Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Of course the fact that students may pray in school of their own accord, provided it's not at the behest of the state, or that such prayer does not interfere with official school functions, or is otherwise not disruptive, isn't the issue for conservatives. For Christian fundamentalists and the social right the issue isn't one of a right to religious expression, it's their frustration with being denied a political weapon that is religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
By compelling Christian prayer in public schools, conservatives seek to send a clear message to non-Christians that they are not part of the political community, that non-Christians are unwanted and unwelcome, and that those of a minority faith, or altogether free from faith, are to be relegated to an outsider status, a consequence of their being subject to 'Christian majority rule.'
It's further confirmation of the arrogance of most Christians, and the fundamental authoritarian nature of conservatives.
The school shouldnt be approving the speech in the first place. This is the valerdictorian, the schools best and brightest. They should be trusted on this.
The reason for pre-screening is because of butthurt assholes such as yourself, that get thier panties in a twist the second god is mentioned outside a church.
But when I say I have no problem with the student reciting the prayer in the school hallway, you ignore it because it doesn't fit into your rabid rants. Some christians think that having to follow the rules that we all have to follow is persecution of christians. That's bullshit.
Isn't the school hallway part of the government "platform"? The student would be violating your right to prohibit all religious expression on public property if he stood in the hallway, proselytizing, wouldn't he?
Really? just what do you think the pre-clearance was about?
And by your logic, he shouldnt be able to. What is a prayer except a poem about God?
You're still not getting it. Talking ABOUT religion is OK as I have already said a few times. Leading the audience to PRACTICE it by reciting a prayer with him is not.
Who was holding a gun on the audience, forcing them all to "practice" religion. Participating in the recitation of said prayer would otherwise have been voluntary.
Of course the fact that students may pray in school of their own accord, provided it's not at the behest of the state, or that such prayer does not interfere with official school functions, or is otherwise not disruptive, isn't the issue for conservatives. For Christian fundamentalists and the social right the issue isn't one of a right to religious expression, it's their frustration with being denied a political weapon that is religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
By compelling Christian prayer in public schools, conservatives seek to send a clear message to non-Christians that they are not part of the political community, that non-Christians are unwanted and unwelcome, and that those of a minority faith, or altogether free from faith, are to be relegated to an outsider status, a consequence of their being subject to 'Christian majority rule.'
It's further confirmation of the arrogance of most Christians, and the fundamental authoritarian nature of conservatives.
If they had an award here for Post of the Year, I would nominate this one for such an award.
When it is part of an official school ceremony in front of a captive audience, it is considered coercion.
Of course the fact that students may pray in school of their own accord, provided it's not at the behest of the state, or that such prayer does not interfere with official school functions, or is otherwise not disruptive, isn't the issue for conservatives. For Christian fundamentalists and the social right the issue isn't one of a right to religious expression, it's their frustration with being denied a political weapon that is religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
By compelling Christian prayer in public schools, conservatives seek to send a clear message to non-Christians that they are not part of the political community, that non-Christians are unwanted and unwelcome, and that those of a minority faith, or altogether free from faith, are to be relegated to an outsider status, a consequence of their being subject to 'Christian majority rule.'
It's further confirmation of the arrogance of most Christians, and the fundamental authoritarian nature of conservatives.
If they had an award here for Post of the Year, I would nominate this one for such an award.
When it is part of an official school ceremony in front of a captive audience, it is considered coercion.
By whom, authoritarian thugs like you, who wage war against civil liberty?
How do you plan to silence ideas you oppose, if not through coercion?
Link to video: LHS Valedictorian Address 2013 - YouTube
Constitutional violation? I don't know, I think that's quite an extreme assessment.
Perhaps if the public educators who are paid by tax dollars organized this reading, or created a Jesus-themed graduation ceremony then we could dive into some more serious violations.
But this is just a single, autonomous person who does not receive a salary from the state, talking about what he wants to talk about at a graduation ceremony.
Not a bid deal, in my opinion.
.
He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.
Constitutional violation? I don't know, I think that's quite an extreme assessment.
Perhaps if the public educators who are paid by tax dollars organized this reading, or created a Jesus-themed graduation ceremony then we could dive into some more serious violations.
But this is just a single, autonomous person who does not receive a salary from the state, talking about what he wants to talk about at a graduation ceremony.
Not a bid deal, in my opinion.
.
He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.
Do you get all "outraged" when the president says god bless America at a podium owned by the government while being guarded by government secret service agents etc?
You're still not getting it. Talking ABOUT religion is OK as I have already said a few times. Leading the audience to PRACTICE it by reciting a prayer with him is not.
Who was holding a gun on the audience, forcing them all to "practice" religion. Participating in the recitation of said prayer would otherwise have been voluntary.
When it is part of an official school ceremony in front of a captive audience, it is considered coercion.
But no right is absolute, and government may place reasonable restrictions on our rights.
I ALWAYS cringe when someone says that because it is not accurate .. It would be accurate in Canada which allows Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be subjected to the reasonable limits clause, and which specifically allows the government to limit an individuals Charter rights based upon a reasonableness standard.
A right protected by an express provision of the Constitution is not unlimited and may be restricted but ONLY under the following conditions:
1.) "Strict scrutiny" analysis if the infringement impacts the core right protected; or,
2.)" Heightened scrutiny" if the infringement impacts the exercise of the right only peripherally.
"Reasonable restrictions" do not cut it, nor should they.
Who was holding a gun on the audience, forcing them all to "practice" religion. Participating in the recitation of said prayer would otherwise have been voluntary.
When it is part of an official school ceremony in front of a captive audience, it is considered coercion.
You must be one weak-willed motherfucker if that is what you consider coercion.
I guess a sign accidentally pointing off a cliff would coerce you to follow it.
By the Courts and you might have a better chance of getting responses in the future if you stopped acting like a rabid moron.
When it is part of an official school ceremony in front of a captive audience, it is considered coercion.
You must be one weak-willed motherfucker if that is what you consider coercion.
I guess a sign accidentally pointing off a cliff would coerce you to follow it.
Is your goal here to insult someone who disagrees with you or do you want to discuss the issue?
You must be one weak-willed motherfucker if that is what you consider coercion.
I guess a sign accidentally pointing off a cliff would coerce you to follow it.
Is your goal here to insult someone who disagrees with you or do you want to discuss the issue?
A bit of both actually. Considering the value of the content you are providing, Insults in your general direction appear warranted.
Is your goal here to insult someone who disagrees with you or do you want to discuss the issue?
A bit of both actually. Considering the value of the content you are providing, Insults in your general direction appear warranted.
I guess we can rule out Harvard as your Alma mater.
Is your goal here to insult someone who disagrees with you or do you want to discuss the issue?
He was supposed to read a speech approved by the school but instead he disregarded their direction and lead the audience in a prayer and that constitutes government endorsement. He can stand in the hallway and recite prayers until he is blue in the face but when he stands at a school podium at a school graduation over a school PA system, he can't. He could have even gotten by if he spoke about how religion helped him be a successful student but the prayer was over the line (and was he really showing true christian behavior by lying to the school about his intentions in reading that prayer? - what he did was a real "fuck you" to the school and others in the crowd). People have the right to come to school functions and not be subjected to any religious indoctrination.
Do you get all "outraged" when the president says god bless America at a podium owned by the government while being guarded by government secret service agents etc?
No, but if he lead a recital of The Lord's Prayer, I would.
