Court turns down student over religious speech

[WillParkinson]

Source: The Associated Press

Court turns down student over religious speech
By The Associated Press
11.16.2009 3:00pm EST

(Washington) The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a student who complained that high school officials violated her constitutional rights when they turned off her microphone during her religion-tinged graduation speech.

The justices said Monday they will not revive a lawsuit filed by Brittany McComb of Henderson, Nev. challenging the actions of Clark County school officials. A federal appeals court ruled previously ruled against her.

During McComb’s speech at the Foothill High School graduation in 2006, officials turned off McComb’s microphone when the school valedictorian strayed from an approved text to provide a graphic account of Jesus’ crucifixion and credit God for her success in school.

The case is McComb v. Crehan, 08-1566.

Read more: http://www.365gay.com/news/court-turns-down-student-over-religious-speech/

[robo50]

1. Guess they picked the wrong Valedictorian that year! At least

it sounds like the kid wasn't the smartest one in the high school, or, if she were, that high school had a really really dumb and stubborn graduating class.

[annabanana]

2. Good. Regardless of her personal conviction, no where

does it say that she's entitled to a mic and a HS Graduation audience.

[fascisthunter]

4. but, but, but... people must listen! God is making me speak!!!!

:crazy:

[Divine Discontent]

22. she got yanked, imho, when she started the description of the crucifixion - that's so overboard.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

103. I maintain that she went overboard on purpose to earn martyr brownie points.

If she had just praised Jesus in a less crazy fashion, there would be a considerable risk that the school would let her, and hence no opportunity to whine "wah wah I'm being persecuted". And that would be unacceptable.

[Raster]

133. Of course she did. It was her public "Mary the martyr" moment!

[Soylent Brice]

3. good.

it astounds me that so many people still do not understand what "separation of church and state" means.

:crazy:

[marshall]

47. Nobody in this case seems to understand the concept

At least it's all over, except for the hand wringing.

[Zhade]

67. The school does. So do the judges.

NT!

[marshall]

75. The school erred in trying to draw a line that allowed her to say anything religious

They read over her speech and approved most of the religious references, deleting only one offensive remark. They stepped into a ridiculous situation when they tried to placate her by giving in. And they gave her the impression that they were pushovers, and she thus felt free to spew her foolishness to the rest of her classmates.

What is the meaning of separation--does it mean a little separation? Or complete severence?

[Zhade]

122. Okay, those are good points.

I'm for complete separation of church and state.

[defendandprotect]

65. Thank you twice . . . love the John Lennon message and so good to see it . ..!!

[Soylent Brice]

98. welcome! and thank you!

[Ozymanithrax]

5. At an offical function, they were concerned that her sermon might be construed as ...

approving only of her religon. Imagine what the school would have thought if she had called Allahu Akbar from the podium.

[DissedByBush]

35. They'd have been too afraid to pull the mike away

For fear of being called racist, insensitive and intolerant, and then they'd get sued and lose.

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. Omq you are hilarious!

Ever think of taking that act on the road?

[customerserviceguy]

77. You are right

Only one religion gets the microphone turned off. It's not my religion (nor are any of the others, as I'm an atheist), but nobody would have turned it off if a Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist student had talked about their religion.

The Supreme Court just made this girl a martyr. That's more dangerous than letting her finish a silly speech that never would have made the news had it gone on.

[Occulus]

92. Bullshit

[boppers]

95. Really? Christians are the only persecuted ones?

Really?

[Leftist Agitator]

101. If this girl had made a fundamentalist Muslim diatribe during her speech...

Not only would they have cut her mic, she would have been investigated for terrorist ties and/or sympathies.

[customerserviceguy]

140. You mean, like Maj. Nidal was?

Bullshit right back to the two above this. I have no ideas that Christianity is any more valid than any other religious delusion, but we really do bend over backwards for minority religions in some situations.

[donco6]

6. Well, this will make a million for the fundies.

And we'll hear about it for all eternity.

[santa baby]

7. Not much change in the old pie chart

[SkyDaddy7]

19. Love the pie chart!!!

Welcome to DU!! :hi: :fistbump:

I copied the pic of the pie chart hope you don't mind! It speaks volumes!!

[truebrit71]

144. Me too...sick and tired of hearing that "we're being picked-on" bullshit...

..

[alp227]

63. K&R!! Pwned the phony persecution message

Besides, Christians in America have had the luxury of school prayer for over a century, in a historical context. Needless to say that Christians are the majority in both America AND the whole wide world! Obviously, when they cry out "waah! We're being hated on!" they really mean "Want more! Want more!" like a little child who stubbornly wants candy.

But the pie chart sorta misrepresents Christians...not all of them are the Pat Robertson-type evangelicals who'd like to repeal the First Amendment.

[PSzymeczek]

71. Life in our anti-Xian America.

http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor.archive/lioaca.html

[billh58]

73. Actually, Christian

followers worldwide number around 2 billion, while Islam followers number around 1.3 billion, making Islam the world's second largest religion. Just sayin'...

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/christianity_islam.htm

[tkmorris]

76. No one claimed the chart represented the whole world

My assumption is it is meant to represent just the United States. Even at that I don't care how accurate it is because the point it attempts to make is the same either way.

[billh58]

85. I agree, and I

didn't mean to sound like a know-it-all. I did not realize how large Islam is worldwide until I read the stats in another forum on DU.

Mea culpa...;-)

[boppers]

96. Why is Pac-man being oppressed?

Did he kill too many ghosts?

[fascisthunter]

100. lol

I missed this yesterday

[DeSwiss]

8. ....

- K&R

[mitchum]

9. Where's your god now, Brittany?

[newtothegame]

10. Wow, enjoy hell. n/t

[laconicsax]

14. What compassion and love!

Someone cracks a joke and you threaten them with hell.

Priceless.

[Ignis]

27. WWJD?

Damn all joke-makers to eternal punishment in a lake of fire, apparently.

I guess all that "love your neighbor" and "feed the hungry" stuff was just a red herring.

Who knew? :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

39. I thought I saw a little projection there of sorts

For some the fear of hell is what keeps them "in line" as it were. They assume all share their fear so they often try to scare others with it. No difference from the curses people use to put into things, like wills or testaments, to frighten people into obedience. Of course that began to fall out of fashion, when people came to see how foolish it was....around 1220 or so.

Sadly broad swaths of Christendom have kept such traditions alive. Primitive as it is, fear is still the most effective tool for keeping people in line--often generously so. ;-)

Julie

[fascisthunter]

62. DING!

[DeSwiss]

16. ....

[PSzymeczek]

69. Love it!

:toast:

[Soylent Brice]

31. wow.

:rofl:

[Fedja]

32. Really?

If he's an Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Rastafarian, Bahai, Vodoun, Sikh, Shinto... Hell, even if he's Catholic or Episcopalian, your threat rings empty.

Your god is but one god.

On that note, I have another joke that's likely to offend you:

[RetroLounge]

86. Ha!

:rofl:

RL

[No Elephants]

112. No need to get thor, thweetheart.

[gaspee]

118. I never LOL

And that poster totally made me LOL - I saved it to look at it again - did you make it? If not, does the place you got it from have other ones - that is about the funniest thing I've seen this week - still chuckling to myself.

[Fedja]

132. Nah, no credit for me there

..other than remembering it's out there. :)

[WinkyDink]

36. God obviously has a sense of humor.

[Raster]

40. Sorry, don't believe in it!

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Oh, I plan to.

It looks oddly like downtown San Rafael, Circa late 80s.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/grateful-dead/hell-in-a-bucket--2168407

[Webster Green]

87. New George's?

Heh! :smoke:

[Warren DeMontague]

90. I think that's the old New George's, not the New New George's.

Now I think it's like a 24 hour fitness, or something. Figures.

[Webster Green]

91. Yeah, it figures.

I saw some really great shows there over the years, and managed some bands that played there once in a while. :hippie:

[girl gone mad]

61. This is exactly why I could never worship God.

Like Oscar Wilde said, we'll have better company in hell.

[Vidar]

97. Good for the school.

[varelse]

66. We're already here

:P

[Chulanowa]

70. There is no hell

There is only...

BASEMENT CAT

[SusanaMontana41]

78. ROFL!

Basement Cat scares the hell out of me!

[rd_kent]

79. Hell is a made up place that YOU beleive in. Why don't YOU enjoy it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

104. Please tell me that was sarcasm. -nt

[frebrd]

12. In her imagination.......

where it's always been.

:)

[Divine Discontent]

21. hate speech

[mitchum]

23. I don't hate all speech...

just stupid speech

[Divine Discontent]

49. lol... ok. I can accept that answer (even though you're wrong! LOL) just for laughs, cuz it was a

fun response.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chollybocker]

11. Her victimhood leaves me unimpressed.

Thankfully, the court agrees.

[laconicsax]

13. I guess she didn't know that they've already ruled on this.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

While not this exact issue, the court ruled 6-3 that an objective observer would "unquestionably" see religious speech (student-led prayer in this specific case) at a school function as fully endorsed by the (public) school and therefore violates the establishment clause.

edit: omission

[WinkyDink]

37. Ah, but now the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. THAT is major news.

[skepticscott]

74. Not exactly

They simply declined to hear the appeal, which is not the same as if they had heard the case and issued a ruling against the appellant. The SC declines to hear cases for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that they cannot possible fit all of the cases people would like them to accept on their docket. The fact that the appeal was denied does not necessarily mean that they would have ruled against the appellant on the merits.

[No Elephants]

113. The SCOTUS ruled on the issue in Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe. It did

not rule on this case, though.

[frebrd]

15. A rare breath of fresh air! eom

[SkyDaddy7]

18. That was exactly what I was thinking!

This was a rare breath of fresh air.

[damntexdem]

17. McComb probably thought it was the Supreme Being Court.

And I suspect that some of its members also think that: Alito, Scalia, and so on.

[Divine Discontent]

20. many times on DU in the past I've seen people post comments that say

regardless of the speech, that it is anyone's right to speak it (no matter how tacky and ill placed). I was amazed at how 'wrong' some of the speech was that they said should be permitted, but when I thought about it, I realized, yes, they're right generally.

But, hile I agree in freedom of speech in open areas, that at an organized function, hate/graphic speech is not permissible, and she sneakily went off her approved writing, and ruined her chances to give credit to God when she gave a graphic description of the crucification, imho.

This is America - people died to get us free speech. She just figured, oh, sure, I'll say this here. But, the location and type of event should have made it clear to her that a graphic reprisal of the crucifixion of Christ was inappropriate at graduation, so, I guess she wasn't so smart. She has the right to believe in God despite the negative comments in this thread, but to subject a crowd to anything beyond a normal thanking of Christ for His sacrifice, and moving on to other prepared words, was far too much to expect anyone to sit through.

[WillParkinson]

24. Sorry....

Thanking any being for a sacrifice is too much. I worked hard and got to graduation. I don't need to listen how some being helped someone else through it.

[NecklyTyler]

26. This is a no brainier - Publicly funded school and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The school, which receives money from the Federal Government, cannot allow the appearance of impropriety in the speech. A casual listener could take away the message that the school was endorsing a particular brand of religion which violates the Establishment Clause. What I would like to know is how this even got into court, much less the Supreme Court. How many taxpayer dollars have gone down the tubes on this

[WinkyDink]

38. "a normal thanking of Christ for His sacrifice"? WHOSE "normal"?

[Divine Discontent]

41. HER normal. Just like if I thanked a Gay writer I know, for instilling in me a greater sense of

self, it is perfectly fine to give a thanks to whatever you want - whether it be the Indian spirit winds, or a tree! If I got up and thanked the Gay writer, many intolerant types would scream, "that isn't NORMAL! it's SICK!"

[Raster]

44. Not hardly, unless you are thanking your Gay writer friend in a blatant religious context.

It's called "separation of church and state."

[Divine Discontent]

46. that cannot be used as a reason to silence basic speech. the argument here is that she went into a

sermon type of exercise which was misguided, at best, and graphically inappropriate at worst. Are you saying any reference to a religious belief is intolerable? If that were the case they'd be throwing 95% of the students and faculty out of public schools and universities for saying "God bless you" or wearing a cross? Surely you're not that intolerant. It's the proselytizing that she was doing which was overboard. You sound to be saying any reference is not okay, and I not only doubt that you wouldn't have heard about it had she only thanked God, but the mic wouldn't have been cut.

[Raster]

48. I am NOT saying that any reference is not OK. Thanking God is fine.

Turning a speech at a graduation into a sermonette was inappropriate and illegal. She new that, but did it anyway.

[Divine Discontent]

50. and that's what I said in my post in case you missed it -

"But, the location and type of event should have made it clear to her that a graphic reprisal of the crucifixion of Christ was inappropriate at graduation, so, I guess she wasn't so smart."

[No Elephants]

114. She knew it was inappropriate. That's why she submitted her speech for review

without those remarks.

[defendandprotect]

72. Belief in a "god" is a personal belief system and it's a presumption to think that

anyone else believes what you believe ... about any "god" . . . !!

[hughee99]

111. Clearly inappropriate, but Illegal? Which law did she violate? n/t

[No Elephants]

115. She got her mike cut off, not a jail sentence.

She was required, by school policy, to submit her speech in advance so that the school could make sure it was appropriate for a public school graduation. She submitted a speech, but, when the time came, she gave a speech different from the one she submitted. Regardless of what she said or didn't say, the school had a right to cut off her mike for her rebellion and fraud alone.

The reason her remarks were inappropriate for a public school graduation is established by court cases on what may and may not go on in a public school, consistent with both freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

Her rebellion, if allowed by the school, would have put the school in violation of the Constitution. That's why it would have been illegal.

[hughee99]

117. I agree with 90% of what you say.

The school has a right to preview her speech, they have a right to cut off her mike, and her speech was inappropriate. Her rebellion, if allowed by the school, may have put the school in violation of the constitution, but it's the schools responsibility to stop her speech. While she may be at a school event, she is a private citizen. She is under no legal obligation, unless she's signed some contract, to make sure the school doesn't violate the constitution. She may be breaking several school rules, but I don't see how she broke any laws.

[No Elephants]

123. You don't seem to have understood the last few sentences of my post.

You are the only one who is making this only about whether she broke a law or not. Raster never said SHE herself broke a law and my prior post said why her speech would have been illegal FOR THE SCHOOL to have allowed.

[hughee99]

125. Referring to Raster's post

"Turning a speech at a graduation into a sermonette was inappropriate and illegal. She new that, but did it anyway."

if turning the speech at graduation into a sermonette was illegal, then SHE would be breaking the law. The school has no control over what she decides to do with her speech, they only have the ability to cut her mike, which they did.

As far as I can tell, the only thing the school has been accused of as a result of her speech is violating the speakers rights, so it doesn't seem like turning the speech into sermonette was, in and of itself, illegal for anyone.

[No Elephants]

135. Raster did not say for whom the speech would have been illegal, though..

The school did have control, in theory, over her speech. She had to submit it in advance for school approval. She did so and got approval, but then deviated from the text. Even then, the school did have a degree of control, which it exercised by turning off her mike.

As far as being accused, how do you know what the school was or was not accused of? We know that the valedictorian sued, but people can accuse without suing. And, since the school did everything it reasonably could to avoid having religion impose on people in attendance, I am not sure there was anything that the school could be fairly accused of. (Two courts held that the valedictorian's accusations were unfair.) Besides, since when does being accused of something mean you are guilty of it? Or since when does not being accused of something mean you are innocent?

And, yes, if the school had participated in imposing religion on those attending the graduation, the school would have been in violation of the Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the SCOTUS for the past 60 years, if not more. The school's violating the highest law in the nation would indeed = illegal. The valedictorian was aware of that, or she would not have submitted a less religious speech for approval, then attempted to deliver a more religious one without informing the school in advance.

[hughee99]

137. Accused in a court of law...

I'm sure this school, like any other school in America, is accused informally of just about everything by someone. My point was that no one even seems to be alleging (in court) that the school has done something wrong here other than the girl who read the speech. No one seems to have filed suit against the school because religion was forced upon them. No one seems to have been arrested at the school because someone had to listen to the girls speech (before the Mike was cut).

The girl has a right to say what she wants, and she did. The school has an obligation not to provide her a forum to make such a speech, and they, to the best of their ability, did what they were supposed to. No laws were broken here. It was suggested (at least it sounded to me like it was) that it was illegal for the girl to change her speech, and though she did, no laws were broken.

I am curious about one thing. If the girl had ended her pre-screened speech with "God Bless you all" there wouldn't have been a problem. Obviously, describing a crucifixion isn't really appropriate for a graduation even if it wasn't Jesus you were talking about, but where's the middle ground? At what point does the discussion of God go from harmless (or at least tolerable) to legally unacceptable?

[JoeyT]

51. Hrm.

So you'd support a student's right to say "And I accomplished all this without help from an imaginary friend." without having their mic cut?

[Divine Discontent]

55. sure, because they're not referencing anyone specifically to imply they're being anything but odd

for saying they did it without any imaginary friend's help. If they put down anyone for believing in God, directly, then no (in the exact setting we're discussing, otherwise, they could run down religion all they wanted to out on the street). If they said they did it thanks to their atheist beliefs, that should be protected and allowed. She clearly got the boot, so to speak, for going into her descriptive story that was graphic and very improper to tell that crowd that didn't ask to be preached at in that manner, or small children to hear.

[Fedja]

93. That's just valid for Mr.God with the cross though?

Had she said "Al-hamdu lillahi rabbil 'alamin" there would have been MASSIVE outrage. And that would only be thanking her god.

[valerief]

58. It's normal in crazyworld, I guess. nt

[defendandprotect]

68. There is nothing "normal" about "thanking Christ" -- especially in front of a secular audience....

but to subject a crowd to anything beyond a normal thanking of Christ for His sacrifice, and moving on to other prepared words, was far too much to expect anyone to sit through,

It might be "normal" at her dinner table, but beyond her personal/family's existence, it's

presumption on her part.


Additionally, the reality of the "His sacrifice" seems to be thousands of years of human sacrifice

to religious beliefs!

And, wouldn't you know it . . . "god" is always busy when someone really needs him.

"God" had time to talk with George W and tell him to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq --

but he had no time for stopping Hitler, rescuing people from concentration camps -- or even

today feeding the hungry.

1.5 Muslims dead now because of our invasion of Iraq, but I see no signs that this "god" in the

sky cares a fig!

Meanwhile, "he" also seems to be sexist and homophobic . . . ???

:eyes:


:evilgrin:

[rd_kent]

88. SO you DO feel that religous speech at a public school function is ok?

As long as that religious speech is something YOU agree with. It seems that you think SOME religious speech is ok? Reread what you posted....but to subject a crowd to anything beyond a normal thanking of Christ for His sacrifice, and moving on to other prepared words, was far too much to expect anyone to sit through.

See? Its not that it IS religious speech, it is just YOUR KIND of religious speech. See the hypocrisy? See why there can be NO religious speech at public functions? Not a little, not just a bit...NONE!

[Fedja]

94. Agreed.

We're not mature enough for it. When we can all hear someone thanking his god, without even noticing which god he was thanking, then it's going to be acceptable. In this assumption lies the absurdity, as the religions themselves do their best to stop this from happening.

[gaspee]

119. Sorry

I don't expect to be preached at when I'm at a state sponsored event - she needs to keep her jesus lovin' in private where it belongs.

[tonysam]

28. It's a graduation speech not a sermon.

The USSC did the right thing in not hearing it.

[Fearless]

29. There have already been federal district court rulings on this matter before....

I direct your attention to the case of Guidry v. Broussard:

"Following the practice of previewing , the principle found the speech to be a thoroughly Christian, personal statement of the importance of God, the Bible, and Jesus in her life. She urged all other students to '...give your heart and your life to Him so you can live forever in Heaven with Him.' When the principal requested the deletion of all personal religious beliefs from the speech and she refused to do so, her speech was deleted from the graduation proceedings.

Angela went to court claiming that her freedom of speech was restricted because of its content. In the final analysis the federal district court ruled in favor of the school administration, holding that the primary effect of permitting the speech would have been to communicate 'a message of governmental endorsement... of religion.' Even if there were no actual support or endorsement by the school, concluded the court, there is the danger of public perception of such endorsement; therefore the principal's action was a reasonable attempt to avoid such appearances."


-Fischer, Schimmel, & Stellman. Teachers and the Law. Pearson Education Inc., Boston: 2007. p. 181.


--------------------------------------

I never thought that would come in handy.

[Crosseyed Jesus]

30. My Crucification

How dare one of my manufactured virus re account the details of my crucification! (which by the way may be fiction). Whats this Christianity cult, dooms day loving, cave dwelling, Snake Oil & Venom show doing, using my good name. Without my permission I might add.
They did the same thing to my friend Mickey! Who never intended to have a Mouse Club, nor his image splattered all over the planet. All for the sake of the all mighty "In God We Trust" toilet paper.
Reliving that crucification is very painful. Thank Elvis they didn't hang me!
I can just imagine all of them Catholics performing the sign of the noose. Hey, wearing those little gold & silver hangman's noose around their necks would be a hoot, to say the very least.
Now go do as I say, love one another. And I mean love one another! And if I may straighten one thing before I go......its the Greeks that shall inherit the Earth, O.K!

Crosseyed Jesus

[Divine Discontent]

43. what drivel

[gaspee]

121. I thought it was funny

Not LOL funny, but amusing in a performance art sort of way.

[Crosseyed Jesus]

139. Performing Yashua

Thank you for understanding satire as satire. The frivolity of the appeal deserved a fitting retort.

Mir.

[rd_kent]

89. Enjoy your stay....

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. I applaud her act of civil disobedience, and I applaud the school's response.

[Divine Discontent]

42. +1!

[Raster]

45. Was it civil disobedience or using a secular, non-religious event as a forum for

shameless religious proselytizing? Sorry, I'm not seeing civil disobedience. I'm seeing a religious person deciding it was fine for them to illegally insert their religious preferences and advertisement thereof into a situation that clearly did not warrant it, irregardless of the rules and the religious preferences of those in attendance.

[Divine Discontent]

53. many liberals find the actions of Code Pink and Greenpeace to be ill placed or even more troubling

to the cause they're speaking on behalf of - so, still, she can say what she wants, and they have the right to shut her off at this type of event. I'm sure many conservatives will find her actions righteous (oh goodness, Faux will have her on, surely). Also, a liberal friend of mine went off when Michael Moore used the acceptance speech of his award for Bowling for Columbine as a soapbox to decry the actions of the invasion of Iraq. He was fuming that it wasn't the right place to do that. I think it was.

Just like the cops have taken away protesters for not following the law, the school did the right thing, too. It doesn't mean anyone's reason for doing such is a bad thing, it just means they broke the rules/law. I was not there, but her action could be commended as an act of civil disobedience for her cause, the same way I cheer on Gay rights groups, and still be called arrogant and improper because she started to describe the crucifixion to the families and students gathered for a graduation - so overboard on her part.

[defendandprotect]

80. No . . . "god" talk is different from anti-war talk . . .

Notice that the Founders did not separate State and Michael Moore, or state and anti-war talk,

nor state and protesters. They did however separate state and church/"god" ...

because there is no human argument that can defend against someone who claims that they are

speaking for "god" . . .

When have you spoken with "god" directly?

When did she?

[rd_kent]

108. It's obvious you do not know what civil disobedience is.

[No Elephants]

120. .....

"Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means." http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-disobedience

Disobeying a public school's rules governing student speeches as part of an effort to induce change in the policy governing student speeches seems to fit the definition.

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. On the other hand, who were they to tell us that Wellstone's funeral

was not a place to get political? Yet, the democrats did allow themselves to be brow-beaten by the right-wing shocked reaction. We should have owned that venue. We owed it to Wellstone's memory.

In the same way, this valedictorian stood up for what she or he believed in. In America, people have the right to at least test the waters without being shot.

[defendandprotect]

82. No . . . political isn't "god" ... "god" can be made political, but that should be illegal. . ..

Our Founders did not separate State and politics . . . they separated State and Church . . .

because they understood the dangers of "god"-speak ...

It doesn't make for debate when someone tells you that "god" says something!!

It makes for insanity and wars --

Again -- the Founders separated only State and "god" -- nothing else . . .


EDIT: Just want to add, that I do agree with you re the "Swiftboating" over Wellstone's

funeral -- and, of course, they killed him!

[The Backlash Cometh]

84. Definitely, the separation of state and church is an established tenet.

But they will always try, and now we have an established a cause and effect. As long as it's just shutting off the mic, and not throwing chairs at the speaker, I think that's about as good as it gets.

[rd_kent]

109. Test the waters? Those waters have already been tested.....

and found to be entirely too cold for religious speech at a public function. No, she ruined that graduation for everyone else through her selfish act.

[No Elephants]

126. Please don't mix apples and oranges. It leads to a mash up of issues that should be separate and

distinct.

A funeral is a private event. No laws govern what may or may not legally be said there. As far as propriety (as opposed to legality), it was for his surviving family. and them alone, to decide what should or should not have been said there, not for the Republican Party to decide.

The Republicans were WAY out of order prsuming to decide for his family what should have been said, especially by his own family members, ffs. Saying "we" should have owned that venue, however, seems to miss the point as much as the Republicans did. A funeral is not a venue and the only ones who should "own" it are the family. (And, they refused to allow the WH designeed, Cheney, to attend and seemed fine with the remarks made at the service.)

Contradisctively, the highest law of this nation, the Constitution of the United States, as construed for over a half century by the Supreme Court of the United States, says that a public school should not appear to sponsor religion or force people to choose between attending a school event and their right to be free from religion.

The valedictorian's mike was turned off because (a) she knowingly and deliberately violated school policy on student speeches; and (b) the school was conscientiously trying not to violate the Establishment Clause of Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS since the school prayer cases of the 1950's.

Turning off a mike to avoid violating the Constituiton is not remotely like shooting the valedictorian. Even Republicans overstepping by presuming to decide what should be said at a funeral is not remotely like shooting those who spoke at the funeral.

I do agree with you that Democrats need to learn that they must NEVER let what Republicans say, or fear of what Republicans might say, determine the actions of Democrats. That's tantamouont to insanity, IMO.

[TroglodyteScholar]

57. civil disobedience, noun:

"refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government" -Merriam-Webster Online

Refusing to obey a law you disagree with is a form of civil disobedience. It's been a very effective method throughout history. She has every right to attempt to trick the school into violating the law, and the school can either join in her protest (and allow it) or shut her down. They shut her down, and the courts backed them up. What she did manage, if nothing else, was to get publicity. Not sure that's going to do much for her cause either, though. My attitude toward the whole thing is basically..."whatever."

[No Elephants]

127. She did not have a "right" or it would not have been civil disobedience.

[TroglodyteScholar]

138. She perceives it as a right.

What the rest of us think is of no consequence. What her school and/or the courts think, however, matters.

[No Elephants]

116. It's both. She disobeyed the school in order to preach at a non-religious event.

If the school had required her to make a religious speech and she made a secular one instead, that would also have been civil disobedience.

[rd_kent]

107. Since when is personal proselytizing civil disobedience?

Its just plain rude, actually. This was a graduation for ALL of the students. A time and a memory they will have forever, now ruined by one persons selfish act.

[No Elephants]

129. Proselytizing when and where it is against a government rule to proselytize is

indeed civil disobedience, if you are doing so in order to change the rule/law, whether by testing it in court or getting laws changed by getting public sympathy or whatever. Please see Reply ##s 57, 116 and 120.

No one said civil disobedience was never rude. In fact, it almost always is quite rude to those in authority and also to those who agree with those in authority. And no one said that everyone who engages in some act of civil disobedience or another always does so for a noble result, although I am sure she herself felt that her goal was very noble.

[PassingFair]

141. Do you applaud taking it to the Supreme Court?

What a waste of judicial time.

[MetaTrope]

54. Apparently McComb has gone on to major in journalism at a Christian college

So it's safe to assume she'll be another one of the neocon whores (figuratively speaking, doubtful she'll be akin to Bush favorite Jeff Gannon) that have come to infest the mainstream media.

[LiberalFighter]

60. If she really wanted to display her devotion to Christianity...

she should had demonstrated a crucifixion personally.

[defendandprotect]

83. or at least made an anti-war statement !!

[alp227]

64. Lesson learned: Stray from the script, get your mike taken away!

...officials turned off McComb’s microphone when the school valedictorian strayed from an approved text to provide a graphic account of Jesus’ crucifixion and credit God for her success in school.

It doesn't matter what you say that heavily deviates from your script. Turn in a script of your acceptance speech, promise to stay by that speech most of the time. If I were principal I'd approve of a "thank God" somewhere in the speech as long as the valedictorian sticks to the subject: Success in school and the reasons. However, it's too tangential to go off on Biblical narratives that not everyone would want to sit through.

And in response to those Christians who say "well what about other religious groups who get luxury for Politically Correct's sake?" If it were an atheist who began mouthing off against "all those dumb Christians" or a Muslim who began describing the wrath of fasting during Ramadan (well I'd be OK with a Muslim talking about Ramadan as one of those obstacles) or anyone of any religion, race, whatever going off on a tangent about ANYTHING, I'd turn off the mic and move on with the show.

[Toasterlad]

81. Stone Her!

[imdjh]

99. one generation from poor white trash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqzfIitfHjU


" You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition's given you some length of bone, but you're not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you, Brittany?

[apnu]

102. In the 1980s the SCOUTS removed all rights of students who are minors.

I watched it happen first hand, was on the school newspaper when it happened. After that the paper turned to shit, we used to expose and keep the school board honest, once the censorship doors were opened all we were allowed to do was write puff garbage.

Talk about carving the heart out of a young journalist.

So this comes as no surprise, minors haven't had rights for a long time now, this shouldn't surprise anybody.

[Raster]

105. This isn't a "rights of minors" issue. It's about the separation of church and state.

And the fact the person in question had no right to turn her valedictory address into a sermon.

[apnu]

110. The case does not seem to have been argued on the basis of church and state...

... it was argued as a 1st amendment rights issue, free speech, I believe, is what they mean by "constitutional rights" There are numerious decisions by the SCOTUS limiting the speech of high school students and, in particular, student newspapers.

Sure there's a question of church and state in the situation, but that was not argued to the SCOTUS. Legally, the school had every right to censor the speech. That's my point.

(Note that I'm not proposing an opinion on the legality of the SCOTUS' decision, just pointing out there's a precedent for the school's actions of censorship. Personally, I think minors should have 1st amendment rights, even if they drivel on about stupid nonsense -- see the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner case)

Personally I don't think a public high school speech is an appropriate place to preach any religion and personally I'm glad the school turned off her mike. I would have booed the student off the stage, were I there. That's because I'm a stone-cold atheist who believes nothing good comes from religion.

[No Elephants]

130. Her lawyers would never have argued her position on anything but

freedom of speech. (Free exercise of religion would have been a weaker argument inasmuch as speaking at a graduation is not an essential of anyone's religion.) It would be the school that would have defended its actions in turning off her mike with the Establishment Clause and the SCOTUS decisions interpreting that clause. Neither position was argued in the Supreme Court, however, bc the SCOTUS refused to hear (or decide) this particular case.

Minors do have First Amendment rights. Time and place restrictions are appropriate limits on rights, be they free exercise of religion rights or free speech rights. And, within the public school context, those rights are balanced against the needs of the school to do such things as maintain discipline and safety and, in cases like this, the rights of others to be free from religious speech during a government-sponsored activity, not to mention the school's right to keep its activities within the Constitution.

[Zhade]

142. Er, the first amendment deals with church/state.

NT!

[JonQ]

106. How is the crucification

in anyway relevant to a highschool graduation?

[Raster]

131. It's not. Miss Mother Superior assumed she had the right to turn everyone's graduation....

...exercise into her personal religious revival. If you want to have a relationship with your god, fine. Keep it private, keep it personal. I don't want to hear about it and I don't want to participate.

[JonQ]

134. I mean, to equate the two is just ridiculous

the crucifixion was nowhere near that bad. ;-)

[and-justice-for-all]

124. Public Schools are not for church sermons...nt

[TexasObserver]

128. Recommend

[Christa]

136. Excellent

It's time they stop with the snuff story fascination.








there is no god and I am his prophet

[truebrit71]

143. Good.

.