It is sad that this is a big deal

[KevinWestern]

Kevin wrote "If a public school principle was ordering his teachers...."

It's principal, not principle.

A principle is an idea, not a person.

Whoops, grammatical error.

What about the content of my response, though? Thoughts?


.

I think if you keep to the mandate of the Constitution, you have no problem and no issue.

The founding fathers were pretty wise fellows. It was an issue they were very familiar with and knew the hazards of.

Lol, yes Esmeralda, I'm well aware (and respect) the idea of "Separation of Church and State".

Again, if it was a paid public educator up there preaching Biblical passages then I'd have a problem. If it was the Principal up there preaching Jesus versus then I'd have a problem.

The kid is independent of the State. He's not paid by the State nor is he an employee of the school. He never swore an oath to serve the State or the public sphere. He's simply choosing to speak on something near and dear to his heart during the time he is allotted to do so for his academic achievements as a private individual.

Not a Constitutional issue...


.

 

[Esmeralda]

So you are happy about the student going against the Constitution which mandates separation of Church and State? Or was this a private school?

How is a private citizen exercising his 1st Amendment rights a violation of the Constitution?

The student is owned by the state. That's the only thing I can think of.

Separation of church and State. I guess adhering to the Constitution is the thing to do only when it suits, eh? Otherwise toss it out as inconvenient.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm a dues-paying member of the ACLU, the AU, and a number of other Church-State-Separation organizations.

I see nothing wrong with a student reciting a prayer as his valedictorian speech.

I would have seen nothing wrong if he had torn up his speech, and instead recited a string of profanities.

It's his speech, he's the valedictorian. He earned it.

 

[Esmeralda]

Whoops, grammatical error.

What about the content of my response, though? Thoughts?


.

I think if you keep to the mandate of the Constitution, you have no problem and no issue.

The founding fathers were pretty wise fellows. It was an issue they were very familiar with and knew the hazards of.

Lol, yes Esmeralda, I'm well aware (and respect) the idea of "Separation of Church and State".

Again, if it was a paid public educator up there preaching Biblical passages then I'd have a problem. If it was the Principal up there preaching Jesus versus then I'd have a problem.

The kid is independent of the State. He's not paid by the State nor is he an employee of the school. He never swore an oath to serve the State or the public sphere. He's simply choosing to speak on something near and dear to his heart during the time he is allotted to do so for his academic achievements as a private individual.

Not a Constitutional issue...


.

It is a formal school function and the student's speech is part of the formal school procedures at that time. If he is not breaking the law, he is certainly shitting on the spirit of it. Again, if a Muslim kid tried this, he'd be attacked for it. This is all about people loving their Christianity. Which is why the Constitution specifically mandates separation of Church and State, so we don't have bullies forcing their religion on others.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think if you keep to the mandate of the Constitution, you have no problem and no issue.

The founding fathers were pretty wise fellows. It was an issue they were very familiar with and knew the hazards of.

Lol, yes Esmeralda, I'm well aware (and respect) the idea of "Separation of Church and State".

Again, if it was a paid public educator up there preaching Biblical passages then I'd have a problem. If it was the Principal up there preaching Jesus versus then I'd have a problem.

The kid is independent of the State. He's not paid by the State nor is he an employee of the school. He never swore an oath to serve the State or the public sphere. He's simply choosing to speak on something near and dear to his heart during the time he is allotted to do so for his academic achievements as a private individual.

Not a Constitutional issue...


.

It is a formal school function and the student's speech is part of the formal school procedures at that time. If he is not breaking the law, he is certainly shitting on the spirit of it. Again, if a Muslim kid tried this, he'd be attacked for it. This is all about people loving their Christianity. Which is why the Constitution specifically mandates separation of Church and State, so we don't have bullies forcing their religion on others.

I don't know Esmeralda, I'm a non religious person and just feel we need to pick and choose our battles. This one doesn't concern me because the speech was by:

(a) a non state paid, private individual (non-educator)

and

(b) not in a classroom environment


Just not an issue to me, that's all. And again, I'm a highly non-religious, non-Christian person. Also, if it was a Muslim kid - yes - he'd probably get booed and kicked off the stage. Again, no issue there either. The kid chose to speak on an unpopular subject, and the people have the right to boo him if they wish.

I wouldn't boo a Muslim (because I have ethics and try to respect all beliefs), but wouldn't consider those who did as violating the Constitution or law, ect...

.

 

[Katzndogz]

How is a private citizen exercising his 1st Amendment rights a violation of the Constitution?

The student is owned by the state. That's the only thing I can think of.

Separation of church and State. I guess adhering to the Constitution is the thing to do only when it suits, eh? Otherwise toss it out as inconvenient.

There is no separation of Church and state in the Constitution. The concept came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the government would never interfere in Church affairs. If the Constitution were adhered to, schools across the nation would be having prayers in school just like they used to. I would expect that areas that are majority muslim would have muslim prayers and any Christians in the school would have to suck it up, or find another school.

Sit down, quietly, by yourself and read the Constitution. Church isn't mentioned at all.

 

[Katzndogz]

For those who don't know.

The Danbury Baptists were concerned that a centralize government would institute a government mandated religion as was done in Europe. There was a series of letters asking for clarification of the government's authority with respect to religion and churches.

Thomas Jefferson's last word on the subject was:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

This letter is the only reference to the separation of church and state that appears in any historical document.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The district did ban all prayer, even the sometimes permissible student led prayer, for the graduation.. The threat of lawsuits from a few disgruntled assholes who prefer imposing their beliefs on others to getting along with them forced them into that position.

I've seen nothing to indicate that. Proof, please.

You are the one that is calling everyone who said that, including CNN, a liar you prove it.

They banned prayers for the graduation ceremony, which is the only claim I have seen.

They did? Show me.

[/quote]

Right after you show me where anyone said the district banned all prayers, which is the absurd strawman you managed to burn to death.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you are happy about the student going against the Constitution which mandates separation of Church and State? Or was this a private school?

Personally, I think there's a difference between a student mentioning religious beliefs in a graduation speech vs. an actual educator mentioning religious beliefs during a teaching session or incorporating religious opinions into their lesson plan.

The latter's a big deal, the former is not.

.

Personally, I think that if this were a Muslim student who was praying to Allah, people who are cheering this on would be having fits.

That is why we should always follow the mandate of the Constitution and keep religion and State separate. It has nothing to do with a few 'assholes' imposing their beliefs on others; it has to do with keeping true to the Constitution and its spirit.

Personally, I think you are a bigot because most of us would understand that we have freedom of religion. I am 100% positive I would feel exactly the same way.

I am willing to bet I could find students in a place like Dearborn who actually read from the Koran or prayed to Allah if I went looking, have you seen any major stories about how fucked up it is from the right wingers?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personally, I think that if this were a Muslim student who was praying to Allah, people who are cheering this on would be having fits.

BINGO! You win the cigar for the best post yet.

Sam bet I just gave Esme, want to prove me wrong and find all the whinging about it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Personally, I think that if this were a Muslim student who was praying to Allah, people who are cheering this on would be having fits.

That is why we should always follow the mandate of the Constitution and keep religion and State separate. It has nothing to do with a few 'assholes' imposing their beliefs on others; it has to do with keeping true to the Constitution and its spirit.

Sure, if the kid was Muslim and gave a Muslim speech the audience would probably have a fit (because that religion isn't as popular in the states as Christianity). I would still feel indifferent to the issue, and would probably admire the kid for his courage.

As I mentioned, if a teacher in a public school was pushing his Christian beliefs onto kids, or a public school principle was ordering his/her teachers to teach biblical passages to kids, then yes... I'd have a BIG issue with that.

But an independent kid speaking his thoughts in front of (what seems like) a predominately Christian crowd at a Graduation ceremony? Who cares...


.

It is partly the principle of this that is important. What if a student of an unpopular religion started praying to a mostly Christian audience? Would they put up with it? Would they allow and respect his right to free speech? Not likely, not if he were Muslim.

And, btw, the principal is your pal. And don't you forget it.

What if?

Gee, look at this, I found an example of it happening. Do you remember the outrage from all the Christians over this one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is a private citizen exercising his 1st Amendment rights a violation of the Constitution?

The student is owned by the state. That's the only thing I can think of.

Separation of church and State. I guess adhering to the Constitution is the thing to do only when it suits, eh? Otherwise toss it out as inconvenient.

Unless that kid is the state I don't see a problem.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It shouldn't be a "big deal" but ask yourselves how you would feel if he chose that moment to declare his love for his by friend or his plan to get a sex change operation or that he was really a communist? Or if he denounced christianity?

As with most things these days, its in the eye of the beholder.

============

This is not a First Amendment issue.

How many times do we have to repeat the first phrase of the First Amendment for people to GET IT?????

 

[Esmeralda]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Wiki

As the Supreme Court has interpreted it in the same way I am, that's good enough for me.

What appears to be the case is that many conservatives want to turn the US into a theocracy, as long as the religion that rules is Christianity. This is thoroughly and completely against the spirit of the founding fathers, we all know that. But, you are willing to forget that as long as you get what you want. I guarantee, you turn this country into a theocracy and you'll end up with a Christian version of Iran.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It shouldn't be a "big deal" but ask yourselves how you would feel if he chose that moment to declare his love for his by friend or his plan to get a sex change operation or that he was really a communist? Or if he denounced christianity?

As with most things these days, its in the eye of the beholder.

============

This is not a First Amendment issue.

How many times do we have to repeat the first phrase of the First Amendment for people to GET IT?????

Why should I ask myself that?

Only a drooling idiot would think that free speech is not a 1st Amendment issue. If he actually got up there and declared that he wanted a sex change, I wouldn't have a problem with it because he should be able to say whatever he wants, even if it upset everyone else on the planet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Wiki

As the Supreme Court has interpreted it in the same way I am, that's good enough for me.

What appears to be the case is that many conservatives want to turn the US into a theocracy, as long as the religion that rules is Christianity. This is thoroughly and completely against the spirit of the founding fathers, we all know that. But, you are willing to forget that as long as you get what you want. I guarantee, you turn this country into a theocracy and you'll end up with a Christian version of Iran.

You are the one that is imposing your beliefs on others by insisting that people can only talk about things that you approve of. If I get my way anyone can say whatever they want, whenever they want. They can even tell me that Jesus is no different than Elvis.