God" 3 times, he also works in Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, Jim Crow, "Moses generation", and even worked in the Affordable Care Act. 
 
Now that was a sermon.
 
If the kid feels he owes thanks to Jesus, then he should be able to thank Jesus.  If he wants to preach at commencement and use it as a forum to convert his audience, that's a different story all together.  Alluding to one's personal faith is not "prostelytizing".

It's just personal preference of each audience member. To the Atheist, perhaps the mention of religion is that. To the Christian, perhaps even a closing remark which mentions Allah from a Muslim Valedictorian would cross the line.

The audience was presumably people of different faiths, it was their graduation too. I'm sure that the majority supported this kid, but it's like Ayn Rand wrote; "A majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority."

The kid has the protections of The Constitution to go to a Christian school instead, to worship as he pleases, to speak as he wants in a public place. It is thus a little douchy of him to take all these rights while trashing the rights of others. If he was in the audience listening to the B'hai valedictorian's relationship with Baha'u'llah, how much protest would he give over a cut mic?
 
 
I think it was douchy for him to try and deceive the school administrators by submitting remarks which excluded what he planned to say.  He should have stuck with the script he submitted or refused the honor based on his own principles.
 
Your suggestion that mentioning Jesus was "trashing the rights of others" is pretty out there. 
 
If we were to restrict commencement addresses to only  things which might not offend others, those would be some very short speeches as well.  We wouldn't be able to thank parents for their guidance and support for fear of making an orphan feel self conscious. 

It is trashing their rights. It's their graduation, they have a right to a pre-approved religion-free event, just as surely as he has a right to religion-filled event had he chosen a religious school or religious event.

If you attended the public graduation of one of your children and one of the speakers used the opportunity to make a Wiccan incantation to Goddess of harvest followed by another speaker who cried "Allah ackbar, hamdullah!" seven times in quick succession, would you feel your rights or your child's rights were trampled?

Personally, I would laugh my ass off if that happened, and wouldn't feel my rights were trampled at all, but then I grew up around constant prayers to Jesus in public groups, so a Wiccan and Muslim would be delightful change of pace.

 

Not at all - nobody has a right to not be confronted with statements or ideas that they find distasteful. The right to freedom of speech almost guarantees that that's gonna happen.  Some of us might wish that was the case, but, it ain't so.  

 

That said - if a person made a comment that I felt was particularly heinous (and an exclamation of faith in any religion wouldn't fit that construct) I'd address it with the individual afterwards.  

 

Public space = belongs to everybody = everyone is allowed to state their opinion. 



#29 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:29 PM

 
Public space = belongs to everybody = everyone is allowed to state their opinion. 


So I can plant myself in front of Congress and read my squash vodka recipe? My Satanist mechanic can feel free to attend the public dedication of a new National Park and scream his hatred of weak hot sauce for 24 minutes? I can attend a public school Second Grade holiday show and drown out the children with my own interpretive banjo playing?

#30 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:33 PM

 
Public space = belongs to everybody = everyone is allowed to state their opinion. 


So I can plant myself in front of Congress and read my squash vodka recipe? My Satanist mechanic can feel free to attend the public dedication of a new National Park and scream his hatred of weak hot sauce for 24 minutes? I can attend a public school Second Grade holiday show and drown out the children with my own interpretive banjo playing?

Look at the Westboro Baptist Church folks for your answer.... 



#31 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 08:59 PM


 
Public space = belongs to everybody = everyone is allowed to state their opinion. 

So I can plant myself in front of Congress and read my squash vodka recipe? My Satanist mechanic can feel free to attend the public dedication of a new National Park and scream his hatred of weak hot sauce for 24 minutes? I can attend a public school Second Grade holiday show and drown out the children with my own interpretive banjo playing?
Look at the Westboro Baptist Church folks for your answer.... 

Exactly. The answer is that even in a public space they have to keep their distance and I can't read my recipe in front of Congress without their permission.

Replace Congress with school auditorium and my recipe with a religious incantation and you might see why everyone isn't allowed to state their opinion in a confined public space. See what speech you can get away with in your next airport lobby, if you're interested.

#32 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:16 PM

If the kid wanted to leave the auditorium and step on the sidewalk, grab a sign that said Thank You God, etc, he'd certainly have that right. Assuming he is 18 (weird laws exist re: minors and rights, I don't get all the nuances).  Otherwise, he was just a speaker at a publicly paid for event that broke the rules, and so had his mike turned off.  Then the principal proved that principals can be asshats.



#33 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:25 PM

 

 


 
Public space = belongs to everybody = everyone is allowed to state their opinion. 

So I can plant myself in front of Congress and read my squash vodka recipe? My Satanist mechanic can feel free to attend the public dedication of a new National Park and scream his hatred of weak hot sauce for 24 minutes? I can attend a public school Second Grade holiday show and drown out the children with my own interpretive banjo playing?
Look at the Westboro Baptist Church folks for your answer.... 

Exactly. The answer is that even in a public space they have to keep their distance and I can't read my recipe in front of Congress without their permission.

Replace Congress with school auditorium and my recipe with a religious incantation and you might see why everyone isn't allowed to state their opinion in a confined public space. See what speech you can get away with in your next airport lobby, if you're interested.

 

Seriously? 

 

I know it is all the rage to criticize anything Christian these days, but can we do so without all the drama, FFS?  Jesus Christ, Mike.



#34 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 13 June 2013 - 09:47 PM

If the kid wanted to leave the auditorium and step on the sidewalk, grab a sign that said Thank You God, etc, he'd certainly have that right. Assuming he is 18 (weird laws exist re: minors and rights, I don't get all the nuances).  Otherwise, he was just a speaker at a publicly paid for event that broke the rules, and so had his mike turned off.  Then the principal proved that principals can be asshats.

 

Can you find me a statute that supports that premise?  You are *really* stretching w/the "just a speaker at a publicly paid for event", like he was some invited outsider - it was HIS graduation!   There is a difference between an individual espousing a personal opinion, and a representative of a governmental agency advocating a personal position as policy.   The first is OK, the second isn't.  

 

For another example, how 'bout the LGBT advocacy? I personally find the idea and the behavior absolutely reprehensible, and practices that I consider to be deviant are presented as not only acceptable but desirable, yet I'm supposed to sit back and smile and nod my head and not say anything about it?  

 

That manner of speech is certainly condoned in the public sphere, now isn't it?

 

I guess the point is that it's hypocritical for anyone to apply their personal censure to anyone else's private speech.  OR - you are suggesting that this valedictory address is something other than private speech solely based upon its content.  I disagree, but am willing to listen. 



#35 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:08 PM

I don't know, does the school check for LGBT language and approve, or not?  If they do, and they say "nope, sorry, doesn't meet community standards", they would have the same right as it's their forum.

 

It might be "his" graduation, but it's also hundreds of others graduation as well.

 

Personally, I'm all for open season, let em say what they want to say, but in this case, the kid didn't follow the agreement he made in order to get on stage in the first place.



#36 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:15 PM



 



 




 
Public space = belongs to everybody = everyone is allowed to state their opinion. 

So I can plant myself in front of Congress and read my squash vodka recipe? My Satanist mechanic can feel free to attend the public dedication of a new National Park and scream his hatred of weak hot sauce for 24 minutes? I can attend a public school Second Grade holiday show and drown out the children with my own interpretive banjo playing?
Look at the Westboro Baptist Church folks for your answer.... 
Exactly. The answer is that even in a public space they have to keep their distance and I can't read my recipe in front of Congress without their permission.

Replace Congress with school auditorium and my recipe with a religious incantation and you might see why everyone isn't allowed to state their opinion in a confined public space. See what speech you can get away with in your next airport lobby, if you're interested.
 
Seriously? 
 
I know it is all the rage to criticize anything Christian these days, but can we do so without all the drama, FFS?  Jesus Christ, Mike.
Didn't mean to offend. The word "incantation" is just a little spoken prayer or spell or something, not at all specific to Christianity. When I was a kid in the YMCA Summer Day Camp, the counselors had us say an incantation before we ate our Dairy Queen snacks.

Swap "incantation" for "prayer" or "testimony".

Okay now?

#37 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:16 PM

  Sounds OK to me, not and overstep.  It was the whole classes graduation, not just HIS or any other individuals.  Families are there. No do-over. The school adopted a policy that would allow them to edit content so they didn't have to deal with the fall out from a student, perhaps the son or daughter of Westborough, doing 5 minutes of say...chimp screams, or a Linda Blair imitation.  

 

 I say sounds because without hearing a larger sample of the speech's (both pre and post editing) it's not easy to judge if all references to God or all religion were censored or not. 



#38 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 June 2013 - 10:24 PM

i could see this as simple really - speech goes back and forth till an agreed upon one is done.  Kid goes off script, mike gets shut down.

 

but do kids really use scripts now?  Everything is PPT built, I would assume that kids are more free form in their presentations than when I was in school.  WOuld make it much harder to control.



#39 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:04 PM

Kid knew the rules.  Kid agreed to the rules.  Kid broke the rules.  There will be consequences.  Without consequences, anarchy.



#40 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:28 PM

i could see this as simple really - speech goes back and forth till an agreed upon one is done.  Kid goes off script, mike gets shut down.

 

but do kids really use scripts now?  Everything is PPT built, I would assume that kids are more free form in their presentations than when I was in school.  WOuld make it much harder to control.

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?  Really, what is harder - lying to the administrators about your intentions and agreeing to give a speech you have no intention of making?  Or telling them what you intend and making them strip you of your right to give you speech, then going public about it?  These chickenshit kids have no principles, and they make me sick.

 

If they want to make a stand, they need to grow some balls and stand up like adults.  When dragged in front of Pilate did Jesus day "Nope, wasn't me, you got the wrong guy" so he could get off and keep preaching?  Are we forgetting the commandments, like "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness?"

 

Or maybe they should just listen the words of the Big Yesu himself in Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

 

 

Well, at least it wasn't some turbo-Christian principle threatening to call Wellesley to get a student's admission reversed because she blew the whistle on him holding a mandatory attendance slut shaming Evangelist abstinence-only preacher assembly during school hours.  That would have been bad.  Just imagine.



#41 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 June 2013 - 11:37 PM

The kid got an appointment to Annapolis.  He is expected to be of high moral character and able to follow precise instructions.  He may someday be responsible in a life or death situation.  If he can't even handle following simple and agreed upon speech at his high school graduation, how can he be ever entrusted with an ICBM?  Or a drone?  

His appointment should be revoked.  Send him to community college to become a congressman.



#42 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:11 AM

The kid got an appointment to Annapolis.  He is expected to be of high moral character and able to follow precise instructions.  He may someday be responsible in a life or death situation.  If he can't even handle following simple and agreed upon speech at his high school graduation, how can he be ever entrusted with an ICBM?  Or a drone?  

His appointment should be revoked.  Send him to community college to become a congressman.

 

That's not up to the principal.  The principal has means within his power to handle it, like unplug the mike and kick him off the stage.  Screwing with the kid's future is totally overstepping - in his case and with the nutter in West Va.  Whatever publicity this amoral weakling gets from this, well that's his bed to sleep in.

 

He's still young and stupid.  Annapolis will sort out whether he's officer material and help him grow up.  Better there than the Air Force, where the Fundamentalists still have more undue illegal power to harass and annoy others.



#43 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:41 AM

 I doubt he got into Annapolis without a strong recommendation from the Principal. In order to maintain his credibility for future students, he has an obligation to amend that. As long as he accurately portrays the incident I don't have a problem with it. The truth, ALL of it, should be given. What the USNA does with it isn't his responsibility. 



#44 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,650 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:48 AM

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus? 

 

About as much as it takes to say "so help me god".



#45 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:59 AM

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus? 

 

About as much as it takes to say "so help me god".

 

Not a whole lot, but of course I was just trying to get a fair trial.  That I should be put in that situation is another problem entirely.



#46 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,650 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:19 AM

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?

 

About as much as it takes to say "so help me god".

 

Not a whole lot, but of course I was just trying to get a fair trial. That I should be put in that situation is another problem entirely.

 

doesn't line up with

 

"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."



#47 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,421 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:31 AM

Wow. How many of you that are condeming this kid feel Ed Snowden was justified on breaking the rules with his leaks?

Whistle blowers are good - sometimes.

#48 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:35 AM

I don't have any problem with the kid breaking the rules, nor the consequences.  I think both the kid and the principal went beyond the pale afterwards.  You go off the reservation, you take your lumps, but for the Principal, that's also where it stops.



#49 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,790 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:45 AM

I don't have any problem with the kid breaking the rules, nor the consequences.  I think both the kid and the principal went beyond the pale afterwards.  You go off the reservation, you take your lumps, but for the Principal, that's also where it stops.

That sums it up pretty well.  



#50 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:10 AM

 The interesting aspect is this interpretation of state law: 

 

 But Sasser said the school district violated state and federal laws by censoring Reimer’s speech. He said the law, along with local school policy, requires the school to distance itself from the valedictorian’s speech. That means not editing or drafting the speech.

 

   Requiring schools to distance themselves from the speech means they have no editorial control whatsoever? Seems a bit of a stretch, but who knows? 



#51 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,650 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:14 AM

 The interesting aspect is this interpretation of state law: 

 

 But Sasser said the school district violated state and federal laws by censoring Reimer’s speech. He said the law, along with local school policy, requires the school to distance itself from the valedictorian’s speech. That means not editing or drafting the speech.

 

   Requiring schools to distance themselves from the speech means they have no editorial control whatsoever? Seems a bit of a stretch, but who knows? 

 

I thought that valedictorian and salutorian were positions determined by academic merit, not what they wanted to say.

 

Does there need to be a political/religious test or will GPA be enough?



#52 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:23 AM

Saw on the news just the other day that Valedictorian ain't what it used to be. Some schools have 15 kids who can all claim the title.  Seems it helps kids get into the "best" colleges, which helps the schools with their metrics….



#53 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:34 AM

 The interesting aspect is this interpretation of state law: 
 
 But Sasser said the school district violated state and federal laws by censoring Reimers speech. He said the law, along with local school policy, requires the school to distance itself from the valedictorians speech. That means not editing or drafting the speech.
 
   Requiring schools to distance themselves from the speech means they have no editorial control whatsoever? Seems a bit of a stretch, but who knows? 

Regatta Dog brought this up several posts ago.

For whatever reason, the school required an approval on that speech. He agreed to their rules by giving them his speech.

Then he broke their agreement.

I think the correct course of action is to have this young man imprisoned without trial and for not less than 35 years. Give him some time to think about what he's done.

#54 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:44 AM


 


The interesting aspect is this interpretation of state law: 
 
 But Sasser said the school district violated state and federal laws by censoring Reimers speech. He said the law, along with local school policy, requires the school to distance itself from the valedictorians speech. That means not editing or drafting the speech.
 
   Requiring schools to distance themselves from the speech means they have no editorial control whatsoever? Seems a bit of a stretch, but who knows? 

Regatta Dog brought this up several posts ago.

For whatever reason, the school required an approval on that speech. He agreed to their rules by giving them his speech.

Then he broke their agreement.

I think the correct course of action is to have this young man imprisoned without trial and for not less than 35 years. Give him some time to think about what he's done.


 
 If he was just going to a college I would have a very low opinion of the Principal's decision.

#55 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:56 AM

You earn the position on Valedictorian.  Protected speech is exactly the right to say what is not sanctioned by current moral standards. The purpose of the 1st amendment isn't to protect banal agreeable speech. 

 

He earned the right to be there. He has the constitutional right to offend at will and suffer the consequences. 



#56 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:07 AM

Not where he's going, he doesn't. That's the only problem. If he is the kind of guy who can't or won't subordinate his personal opinions to the will of an institution he's picked the wrong line of work. Needs checking into. He and the NAvy might be making a mistake which will waste both of their time while bumping someone better suited for the job in the process.

#57 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:41 AM

The way I see it, the kid would have had a good & arguable point had he not already made a commitment as to what he was and was not going to say. Thing is, he submitted what he was going to say then went off-script. The Principal turning off / unplugging the mic was the right thing to do in that circumstance. Free speech isn't the same as being free from the consequences of going back on your word. 

 

What both of them did afterwards is pretty a pretty poor indication of both their characters, but that's another story and not what most people are supporting the kid on.



#58 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,195 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:12 AM

If his sermon was about the evils of gays, would that be OK?  or overstepping?

No buttfuckers are not evil. Because God made them that way.... :ph34r:  



#59 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,938 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 June 2013 - 09:02 AM

Not where he's going, he doesn't. That's the only problem. If he is the kind of guy who can't or won't subordinate his personal opinions to the will of an institution he's picked the wrong line of work. Needs checking into. He and the NAvy might be making a mistake which will waste both of their time while bumping someone better suited for the job in the process.

 

Attendance in high school is mandatory. The navy is voluntary. 



#60 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,084 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 14 June 2013 - 09:53 AM

Given it's a PUBLIC school, and there are rules as to preaching on the public dime, yes, there is a right to restrict/censor/whatever.  Now, if he wanted to get the class together afterwards at a private location, or even in the public square, have at it. As long as it's a scheduled PUBLICLY funded event - sorry, leave your secular ideas in the closet.

 

I'm not at all for religious crap rammed down my throat at public events.  BUT...... I think there is a huge aspect of freedom of speech going on here.  Being at a publically funded event does NOT abrogate your right to free speech or religion.  If we were to take your idea to its logical conclusion, we would immediately do the following:

 

-  No politician would be allowed to say "so help me god" in their oath of office.

-  "May god bless America" would be banned from all public speeches.

-  Athletes would no longer be allowed to kneel down after a touchdown, or cross himself, or point to the sky

-  Athletes would also no longer be allowed to thank Jesus for their skills and their talent

-  In GOD WE TRUST needs to be removed from all our money immediately.

-  All references to anything religious needs to be immediately purged from our law books, our constitution, our gov't buildings.

-  All churches should immediately lose tax breaks

 

And on and on....

 

Seriously, I think this was an over-reaction by the principle.  ESPECIALLY as d'r says, the majority of folks down there in TX are fairly religious people.  I doubt there were many people in the audience offended.  I think the anti-religious principle was the only one offended.  And it kinda depends on the context.  Did the kid simply talk about the fact that Jesus was a big part of his success as Valedictorian?  Or did he use the speech as a tent revival sermon?  Context is important here.  I personally think a valedictorian has earned the right to say whatever the hell they want as long as its in good taste and relevant to the topic of graduation.  If there is a bit of Jesus or the Constitution thrown in.... so fucking what?  The WHOLE point of the Valedictorian speech is to give the kid the spotlight as a reward for working hard and achieving, and with that comes some leeway to say what they want.  If the school is going to censor it, I say stop the practice all together.  Its has lost its meaning at that point.  We should be teaching these kids to not only think but to accept responsibility for their actions if they do something out of taste.  If all they can do is follow a script and then get cut off if they deviate - WTF are we teaching them to do? 

 

If the kid delivered a full on Baptist tent revival speech full of Jesus this and Jesus that, its likely he would have been booed off the stage and he would have learned a far more valuable lesson than being threatened by a petty douchebag vindictive principle.



#61 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:01 PM

i could see this as simple really - speech goes back and forth till an agreed upon one is done.  Kid goes off script, mike gets shut down.

 

but do kids really use scripts now?  Everything is PPT built, I would assume that kids are more free form in their presentations than when I was in school.  WOuld make it much harder to control.

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?  Really, what is harder - lying to the administrators about your intentions and agreeing to give a speech you have no intention of making?  Or telling them what you intend and making them strip you of your right to give you speech, then going public about it?  These chickenshit kids have no principles, and they make me sick.

 

If they want to make a stand, they need to grow some balls and stand up like adults.  When dragged in front of Pilate did Jesus day "Nope, wasn't me, you got the wrong guy" so he could get off and keep preaching?  Are we forgetting the commandments, like "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness?"

 

Or maybe they should just listen the words of the Big Yesu himself in Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

 

 

Well, at least it wasn't some turbo-Christian principle threatening to call Wellesley to get a student's admission reversed because she blew the whistle on him holding a mandatory attendance slut shaming Evangelist abstinence-only preacher assembly during school hours.  That would have been bad.  Just imagine.

 

In this case - I'd agree with you. Not because the message was bad, but, that the delivery constituted the advocacy of a position by the school.  Perhaps the schools SHOULD advocate that teenagers shouldn't be having kids - and explain to them the economic realities of why that is.  



#62 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:25 PM

 

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?

 

About as much as it takes to say "so help me god".

 

Not a whole lot, but of course I was just trying to get a fair trial. That I should be put in that situation is another problem entirely.

 

doesn't line up with

 

 

"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

 

 

Declaration isn't the law of the land.  Consitution is.



#63 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:28 PM

 

i could see this as simple really - speech goes back and forth till an agreed upon one is done.  Kid goes off script, mike gets shut down.

 

but do kids really use scripts now?  Everything is PPT built, I would assume that kids are more free form in their presentations than when I was in school.  WOuld make it much harder to control.

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?  Really, what is harder - lying to the administrators about your intentions and agreeing to give a speech you have no intention of making?  Or telling them what you intend and making them strip you of your right to give you speech, then going public about it?  These chickenshit kids have no principles, and they make me sick.

 

If they want to make a stand, they need to grow some balls and stand up like adults.  When dragged in front of Pilate did Jesus day "Nope, wasn't me, you got the wrong guy" so he could get off and keep preaching?  Are we forgetting the commandments, like "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness?"

 

Or maybe they should just listen the words of the Big Yesu himself in Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

 

 

Well, at least it wasn't some turbo-Christian principle threatening to call Wellesley to get a student's admission reversed because she blew the whistle on him holding a mandatory attendance slut shaming Evangelist abstinence-only preacher assembly during school hours.  That would have been bad.  Just imagine.

 

In this case - I'd agree with you. Not because the message was bad, but, that the delivery constituted the advocacy of a position by the school.  Perhaps the schools SHOULD advocate that teenagers shouldn't be having kids - and explain to them the economic realities of why that is.  

 

But the message also was bad.  And religious, not factual or scientific in any way and not backed up by any evidence that it worked.



#64 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:37 PM

 

 

i could see this as simple really - speech goes back and forth till an agreed upon one is done.  Kid goes off script, mike gets shut down.

 

but do kids really use scripts now?  Everything is PPT built, I would assume that kids are more free form in their presentations than when I was in school.  WOuld make it much harder to control.

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?  Really, what is harder - lying to the administrators about your intentions and agreeing to give a speech you have no intention of making?  Or telling them what you intend and making them strip you of your right to give you speech, then going public about it?  These chickenshit kids have no principles, and they make me sick.

 

If they want to make a stand, they need to grow some balls and stand up like adults.  When dragged in front of Pilate did Jesus day "Nope, wasn't me, you got the wrong guy" so he could get off and keep preaching?  Are we forgetting the commandments, like "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness?"

 

Or maybe they should just listen the words of the Big Yesu himself in Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

 

 

Well, at least it wasn't some turbo-Christian principle threatening to call Wellesley to get a student's admission reversed because she blew the whistle on him holding a mandatory attendance slut shaming Evangelist abstinence-only preacher assembly during school hours.  That would have been bad.  Just imagine.

 

In this case - I'd agree with you. Not because the message was bad, but, that the delivery constituted the advocacy of a position by the school.  Perhaps the schools SHOULD advocate that teenagers shouldn't be having kids - and explain to them the economic realities of why that is.  

 

But the message also was bad.  And religious, not factual or scientific in any way and not backed up by any evidence that it worked.

 

Which message?  



#65 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,650 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 12:53 PM

 

 

 

That's pretty much what it was.

 

How much courage does it take to LIE for Jesus?

 

About as much as it takes to say "so help me god".

 

Not a whole lot, but of course I was just trying to get a fair trial. That I should be put in that situation is another problem entirely.

 

doesn't line up with

 

<

blockquote>

 

"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

"

 

Declaration isn't the law of the land.  Consitution is.

 

 

Yep and that's where there is the assurance of freedom of religion and speech.

 

Saying 'god' in public does not establish a religion.  Forbidding use of the word it is the act of a despot.



#66 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,766 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 01:55 PM

Why does First Amendment keep coming up here?

He had an agreement with the school, which he then broke.

If I have an agreement with a cop to enter my house and look around, it would be pretty stupid for me to then yelp about my rights being violated.

How is this any different from when I show up at a city council meeting, go over my agreed-upon time in which I complain about all these friggen coyotes, and then have my mic cut and excluded from one meeting until I learn to stick to the agreement that made by taking the mic in the first place?

He no more has freedom of speech at an organized event than a member of the audience has freedom of speech to scream at the judge in a public courtroom.

If the school said "go ahead, say whatever you want for five minutes" then there would be a point to his rights being violated.

#67 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:03 PM

 Freedom of speech doesn't entitle people to mikes, does it? The school might be on fairly solid ground. They didn't try to stop him from speaking, they just took their mike back.   



#68 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,458 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:08 PM

If the kid was offended that he needed to get his speech approved, he should have spoken up at that time and declined the opportunity if it bothered him so.

 

That he accepted and submitted the text of a speech for approval, knowing that he was going to go "off script", says quite a bit about his character and sense of honor.

 

The Principal is a dick for doing anything beyond turning off the mic.



#69 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:10 PM

The principle has a duty to report dishonorable behavior to the academy, especially if he previously recommended the student.



#70 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:14 PM

Which message?  

 

http://www.mommyish....bstinence-only/

http://www.huffingto..._n_3070605.html

http://jezebel.com/t...-birt-472610594

 

Misinformation, shaming, faith based piffle, fear tactics, abuse,  and out right lies - packaged as "Sex Education" by the school.

 

In her YouTube videos, Stenzel says birth control makes a woman "10 times more likely to contract a disease . . . or end up sterile or dead." Many of the videos warn of sexually transmitted diseases and also say, "Sex could damage you for the rest of your life." Sex also could lead to "scarred fallopian tubes and cancer . . . and you need to ask Jesus for forgiveness."

 

In a captivating and inspiring talk, Pam tackles the tough issues of sex with candor, insight, and humor while challenging young people to embrace God’s plan for sexual purity.

 

"Many students felt uncomfortable with her outright condemnation of any and everyone who has ever had premarital sexual contact," Campbell said. "Stenzel's overall attitude was that any type of sex will guarantee the contraction of an STD or an unwanted pregnancy."

Campbell and a male student, who wished to remain anonymous, said Stenzel often screamed into the microphone and used an unsettlingly loud tone throughout the presentation.

"While her intentions may have been good, her tone was very loud, like she was shaming everyone in the audience. She was making girls cry. There were pregnant girls in the audience and she was implying, if you had sex, you're not an OK person," the male student said. "The only reason I am standing up against it is so other schools in West Virginia don't have to hear this."



#71 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,458 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:15 PM

The principle has a duty to report dishonorable behavior to the academy, especially if he previously recommended the student.

 

When talking about the person who heads a school, it is spelled Principal.

 

Then again, maybe you were trying to introduce irony.



#72 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:17 PM

Saying 'god' in public does not establish a religion.  Forbidding use of the word it is the act of a despot.

 

Well it's a good thing I've never suggested or advocated that, isn't it?



#73 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:19 PM

If the kid was offended that he needed to get his speech approved, he should have spoken up at that time and declined the opportunity if it bothered him so.

 

That he accepted and submitted the text of a speech for approval, knowing that he was going to go "off script", says quite a bit about his character and sense of honor.

 

The Principal is a dick for doing anything beyond turning off the mic.

 

Agreed.  Both players were wrong.

 

Kid was a coward and a liar, principal lacked principles and was vindictive.



#74 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

Which message?  

 

http://www.mommyish....bstinence-only/

http://www.huffingto..._n_3070605.html

http://jezebel.com/t...-birt-472610594

 

Misinformation, shaming, faith based piffle, fear tactics, abuse,  and out right lies - packaged as "Sex Education" by the school.

 

>In her YouTube videos, Stenzel says birth control makes a woman "10 times more likely to contract a disease . . . or end up sterile or dead." Many of the videos warn of sexually transmitted diseases and also say, "Sex could damage you for the rest of your life." Sex also could lead to "scarred fallopian tubes and cancer . . . and you need to ask Jesus for forgiveness."

 

In a captivating and inspiring talk, Pam tackles the tough issues of sex with candor, insight, and humor while challenging young people to embrace God’s plan for sexual purity.

 

"Many students felt uncomfortable with her outright condemnation of any and everyone who has ever had premarital sexual contact," Campbell said. "Stenzel's overall attitude was that any type of sex will guarantee the contraction of an STD or an unwanted pregnancy."

Campbell and a male student, who wished to remain anonymous, said Stenzel often screamed into the microphone and used an unsettlingly loud tone throughout the presentation.

"While her intentions may have been good, her tone was very loud, like she was shaming everyone in the audience. She was making girls cry. There were pregnant girls in the audience and she was implying, if you had sex, you're not an OK person," the male student said. "The only reason I am standing up against it is so other schools in West Virginia don't have to hear this."

 

 

I dunno BJ - you may not like the delivery or content, but, can you argue that abstinence absolutely prevents teen pregnancies and STDs?  I understand that you disagree with the  "religious basis", and I'd agree that threatening and degrading are counterproductive.  



#75 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:06 PM

I dunno BJ - you may not like the delivery or content, but, can you argue that abstinence absolutely prevents teen pregnancies and STDs?  I understand that you disagree with the  "religious basis", and I'd agree that threatening and degrading are counterproductive.  

 

Not having sex is the only 100% certain way to not get pregnant, this is true.

 

But research has consistently shown that "Abstinence Only" approaches to teenage pregnancy are less effective at managing teen pregnancies & STD's than actually teaching kids things like...how to not get pregnant, how to avoid STD's, and what the responsibilities are if you get pregnant and why you don't want that.

 

Just telling kids "don't have sex" and scaring them with lies - whether it be about the effects of sex or hellfire and damnation - has proven consistently to be ineffective than actually teaching them the truth.

 

Paying a speaker to come in and give kids demonstrably FALSE information?  How is this defensible?

 

While I personally think the religious message is silly, no public school in America should be paying for someone to come in and teach a religious message, whether or not it is about sex.  Period.  This is a gross first amendment violation.



#76 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,458 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:25 PM

I dunno BJ - you may not like the delivery or content, but, can you argue that abstinence absolutely prevents teen pregnancies and STDs?  I understand that you disagree with the  "religious basis", and I'd agree that threatening and degrading are counterproductive.  

 

From BJ's link -

 

"At GW’s assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that “if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you” and “I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you’re going to be promiscuous.” She also asserted that condoms aren’t safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection."

 

The two comments enclosed by quotation marks are laughable and should be treated as a such.

 

The other two are demonstrably false.



#77 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:32 PM

I dunno BJ - you may not like the delivery or content, but, can you argue that abstinence absolutely prevents teen pregnancies and STDs?  I understand that you disagree with the  "religious basis", and I'd agree that threatening and degrading are counterproductive.  

 

Not having sex is the only 100% certain way to not get pregnant, this is true.

 

But research has consistently shown that "Abstinence Only" approaches to teenage pregnancy are less effective at managing teen pregnancies & STD's than actually teaching kids things like...how to not get pregnant, how to avoid STD's, and what the responsibilities are if you get pregnant and why you don't want that.

 

Just telling kids "don't have sex" and scaring them with lies - whether it be about the effects of sex or hellfire and damnation - has proven consistently to be ineffective than actually teaching them the truth.

 

Paying a speaker to come in and give kids demonstrably FALSE information?  How is this defensible?

 

While I personally think the religious message is silly, no public school in America should be paying for someone to come in and teach a religious message, whether or not it is about sex.  Period.  This is a gross first amendment violation.

 

On this, we agree. I absolutely support not allowing any school-sponsored speakers to present a theologically based message.  That would open the door to permitting people to come in to the school espousing your viewpoints on religion, and I don't want that either.  

 

I would and do support kids being taught what the basic tenets and beliefs of various religions are, as I think that gives them a much better understanding of where someone who thinks differently than they do may be coming from.   Even in my kids' parochial school, the religion class introduces them to Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, and even Atheism. Not proselytizing, but, in an informative, matter-of-fact manner. 



#78 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,610 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:37 PM

Comparative religion is a good Social Studies topic, and who can teach history without showing the religious context?  How would you explain he middle east today without discussing religion?  Can't be done.



#79 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,963 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 June 2013 - 03:39 PM

I dunno BJ - you may not like the delivery or content, but, can you argue that abstinence absolutely prevents teen pregnancies and STDs?  I understand that you disagree with the  "religious basis", and I'd agree that threatening and degrading are counterproductive.  

 

From BJ's link -

 

"At GW’s assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that “if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you” and “I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you’re going to be promiscuous.” She also asserted that condoms aren’t safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection."

 

The two comments enclosed by quotation marks are laughable and should be treated as a such.

 

The other two are demonstrably false.

We're in agreement - I must not have phrased my thoughts very well w/r/t the "message" - mea culpa. 

 

Just to clarify - I'm perfectly OK w/kids being taught that it's not OK for kids to have kids, and to explain to them the stark reality that they face should they take on the responsibility of parenthood before they've even figured out how to grow up themselves.   That's the message I intended in my question to BJ.   Her comments speak more of a self-serving, self-aggrandizing agenda than any real help or guidance. 



#80 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,421 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:17 PM




If the kid was offended that he needed to get his speech approved, he should have spoken up at that time and declined the opportunity if it bothered him so.
 
That he accepted and submitted the text of a speech for approval, knowing that he was going to go "off script", says quite a bit about his character and sense of honor.
 
The Principal is a dick for doing anything beyond turning off the mic.

 
Agreed.  Both players were wrong.
 
Kid was a coward and a liar, principal lacked principles and was vindictive.
Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

#81 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:49 PM

 

I dunno BJ - you may not like the delivery or content, but, can you argue that abstinence absolutely prevents teen pregnancies and STDs?  I understand that you disagree with the  "religious basis", and I'd agree that threatening and degrading are counterproductive.  

 

Not having sex is the only 100% certain way to not get pregnant, this is true.

 

But research has consistently shown that "Abstinence Only" approaches to teenage pregnancy are less effective at managing teen pregnancies & STD's than actually teaching kids things like...how to not get pregnant, how to avoid STD's, and what the responsibilities are if you get pregnant and why you don't want that.

 

Just telling kids "don't have sex" and scaring them with lies - whether it be about the effects of sex or hellfire and damnation - has proven consistently to be ineffective than actually teaching them the truth.

 

Paying a speaker to come in and give kids demonstrably FALSE information?  How is this defensible?

 

While I personally think the religious message is silly, no public school in America should be paying for someone to come in and teach a religious message, whether or not it is about sex.  Period.  This is a gross first amendment violation.

 

On this, we agree. I absolutely support not allowing any school-sponsored speakers to present a theologically based message.  That would open the door to permitting people to come in to the school espousing your viewpoints on religion, and I don't want that either.  

 

I would and do support kids being taught what the basic tenets and beliefs of various religions are, as I think that gives them a much better understanding of where someone who thinks differently than they do may be coming from.   Even in my kids' parochial school, the religion class introduces them to Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, and even Atheism. Not proselytizing, but, in an informative, matter-of-fact manner. 

 

I agree with you completely, understanding religion is an important part of understanding history, culture and human behavior - but we are talking Social Studies class.  Not the science room, not sex ed.



#82 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:53 PM

 




If the kid was offended that he needed to get his speech approved, he should have spoken up at that time and declined the opportunity if it bothered him so.
 
That he accepted and submitted the text of a speech for approval, knowing that he was going to go "off script", says quite a bit about his character and sense of honor.
 
The Principal is a dick for doing anything beyond turning off the mic.

 
Agreed.  Both players were wrong.
 
Kid was a coward and a liar, principal lacked principles and was vindictive.
Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

 

Yes, a coward and a liar.

 

He could have done this two ways.

 

1) Tell the school administrators what he was going to say.  Face the heat, argue his points and maybe lose his right to speak and then make an issue out of THAT in public.  "The won't let me say what I believe" is a compelling argument.  But it's hard, and he needs to take a risk and confront people.

 

2) Lie to the school administrators.  Don't face any heat, then pull the switch and try to get away with not giving the speech you agreed to deliver.

 

He went with #2, how is that not cowardly?  Lying because he doesn't have the balls to stand up for his beliefs THEN trying to sneak it past them?

 

What do they teach these kids in church that they think it's OK to lie and cheat to witness for your god?



#83 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:54 PM

Comparative religion is a good Social Studies topic, and who can teach history without showing the religious context?  How would you explain he middle east today without discussing religion?  Can't be done.

 

Of course not, no one is suggesting otherwise.



#84 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,008 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:16 PM

 

 




If the kid was offended that he needed to get his speech approved, he should have spoken up at that time and declined the opportunity if it bothered him so.
 
That he accepted and submitted the text of a speech for approval, knowing that he was going to go "off script", says quite a bit about his character and sense of honor.
 
The Principal is a dick for doing anything beyond turning off the mic.

 
Agreed.  Both players were wrong.
 
Kid was a coward and a liar, principal lacked principles and was vindictive.
Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

 

Yes, a coward and a liar.

 

He could have done this two ways.

 

1) Tell the school administrators what he was going to say.  Face the heat, argue his points and maybe lose his right to speak and then make an issue out of THAT in public.  "The won't let me say what I believe" is a compelling argument.  But it's hard, and he needs to take a risk and confront people.

 

2) Lie to the school administrators.  Don't face any heat, then pull the switch and try to get away with not giving the speech you agreed to deliver.

 

He went with #2, how is that not cowardly?  Lying because he doesn't have the balls to stand up for his beliefs THEN trying to sneak it past them?

 

What do they teach these kids in church that they think it's OK to lie and cheat to witness for your god?

 

 Cowardly might not be the best term. It's lying, but not the cowardly kind. It was in-your-face lying, and even whining about getting called for it. If the kid couldn't understand why he owed the school an apology for that the question of Annapolis being the right place for him is a proper one. Harvard or  Yale? Sure.  MIT? Absolutely. 

  

Annapolis? Not so much.  



#85 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,389 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:48 PM

Definitely a lose-lose situation.  Kid has possibly scuttled his Academy appt. or at least set himself up for a wash out campaign.  Principal, well he's looking whiney and vindictive.  But he's correct.  



#86 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 15 June 2013 - 01:57 AM

What do they teach these kids in church that they think it's OK to lie and cheat to witness for your god?

 

Actually, "Lying for the Lord" is such a principle taught by Church Elders in some religions. The hypocrisy is a strong element of certain evangelist religions shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone (though some will pretend it's only those other religions they're not a part of that do that).

 

As for the claims the boy was "brave", that's complete & total bollocks. Brave is telling the school administration what you are going to do before you do it & standing up to the potential heat that entails. Cowardly is lying to the school administration, pulling a switch on them when you think it is too late for them to do anything about it, and hoping that (having graduated) there is no consequences to that action. The boy exhibited the latter attribute of cowardice, then showed he was both whiny & disingenuous when he complained about having to face the consequences of his actions. That the principal also showed he was spiteful & vindictive doesn't change how the boy acted.



#87 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:12 AM

Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

When he is a captain in a naval fighter plane and given the mission to destroy a target, and he goes off script and disobeys his instructions, is he still very brave?  Or insubordinate?

 

The kids a proven broken arrow.  He has no place in our military academy.



#88 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:28 AM

 

 




If the kid was offended that he needed to get his speech approved, he should have spoken up at that time and declined the opportunity if it bothered him so.
 
That he accepted and submitted the text of a speech for approval, knowing that he was going to go "off script", says quite a bit about his character and sense of honor.
 
The Principal is a dick for doing anything beyond turning off the mic.

 
Agreed.  Both players were wrong.
 
Kid was a coward and a liar, principal lacked principles and was vindictive.
Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

 

Yes, a coward and a liar.

 

He could have done this two ways.

 

1) Tell the school administrators what he was going to say.  Face the heat, argue his points and maybe lose his right to speak and then make an issue out of THAT in public.  "The won't let me say what I believe" is a compelling argument.  But it's hard, and he needs to take a risk and confront people.

 

2) Lie to the school administrators.  Don't face any heat, then pull the switch and try to get away with not giving the speech you agreed to deliver.

 

He went with #2, how is that not cowardly?  Lying because he doesn't have the balls to stand up for his beliefs THEN trying to sneak it past them?

 

What do they teach these kids in church that they think it's OK to lie and cheat to witness for your god?

 

Many churches teach tolerance. 

 

As I said earlier, the kid was wrong in his deception.  I don't base my religious tolerance on the actions or words of a single person.  I also don't judge all muslims by the action of the few who participated in 9/11, or the atheist Stalin who killed 50 million.



#89 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:38 AM

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.  You are with us or against us.  No middle ground.  Of the 10,000 religious sects, every single one of them believe they are the one true religion and all others are not only wrong, but possibly the pure incarnation of evil.

Being unaffiliated myself, its very easy to see this.



#90 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:40 AM

As a roman Catholic I have nothing but disdain for this clown his actions shamed true Christians. However many of his elk pollute the military so he will probably do well there.

#91 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:49 AM

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.  You are with us or against us.  No middle ground.  Of the 10,000 religious sects, every single one of them believe they are the one true religion and all others are not only wrong, but possibly the pure incarnation of evil.

Being unaffiliated myself, its very easy to see this.

 

Stalin.



#92 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:52 AM

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.  You are with us or against us.  No middle ground.  Of the 10,000 religious sects, every single one of them believe they are the one true religion and all others are not only wrong, but possibly the pure incarnation of evil.

Being unaffiliated myself, its very easy to see this.

 

Stalin.

Spanish inquistion



#93 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,624 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:53 AM

 

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.  You are with us or against us.  No middle ground.  Of the 10,000 religious sects, every single one of them believe they are the one true religion and all others are not only wrong, but possibly the pure incarnation of evil.

Being unaffiliated myself, its very easy to see this.

 

Stalin.

Spanish inquistion

 

And then, the atheist.....

 

 

 

 

Good on Stalin!  Millions put to death.  Good on Hitler for his intolerance of religion.  Kill them!!!



#94 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,421 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:56 AM



Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

When he is a captain in a naval fighter plane and given the mission to destroy a target, and he goes off script and disobeys his instructions, is he still very brave?  Or insubordinate?
 
The kids a proven broken arrow.  He has no place in our military academy.
. The kid stood behind his personal beliefs I find that commendable. Should he have refused to not participate if forced into the censured speach maybe. I still go back to the religious angle. Example student slated to give a speech is surprised that his dad shows up on leave from Afghanistan. would his mike have been turned off if he deviated from the aproved speech and talked about how his dad was his greatest inspiration? Of course not, but talk about Jesus and the PC crowd goes nuts.

#95 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:56 AM

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.  You are with us or against us.  No middle ground.  Of the 10,000 religious sects, every single one of them believe they are the one true religion and all others are not only wrong, but possibly the pure incarnation of evil.

Being unaffiliated myself, its very easy to see this.

 

Stalin.

Wasn't he on our side in the big war?



#96 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 June 2013 - 02:59 AM

 



Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

When he is a captain in a naval fighter plane and given the mission to destroy a target, and he goes off script and disobeys his instructions, is he still very brave?  Or insubordinate?
 
The kids a proven broken arrow.  He has no place in our military academy.
. The kid stood behind his personal beliefs I find that commendable. Should he have refused to not participate if forced into the censured speach maybe. I still go back to the religious angle. Example student slated to give a speech is surprised that his dad shows up on leave from Afghanistan. would his mike have been turned off if he deviated from the aproved speech and talked about how his dad was his greatest inspiration? Of course not, but talk about Jesus and the PC crowd goes nuts.

I couldn't give a shit about his religion.  He violated his agreement.  You all are trying to excuse it because of his religion.  He broke the rules.  He's untrustworthy.  He should not be attending our military academy.

Doesn't change a damn thing if he went off script about drugs, God, sex, the FSM, space aliens, or fucking his sister.  He is a liar.



#97 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:03 AM

Which military academy?  Cause if he's going to the USAFA it's full of evangelistic douchebags



#98 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,421 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:05 AM


 




Give me a break. A coward? I'd cll him very brave. He read the censured speech and then added an encore. Happens all the time. The bottom line is if he was talking about something other than "his strength came from Jesus " this would be a non story.

When he is a captain in a naval fighter plane and given the mission to destroy a target, and he goes off script and disobeys his instructions, is he still very brave?  Or insubordinate?
 
The kids a proven broken arrow.  He has no place in our military academy.
. The kid stood behind his personal beliefs I find that commendable. Should he have refused to not participate if forced into the censured speach maybe. I still go back to the religious angle. Example student slated to give a speech is surprised that his dad shows up on leave from Afghanistan. would his mike have been turned off if he deviated from the aproved speech and talked about how his dad was his greatest inspiration? Of course not, but talk about Jesus and the PC crowd goes nuts.
I couldn't give a shit about his religion.  He violated his agreement.  You all are trying to excuse it because of his religion.  He broke the rules.  He's untrustworthy.  He should not be attending our military academy.
Doesn't change a damn thing if he went off script about drugs, God, sex, the FSM, space aliens, or fucking his sister.  He is a liar.
. So when Obama's TelePrompter goes off line snd he goes off the prepared speech that was distributed to all the media he is a liar. Got it.

Do you know the US military does not condone violating the constitution. In fact an officer can be court-martialed for following an order if that order is later deemed illigal. Sort of like the school violating state and federal law.

#99 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,397 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:17 AM

The kid had a malfunctioning TelePrompTer? Why do you need to inject lies to defend his lies?

#100 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,650 posts

Posted 15 June 2013 - 03:20 AM

 

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.  You are with us or against us.  No middle ground.  Of the 10,000 religious sects, every single one of them believe they are the one true religion and all others are not only wrong, but possibly the pure incarnation of evil.

Being unaffiliated myself, its very easy to see this.

 

Stalin.

Spanish inquistion

que?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users