Girl sues High School for turning her mic off

[jerry611]

LAS VEGAS - A high school valedictorian who had the plug pulled on her microphone as she gave an address referring to Jesus Christ has filed a lawsuit against school officials, claiming her rights to religious freedom and free speech were trampled.

Brittany McComb, 18, said she was giving her June 15 commencement address to some 400 graduates of Foothill High School and their family members when the sound was cut. "God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

McComb's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Nevada, names the principal, assistant principal and the employee of the school in Henderson who allegedly pulled the plug. McComb said she was warned that her speech would be cut off if she did not follow an approved script that deleted references to Christ and invitations for others to join the faith. But she memorized the deleted parts and said them anyway.

"In my heart I couldn't say the edited version because it wasn't what I wanted to say," she told The Associated Press. "I wanted to say why I was successful, and what inspired me to keep going and what motivated me. It involved Jesus Christ for me, period."

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_us/religious_valedictorian

edited: to fix link

[benburch]

1. Let her sue.

She will not win. It was a school event and until graduation was over she was still their student.

[Tesha]

220. Ben, I'm sorry but you may be wrong.

School event or not, if she was not speaking on behalf
of the school she had the right of free speech, same as
anyone else.

Now the question is: Is the valedictorian speaking on
behalf of the school? I honestly don't know the answer
to this question and could see arguments both ways so
I wouldn't bet money on how any given judge/justice
would rule on this.

Tesha

[Lost-in-FL]

2. Frivolous lawsuits

:sarcasm:

Of course, if it was an anti-war address she is undermining the troops and she is unpatriotic. I'll tell you one thing, Repigs are a bunch of hypocrites. Lawsuits aren't frivolous when they are done to advocate their cause.

[mountainvue]

3. She should have been in a parochial school. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Why should the rest of the student body have to sit there

and be proseltyzed to?

It's a graduation, for fuck's sake. If she wants to bring lost lambs into the fold, let her stand on street corners or take the pulpit at a church.

What if she started spouting off about legalizing pot? About the joys of group sex? I bet the ninnies up in arms about her "rights" to browbeat her classmates at their graduation would see it a little differently.

[jerry611]

13. Would you say the same for an anti-war speech?

If you think it is OK to censor this kind of speech, you wonder why the righties jump on every anti-war speaker?

Freedom of speech is something that goes both ways. I personally don't think the school had any right to pull the plug. The girl is not a teacher. She is not a member of the faculty. All she was doing was thanking Jesus for her sucess in school and telling others that if they embrace god, the same will happen with them.

I'm agnostic and it wouldn't bother me at all. Just like it wouldn't bother me if she started talking against the war or in favor of it. When you live in a country that has freedom of speech, things are going to be said that you are going to disagree with. Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to censor.

[pitohui]

95. do we have separation of church and state or do we not?

thomas jefferson is turning over in his grave that anyone in america still believes in this superstitious horseshit 200-plus years on

but even if they do, they have an obligation to keep it out of the feckin' public schools!

[Fountain79]

137. This isn't an issue of separation of church and state...

necessarily. She's not the school, she didn't do anything that violated the constitution. It basically put everyone in an awkward position for a captive audience to hear a religious speech. Still I wouldn't chalk this up to a case of the state pushing a religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. A graduation is a school sponsored event. And it is as much the other

student's graduation as it is the speaker. The school VERY MUCH has the right to determine the content of the speech. She has freedom of speech- she's more than free to proseltyze the other students on her own time... but not at a school event behind a school podium using the school's microphone.

[silverojo]

124. If she'd started talking about the war

She would've deserved the same thing. This was graduation, not a pulpit for spewing about religion or politics.

[NashVegas]

213. I Certainly Would

To give an anti-war speech in front of classmates, some of whom will likely be joining the military, who had no choice of whether or not to be there, I'd have no trouble pulling the plug on her.

[madmunchie]

175. Sorry, but free speech is free speech and freedom of religion is

freedom of religion. What that means is that when somebody is speaking and exercising their freedoms, we should be respectful enough to keep our mouths shut and let them speak. We are not forced to adopt their thoughts or words. Just like if we were allowed to speak and say how we really felt, then we would hope that others would at least give us the courtesy of being quiet during our words.

This "politically correct" shit is stripping many of us of our basic human rights. When it comes down to it, how much can actually be said without insulting somebody? She earned the right to make a speech and if a few sentences were not politically correct...so what? My skin isn't that thin too bad so many other people's are.

[NashVegas]

211. It Was Not "Free" - She Was Given a Privilege and Abused It

There were conditions put upon her to make the speech. She agreed to them and then discarded them.

She was not forced to go up to the stage to make the "approved" speech. She could have refused.

[CanuckAmok]

5. "Jesus Christ could not be reached for comment..."

That does it. Freedom of Speech is an all or nothing sort of thing.

From now on, every time I read about some Fundie's rights to bleat-on at in appropriate times about their imaginary play-friends, I'm going into a church and lecturing the paritioners about science.

[Clark2008]

18. As long as you realize there are those of us Christians who

still believe in science, too. :7

Not all of us Christians think that A. The Earth is 6,000 years old and B. God didn't still create it all.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[GreenPartyVoter]

149. Not true. Research Quakers and abolition.

[dysfunctional press]

151. why?

are you saying that quakers never saw and/or acknowledged the hand of god guiding their actions?

sounds mighty uppity of them.

[Bjornsdotter]

35. Roflmao

Can I come too?

Cheers :toast:

[dsc]

6. those who side with the school district here

are every bit as hypocritical as those who would side with the school district if they cut her mike for advocating and end to the war. She earned the right to give this speech and should have been permitted to do so uncensored.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. I agree with you and the audience have a right to their say too

So let the audience boo or cheer her as they see fit. If the audience is not allowed to do that, then she should not be allowed to say her piece either. Like you noted, free speech cuts both ways and it was not the school district doing the speech, so it's not really an establishment issue.

Having said that, and if I was there, I would have jeered at her.



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[dsc]

14. I don't think jeering is appropriate

any graduate could have been in her position if they had did what she did (earn the best grades of her class). She earned the right to speak for a few minutes on why she thought she got to where she was.

[Cronus Protagonist]

16. Free speech - not only is jeering OK, but I approve also of signs

I would have held up a FUCK YOU sign. Free speech is either free or it is not. You apparently allow free speech but want to restrict responses to speech from a podium. I suspect you're not as much of a free speech proponent as you are supporting her point of view.



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

[dsc]

21. No I don't hold her view

but she earned the right to give that view. People in audience haven't. Graduations are not a place for free for all displays. I also think that politicians should be persona non grata, no matter who they are. If a Satanist is valedictorian next year and has teh same thing happen I will say the same thing.

[readmoreoften]

33. If graduations aren't a place for "free-for-all" displays then she

has to curb herself, too. No one "earns" the right not to get booed or jeered. If the student said a bunch of racist and homophobic claptrap, then the audience would have the right to respond. And what about the "rights" of the other graduates?

And, almost always, when someone rallies for peace in their speech, they are jeered. At graduations.

That's life. Either you give a civil speech or expect disruptions of opposing viewpoints.

[dsc]

36. You must attend different graduations than I have

While the sentiments were generic about peace they didn't get booed at my conservative school.

[readmoreoften]

47. Yes. I've attended a lot of graduations.

Three different schools this year, in fact. E.L. Doctorow got booed and jeered giving a graduation speech just last year. There were jeers at my OWN undergraduate graduation of the keynote speaker. Fairly common.

At NYU, students were not even allowed to carry signs or wear distinguishing items because they were afraid of union statements on the part of the graduates. I guarantee that they vetted the speeches. (They vet everything in fact.)

Booing a valedictorian is certainly a little bolder than booing a keynote speaker. But if she had continued on from accepting Jesus to "saving the American family" and "traditional marriage" (which very well could happen with a fundamentalist kid) I would boo her to kingdom come.

This is her entrance to adulthood. Let reality smack her in the face. She's a sneak and she participated in the ruin of graduation for all the other hardworking (and not-so-hardworking) kids.

[Bill McBlueState]

194. bastards.

"students were not even allowed to carry signs or wear distinguishing items because they were afraid of union statements on the part of the graduates"

Fucking bastards. :grr:

I continue to be utterly perplexed that anyone would hear "Let's pay our grad employees fairly" and be afraid. So afraid of that simple concept that they censor students to that extent on their graduation day.

:nuke::nuke: etc.

(How ya doing? :hi:)

[readmoreoften]

205. Well, I'm 1 out of 2 strikers who lost their job, insurance, & funding.

Matt O. and I lost our jobs, our health insurance, tuition assistance. So I have no medical insurance after August. I have no job to go back to in NYC (oh, except for the adjunct position they gave me-- I guess a $4000 gig compensates for the loss of a 20K a year job). And I may have to drop out of school entirely because I can't pay the $2K per semester in fees, even though my department is covering my tuition.

I had to sublet my apartment and move to a more affordable state for the summer months to figure out how to get out of my lease. So I go back to NYC in a month with no real job, no savings, no health insurance.

Oh, and no strike benefits because we voted to end the strike to reorganize.

So I'm not doing so well! I hope you're doing better! By the way all that fundraising helped pay my rent. :hi:

[kevinbgoode]

64. It isn't just about her own journey. . though she is entitlted to mention

it. .. it is also supposed to be a speech representing the graduating class. Instead, she turned it into a complete sermon about her personal religious beliefs. There was no problem mentioning them and their influence on her own life, but when that becomes the entire theme for the speech, she essentially spoke for no one but herself.

And I would have the same problem if a student gave their entire speech about peace, or the war. . .they can certainly mention that, but when it takes over the speech, it becomes irrelevant as a celebration of the graduation. That's the ceremony.. .a celebration of everyone's graduation - not her personal spiritual journey.

[rucky]

180. Wouldn't be the first self-indulgent graduation speech.

I'd say about 3% of graduation speeches are made to inspire the graduating class.

[Bonobo]

160. What if she had talked about how homosexuality is evil?

Still support her then?

[madmunchie]

177. She earned the right to make the speech, the audience earned the right

to participate in the graduation ceremonies. Mocking other people for their beliefs is just plain rude. Too bad people cannot accept hearing things that they do not agree with some class. And I mean just simply sitting and letting somebody else voice their own thoughts - PERIOD. What is the big deal, I can listen to other views that don't agree with mine w/o feeling obliged to vocally make my disapproval heard.

It is part of the "entitlement" mentality, I don't like it, so it shouldn't be, and I will obnoxiously protest to make my own thoughts heard. YOU aren't the valedictorian that has earned the right to make a speech, she was. You earned the right to SIT and PARTICIPATE in the graduation ceremony.

Your participation doesn't include vocal jeering, you weren't the valedictorian.

We all need to just listen once in a while, it wouldn't kill us to relearn how to do that.

[DiverDave]

184. If she has the right

to speak about god ( which she ABSOLUTELY does) then the audience has the right to voice their disapproval.

Sorry, munch, you cant have it both ways.
Would it be rude to catcall and disrupt?, yes it is, but it is also a RIGHT to do so.

To say that one persons rights are above another's is bullshit, and smacks of elitism.

Whether you agree with ANY speech, or not, IS protected by the First Amendment.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[madmunchie]

189. To me as well, she earned the right to make the speech, period

The audience didn't earn the right to jeer. To disagree, yes, to jeer and act inappropriately, no. Simple to me to. Basic decency really. An audience at a graduation ceremony is just that an audience, the purpose of the gathering is to honor the completion of some schooling. The valedictorian, gets an extra honor because of excellence and achievement and for that reason, THEY are allowed to make a speech, the audience has not earned that achievement. What is so difficult about listening now a days? NOBODY will ever agree with everything that somebody else thinks, period. So why, can't we just respect the person's right to say something without feeling that we are obliged to - rudely - interrupt? What has happened to plain respect?

[kiahzero]

208. Government ceremony

How hard of a concept is it to understand that this was a government ceremony, and that the Establishment Clause doesn't allow you to preach to a captive audience? Doing well in school doesn't give you the right to flout the rights of everyone else in your graduating class.

[NashVegas]

212. It Was Not a Right, It Was a Privilege

Just as we are given the privilage to operate an automobile on the roadways, that privilege can be revoked if it's abused.

It would have been equally inappropriate if she'd given an anti-war speech.

[neebob]

186. The basic message of her speech (see #143 for a link) is

that graduation is just another empty accomplishment without God. This is nothing, come to Jesus. That's what she said, or tried to say, and her classmates are stuck with the memory for the rest of their lives.

My graduation memory, besides my family not attending because my dad wanted to punish me and my mother lying and insisting they were there when they weren't, and having to come straight home afterward and whole sucky non-event that it was, is the weirdass prayer about keepin' on keepin' on that the #3 gave. I was thinking what in the world is he talking about.

I'm putting myself in the shoes of Brittany McComb's fellow graduates and thinking yeah, jeers to you, Debbie Downer.

[hyphenate]

17. From what I read

the mike was cut only when she veered off into the proselytizing, not before. And the decision was based on an appeals court ruling separating proselytizing from a secular graduation.

I suppose it would have been different if she were in a parochial school, and it might have been similar if someone wanted to protest GWB and/or the current administration, but we have not had a situation where that has happened--that we know of, at least.

The school was merely keeping her "religious" message from being heard by all the people at the graduation, and I don't find any problem with that. It's the same in life when we're forced to listen to the shit spewed by the RRR and having to endure it. We shouldn't need to listen to a message we don't want to hear, nor have any proclivity of sitting through it.

[dsc]

23. then why should the spouse of a soldier

or a person who signed up to be one, have to listen to an anti war message? Why should a racist have to listen to a black valedictorian? We don't have a right not to be offended.

[hyphenate]

41. I think a lot of what you're saying depends

on where, when, how and why a speech is given. Do we as a people have a right to protest GWB and his minions when they go aorund our country looking for photo ops? Yes, we do. But they place the "free speech" zones a mile away to keep that message from getting through.

Do we have the right to go to a special event to hear a speaker give a lecture on something we support? Yes.

Do we have the right to turn off the television when Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or another asshole of the RRR speak? Yes, we do. Just as they have the right to make the speech in the first place.

But we're talking about a high school, and we're talking about a student, who despite her great marks, felt it important to preach to her fellow students, of a topic that I'm sure few wanted to hear. The school warned her not to go into the RRR stuff, but she did anyway, in defiance of the school authorities. That is insubordination, and until her hat has been tossed and her diploma in her hand, and her feet off high school real estate, she has to abide by the rules set by the school.

If they had allowed her to continue, I'm sure there would have been any number of pissed off parents, students and school officials, and the intent of the law would have been sadly ignored.

Everyone might have the right to say what they want under certain situations, but it's only when you are a "grown-up" and not under the jurisdiction of a "higher authority" that gives you the capability of choosing what you want to say and what you want to hear.

A soldier or a soldier's wife has the right not to listen to an anti-war speech--they can either walk away or tune it out. A racist doesn't have to listen to a black valedictorian--they can simply decide not to attend if that is their fervent wish.

But the point is, speeches at high school graduations are still subject to censorship and over ruling by the school authorities. It is only when the child steps out of that academic world and into the real world that they have the options to make whatever noise they want to.

[jerry611]

24. So does the right-wing have any need to listen to us?

Because you apparently believe that the right should be forced to listen to our anti-war messages, howver they have no right to talk to us about god. Is that what you are saying?

You are pushing one giant double-standard based on politics. That's the fastest route to judicial bias.

This case may very well end up in the Supreme Court. And in such cases, SCOTUS almost always votes in favor of free speech.

[hyphenate]

43. That's not what I said

And if you read the reply that I wrote to another post, you'd understand that.

[riderinthestorm]

48. But this is a separation of church and state issue

She was going to give a sermon using public resources at a public event. That's illegal. If you were to read a copy of her speech you'd see it more clearly. She was going against school rules and the law.

The school was right to pull the plug. She's going to lose this lawsuit.

[Raster]

57. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. NOT! This is CLEARLY a

separation of church and state issue. And there is not a chance in hell it will end up before the SCOTUS.

[kevinbgoode]

71. Exactly...as soon as she started the proselytizing part,

I would have got up and walked out - yep, out of my OWN graduation ceremony.

[Raster]

20. Broad brush, my friend. The rules were plain. Speeches had to be

submitted for content. EVERYONE knew the consequences. She chose to ignore the consequences and spout her propaganda anyway. Preaching belongs in a church. Thanking God is one thing. Proselytizing is quite another.

[dsc]

25. actually according to the article they turned her mike off

BEFORE she prolestized, but after she mentioned crucifiction. Again would you be saying this if a conservative district did this to an anti war speaker. I think not.

[Raster]

29. Evidently we differ on the definition of proselytizing.

"God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification, "...to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace."

And this is not about a conservative district or an antiwar speech. This was about religious proselytizing and propaganda. Don't insert what is not there.

[dsc]

32. evidently we do

I believe that one proselytizes when one becons a person to follow a religion, not when one states its tenants. Incidently, I actually agree she intended to proselytize and think she had a right to do so. She earned that right by being the best student in her class.

[Raster]

40. She earned the right to ignore the separation of church and state because

she got good grades? Not hardly.

[dsc]

147. The school can't promote religion

any more than the school can promote liberalism or conservatism. But a student, one who has earned the right to speak in any way she chooses should be able to promote religion if she chooses to.

[riderinthestorm]

44. We have laws that mean she can't do that though

The separation of church and state means she can't use public resources (facility, electricity, assembly equipment like stage, lights, chairs etc.) to give a sermon. There are copies of what she was going to say and it is a sermon, complete with a call to Jesus for the attendees.

What she wanted to do was illegal.

More than that, as a student, she was told by her principal that her speech violated both law and school rules. She was told what the consequences would be if she went ahead with the planned speech. She chose purposefully to violate that and faced the consequences.

I'm with the school on this. Moreover, she will lose this court case.

[dsc]

148. She probably will

but she shouldn't. This is censorship pure and simple. She is a student, not a teacher or other authority figure. Allowing a student to give a religious speech isn't establishing a religion.

[Cronus Protagonist]

62. FYI - it's "tenets" not "tenants"

Just a minor correction. As to your views, I disagree strongly and side with the courts and the law of the land on the matter. One's academic, professional or life success does not grant one the right to ignore the rules of the establishment or the law of the land.

I do agree that she could have mentioned that Jesus is her guiding light or something like that, but she surely went too far by openly prosetylizing for converts.

[marions ghost]

196. BINGO

"One's academic, professional or life success does not grant one the right to ignore the rules...or the laws...." AMEN to that!! Rules are made in consideration of the effect on a particular group, in this case most likely a multicultural group as most American high schools are.

Actually I think the school handled this as well as they could, by giving her fair warning. I think they would have done this same thing to a student who was planning to introduce a strong political opinion as well, so if it is censorship it would apply to any form of expression that is considered inflammatory or divisive at a public high school graduation. Right, if she JUST said "Jesus is MY guiding light" once or twice, I would be fine with that. But then don't launch off into the kind of preaching that belongs in a church.

Now if she was out on the school ground preaching to whoever wanted to stop and listen, she could do so with everyone's blessing. But she should not hijack a public function in order to promote her personal religious beliefs. She did not make a mistake out of youth or naivete. She did it deliberately. If it was important to her to do it as a form of protest, then she made her point...ie. that you should be allowed to say anything you like anywhere.

Nobody would go for this if this girl was Islamic and started reciting from the Koran, would they? Or what if she was a worshipper of Satan appearing in the form of a dung beetle who helped her with her homework? I doubt she'd be allowed to preach the virtues of Satan. Why should preaching Christianity be treated any differently when it has the same capacity to make people feel uncomfortable? In a multicultural society, there have to be some rules benefitting everybody.

[Raster]

217. "But, I'm doing God's work, and preaching about Jesus, I shouldn't have

to follow the rules. And of course my beliefs are the only ones that count because I am speaking of the one and only true God. Everyone else's religious beliefs are wrong. I know the truth. You don't. And unless you accept my version of Jesus, you will burn in hell. So I will say what I please because I know God is with me.":sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

37. That is EXACTLY proselytizing.

"God's love is so great that he...." enacted the tenets of my religion. Proselytizing, plain and simple. And the continuation of her statement compounds that fact.

[progressivebydesign]

163. A sane voice on this thread. Thank you. She was warned..

and she did it anyway. It's a mental illness, I'm convinced, that these people are suffering from precipitated by 9/11. It made a lot of people insane.. and ripe for this type of religious fanatacism.

[Cha]

197. Well, she's found a

good way to divide just like bubeya always does.

[Nevernose]

107. She didn't earn the right to anything

She won a competition, granted, and a tough one at that. And I commend her for making a speech about how much Jesus meant to her.

It's when she began proselytizing that it became a problem.

As a valedictorian speech, it was government sponsored. She can talk about herself and how her religion affected her, but not preach to anyone else or go into great detail about her religion. If she'd just gone up there and said "I thank God for what he enabled me to accomplish" no one would have had a problem.

Not to mention the fact that she lied. AGREED not to continue on with the speech, another case of a fundamentalist setting themselves up for martyrdom and attention. You think she didn't know exactly what she was doing when she stood up in this town and started preaching about Jesus? Newsflash: Las Vegas is one of the most "Christian" towns you'll ever come across; it may as well be Utah or the Bible Belt.

If she had been talking about GW? She would have a right to make them, but not when she is acting as a governmental institution, only if she is representing herself or if she is an elected representative whose job it is is to represent herself. By giving her whole speech, she is implicitly saying that the United States government believes that Jesus was crucified on the cross for our sins.

Yes, it is a little harsh, and yes, it is an almost arbitrary line drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. But it's there for our protection.

Without that line, the government could force us to worship to whatever god they felt like, or even force us not to worship at all.

[dsc]

152. She doesn't represent the government

It is absurd to say she is. She is valedictorian of her class, not an adminstrator. Students are free to ignore her without any actual or feared consequence. That is very different from a teacher or principal who even if they say there is no consequence may well dole out one anyway.

[Selatius]

117. You are SO WRONG on your point

There is a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the US. As a result, there is a prohibition in the use of a public forum paid for by taxpayer dollars for proselytizing.

There is NO prohibition on expressing non-religious views such as an advocacy to an end of war. You should check up on the court case precedents again.

[dsc]

153. I think the court is dead wrong on this

Students who give speeches should have the right to give speeches not endorsed government speeches.

[kiahzero]

157. So, was Lee v. Weisman wrongly decided?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman

What about Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schemp? How much of the Establishment Clause are you willing to cave on?

[dsc]

170. No

There is a massive difference between a school district choosing religious leaders to lead prayers and a prayer lead by a student who is chosen without regard to religion. She was chosen for getting good grades and nothing else. She has no authority and no state endorsement behind her.

[kiahzero]

173. Neither did football players in Sante Fe

My apologies for forgetting to cite this case as well, as it is rather important to the discussion at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe

The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

[dsc]

176. Again this is different

If the district in question had a valedictorian's prayer then that would be endorsment. Here a valedictorian chose to give a speech about the role of Jesus in her life. Next years might give a speech about how having gay parents made them persevere. Both should be allowed to give their speech.

[kiahzero]

179. Graduation speeches aren't a public forum

Rather than rehash arguments, I'll simply refer you to http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16037res20020311.html , because they've said there pretty much anything more that I would want to say on the subject.

[dsc]

187. None of these cases are on point

In every single case they sight either the district, or a majority of students in the class, or both, chose and approved the prayers. Here it is a single student who ins't praying but speaking. Had the district simply let her speak without looking at her speech then no one could say they had endorsed. That is what I think should happen.

[progressivebydesign]

161. I'm not hypocritical because I disagree with both...

High School speeches are supposed to about moving on and leaving high school. They are not for politicizing nor prostelyzing. What nutjobs like her (who was going into graphic detail about people burning in hell before she was cut off) don't realize is they are going to completely stop the entire valedictoran gig in public schools because of their selfishness. If she wants to preach.. go to a church, go to religious school. Preaching is not appropriate... it's total bullshit. I'm so fucking tired of these whacked out stepford christians trying to shove their religion down our throats... and I'd feel the same if a child got up there and gave a GRAPHIC anti-war speech at a high school graduation.

[nuxvomica]

164. I agree with you that she had a right to have her say

Regardless of the rules, I think she had earned the right to give her speech. I think it was an innapropriate theme but impropriety shouldn't be a bar to free speech as long as it's not meant to incite violence or oppression.

[kiahzero]

165. "I think she earned the right to break the law."

How far does that right extend, exactly?

[nuxvomica]

167. Straw men and slippery slopes do not advance your argument

Nice try, though.

[kiahzero]

169. It's hardly a strawman

The parent asserted that she had earned the right to break the law. I asked how far this right extended.

[nuxvomica]

182. Show me an attribution for that quote and I'll agree that it isn't

Otherwise, my comment stands. I've been searching for that quote myself and I can't find it but I have found that I'm not comfortable with the company I'm keeping on this issue, including the likes of John Leo. Nonetheless, I still think this is an extreme restriction and I disagree with the ACLU on this one.

[kiahzero]

185. Attribution - you

"Regardless of the rules, I think she had earned the right to give her speech." - You, up a few levels. The rules, in this case, are the law. So, since giving her speech would be against the law, you said, "I think she's earned the right to break the law."

[Rhiannon12866]

188. You misquoted.

He said "I think she had earned the right to give her speech," not "to break the law.":shrug:

[kiahzero]

192. Giving the speech would be breaking the law. (n/t)

[Rhiannon12866]

200. I don't approve of the content of the speech, either.

But I see nuxvomica's point... And he never advocated breaking the law.

[kiahzero]

207. He said she had the right to give the speech

Giving the speech would have been unconstitutional, and therefore would be breaking the law. I'm failing to see the difficulty - is there disagreement as to whether or not the speech was unconstitutional?

[johncoby2]

7. She was told BEFORE hand that her mike would be turned off!!!

I saw her on Good morning america. Her speech was reviewed by the school and she was told that it was inappropriate and if she would continue her speech her mike would be cut.

She continued her speech and her mike was cut.

QED.

[guinivere]

214. Okay. That makes sense.

She was informed. I'm sure if she had written an anti-war rant or something the same thing would have happened. Imo a high school grad speech is no place for religious or political rants.

Of course I'm sure the fundies are screeching about persecution. :eyes: They love the victim role.

[Prophet 451]

8. Gotta love the Religious Reich

If they're not allowed to browbeat everyone else, their rights are being violated. If anyone else is allowed to browbeat everyone, their rights have been violated. If something exists that they dislike, their being "persecuted". So she brings a suit. If the judges decides in her favour, it's a vindication of her belief that schools are anti-Christian. If teh judge decides against her, it's "activist judges" and she never has to accept being wrong.

Oh, sod the doubletalk. Christian fundementalists are whiny f*cks with teh biggest persecution complex in history.

[hyphenate]

51. Thanks

Your last paragraph gave me a big smile. I agree wholeheartedly. And the humor helped a lot. :)

[RagAss]

10. should have read Mother Goose.....

[Raster]

11. No one should be subjected to her proselytizing. No one. How would she

feel if a Muslim or Jewish Valedictorian broke the rules and decided to insert their religious propaganda. Me thinks she would not like it very well at all. I am sick and tired of the religious--of any faith or denomination--thinking that their need to proselytize overrides the accepted rules, and that the fervency of their belief is enough to warrant the imposition on others. GET A CLUE: Worship and believe as you wish. That is your right. But please, keep it to yourself. I do not believe the Jesus/God myth anymore than I believe the Grimm Fairy Tales. And by attempting to force your beliefs on me, you cheapen and demean your God and religion in ways I never could or would. I've seen enough religion to last me the rest of my days. So keep yours to yourself, and I will do the same.

[marions ghost]

204. exactly

If you let Christian dogma be recited at a secular public function, you must allow religious dogma from other faiths to be promoted. I doubt detailing how Allah wishes to be worshipped would be appreciated by this young woman or her family.

This might be an argument the fundies could understand, even if they don't get that athiests have the right not to be preached at against their will either. This is not a function where you can just get up and leave--this is a captive audience of those who are there specifically for the purpose of marking the end of their child's high school years, a special day for most. Many a graduation has been marred because somebody chose to make it a platform for their own agenda. This is no different than the clod
who brings up some crude joke or topic people would rather forget.

I just see this behavior on the valedictorian's part as tacky and cloddish. Forgiveable, but self-centered and not very smart. I hope the court will throw it out.

[SoCalDem]

12. Well.... we could see that one a mile away.. This was WHY she

did it.. You just watch.. this little suit might end up in Scotus..This is the kind of bullshit "rights" stuff that the right wingers wet themselves over..
The sweet little godfearing A+ student, denied her free speech..:puke:

[OwnedByFerrets]

22. Does this have anything to do with

the separation of church and state, since she was probably ( I don't know for sure) on government property and under school jurisdiction when this happened?
And, if she was told beforehand that it was permissible, then she was in the wrong. She was still a student, right? Don't students have to follow school rules or face punishment? Well, the punishment this time was a cut mike.

[Raster]

56. It has EVERYTHING to do with separation of church and state. EVERYTHING.

It has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. That's just the smokescreen issue to avoid having to deal with the reality of the law. Sorry, but your faith and fervent devotion don't trump the United States Constitution. You want to thank God, fine. Thank him/her/it all you want. You want to sermonize and proselytize, take it somewhere else.

[kiahzero]

158. I doubt SCOTUS would overturn Lee v. Weisman (n/t)

[Erika]

15. She submitted her speech for editing and approval

and then refused to accept the rules. It seems like she flunked the test of fighting authorities beforehand. Rather than fight her fight before the speech, she snuck it in and them gave them the raspberry. Not too adult.

She'll have problems in her life for sneaking rather than standing up. Her self discipline is also very lacking.

[jerry611]

19. So going by that philosophy....

If she had said something against Bush or the war...the school has a right to edit that out as well?

Seems like some in here want freedom of speech to only go one way.

She has just as much right to talk about god as you have as much right to talk against the war. I know it isn't as free as it used to be, but this is supposed to be a free country.

[Erika]

27. Giving raspberries is not adult

She could have fought the fight before the speech. How anyone can excuse her for thumbing her nose at the rules after the fact is beyond me. She severely lacks self discipline. I imagine her parents encouraged this action, after the fact. It should have been before the speech. Parents are often undisciplined themselves.

[jerry611]

31. You are missing the point

If this girl was making an anti-war speech, or a speech that bashed Bush... and the school cut her mic off. Do you still believe the school had that right? Would you still be against her? I doubt it.

I have no problem with that speech. I am a giant supporter of free speech of all forms and types. I think free speech is the best method to exchange and improve ideas. And those that choose to censor or filter free speech are fascists. Because that is exactly what dictatorships do. They control what people can and can't say. And I don't want that in America.

[Erika]

42. The point is that she is subject to rules

She should have fought her fight beforehand rather than sneaking it in and giving raspberries.

[Dunedain]

93. I think he's asking

would you be so critical of the act if you liked the taste of those raspberries?

[riderinthestorm]

100. I'm sure the ACLU wasn't thrilled siding with Rush Limbaugh either over

medical privacy issues.

But they were right there even if they thought those raspberries were very sour.

Look, it's a basic legal principle that's under discussion. The separation of church and state. I understand the OP's position but it's not accurate.

[Dunedain]

112. Your right

And I agree with what you state down thread, that she will lose. She committed the tort, not the school.
I was being obtuse because the poster is all over this thread dragging this kid through the mud because she spoke "her" truth to authority. Calling the act spoiled grapes, not the suit.
Granted, wrong place wrong time, but actions like hers, if the subject matter were different, would be celebrated around here like the second coming of the risen lord in question, every bit of the pun intended mind you.

[riderinthestorm]

114. Lol! Welcome to DU!

Yup, some on this site are determined to twist this into a free speech issue...alas their celebration gets shortcircuited by the few oddballs here like myself and others who are staunch church/state separation advocates.

[Raster]

49. No, you are missing the point. It was not an anti-war speech, and that is

not even the issue. Leave the anti-war obfuscation out of this discussion. And don't surmise what I would and would not be against. The issue is the separation of church and state and proselytizing at a PUBLIC, SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT, the graduation. It is NOT a freedom of speech issue. It's a question of whether this person had the right to ram her religious beliefs down the audience's throat. And no, she did not.

[wtmusic]

202. Though it pisses you off mightily it wasn't against the law

and heaven help us when this is considered to run afoul of A1's mandate that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Talk about obfuscating the issue...

[Raster]

38. There is a still separation of church and state in this country. At least

for now. She has every right to THANK GOD. To THANK GOD. She does not have the right to preach her propaganda at a public school graduation. If it were a private christian school, then preach on. NOT IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATION. And please, no more of this "if it were an antiwar speech...yada, yada, yada. Point is, it wasn't. And FYI, speaking against the war is NOT a separation of church and state issue. Not in the least.

[cboy4]

26. Does one expect anything less attending Bill O'Reilly Cut Her Mic Off

Senior High School? ;)

[SensibleAmerican]

28. I don't side with the school district philosophically

However, I believe they are in the right legally.

[madrchsod]

30. she doesn`t have any legal standing

there is no freedom of speech for students in high schools and she also broke her pledge not to bring up any biblical references.

[dsc]

34. Yes there is

read the Tinker decision for starters.

[madrchsod]

59. thanks--i should have known that

i vaguely remember the arm band thing but in those days news was harder to come by than it is now.now all i have to do is google! thanks

[OwnedByFerrets]

39. The biggest loser

in this is the school district. Few of them have the resources to spare on frivolous lawsuits. In the end, its the future students that will suffer from her refusal to follow the rules. But none of that will matter to her because the only important thing was to save those poor deluded souls in that audience. :sarcasm:

[jerry611]

45. Frivolous?

If a school did this to me...you damn well better believe I will sue. Not only that, but I would circulate petitions, write my representatives, and make as much noise as I can. And I don't give a damn how much money the school loses. I will make sure it will be the last time the school ever pulls a mic again on ANYONE!

[riderinthestorm]

53. But it's the law. Separation of church and state and all that

She is not allowed to use public resources to give a sermon at a public high school event. Period.

That is even beyond the school rules that she must adhere to as a student. Which she did violate knowing what the consequences would be.

She will lose this lawsuit, petitions or not.

[Erika]

46. She thumbed her nose at the rules, after she gave the speech

She should have fought the battle before hand. She needs to develop principles.

[charlie]

50. If you can stomach fathead Hannity

and skeletor wimp, she appeared on their show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qgG6aV1HA&search=mccombe%20valedictorian

If some enterprising kid got his/her speech on the wonders of Ganja or the epiphany that came with getting a 12" boning in a 3-way shut down, I want to see those two harrumph and give him/her proper kudos for bravery. If graduation is open mike night, then good, let it really be unrestricted. I'm all for it.

[Erika]

52. Agreed. If they fought the battle before the speech

It reminds me of the little boy conservative who tattled on his teacher to his parents when he could have stood up and challenged the teacher. These kids clucked out.

[donheld]

54. Would she have cut the mic off if

Muhammed Al-Jabbar had started talking about the greatness of Allah?

[Erika]

55. Good comparison n/t

[Freedom_Aflaim]

58. That was a close one !!

Its a good thing that the school pulled the plug and saved those kids such an atrocity.

Would be ashame if 12 years of school was ruined at the last minute by someone with a point of view.

Its a frivilous suit imo, but the school acted stupidly.

[jerry611]

60. In my opinion....

If you work hard enough to make the best grades in the school... you can get up and say whatever the hell you want for a few minutes of fame.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

72. No, precious ears must be protected.

even if that protection ends within a few minutes.

The right to not be offended must be protected at all cost.

[Bill McBlueState]

199. but that's your opinion

not school policy.

The school has the right to determine the program at school functions, and it seems to me that at no point did they create the impression that students could say anything they wanted.

The practice of pre-approving the speeches makes the event into something of a farce, but isn't most of high school a farce?

[Raster]

61. The school followed the law. The law. Remember separation of church

and state. And it wasn't just a point of view. It was religious propaganda, which, IS ILLEGAL.

[jerry611]

65. Answer me this than PLEASE!

The public high school I graduated from has been singing "God Bless America" at the start of every football game for over 50 years... They still do that to this day...

Is that illegal?

[Raster]

69. It should be.

[riderinthestorm]

74. Agreed. nt

[Erika]

73. Consult a lawyer. What does that have to do with the topic?

Thanks.

[Raster]

It has nothing to do with the topic. Just more obfuscation and hyperbole.

Take it somewhere else.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

66. She is not an agent of the state

And religious propaganda is not illegal.

However religious propaganda is illegal in many police states.

While we are in full speed ahead towards a police state here, we are not quite there yet.

[riderinthestorm]

78. Religious propaganda isn't what we're speaking about here

You know that right?

We're talking about a legal principle of separation of church and state.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

80. Religious propaganda is NOT illegal

Not in America anyway.

If she were an agent of the state, you would have a point.

As it is, she is a private citizen expressing a point of view after being given a platform to express a point of view.

While the state is not permitted to sanction a religion, every American is.

[riderinthestorm]

89. But we're not talking about religious propaganda

The point is the separation of church and state laws regulate what kind of speech this girl could give using public resources at a public gathering.

She chose to give a sermon which isn't allowed under law, nor under the school rules. She wasn't given a platform to express any point of view. She had guidelines that she was to adhere to, and the penalties for not adhering to those guidelines were clearly spelled out in advance. She knew what was going to happen and chose to have the confrontation.

She will lose. It's that simple.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

96. Im sorry I thought you said

"It was religious propaganda, which, IS ILLEGAL."

You'r absolutely right of course, she will lose. But winning was not her goal, at least its not the goal of those backing her (see msg 92)

[Erika]

79. It is about self discipline and abiding by the rules

and when to fight the fight. She needs to learn self disipline.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

82. Now its about legal fees :)

Her suit will go nowhere.

Lawyers from the school will be happy. Her lawyers will be happy.


IMO, this could have been dealt with by both parties in a more adult fashion.

[Erika]

88. She & her parents should have learned to be adults.

But maybe the $ signs were too promising.

[Guaranteed]

144. You don't understand the concept. It's not relevant, here.

She was a student, not an authority figure.

[Erika]

68. The point was her ability to abide by the rules

or have the guts to fight it before the speech. Raspberries are for children.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

75. Thats true it was the point

But both sides acted childishly to get the point across.

Now both sides will pay dearly in legal fees.

How Silly.

[Erika]

84. No, she and her parents acted foolishly.

They should have fought the battle before the speech. They didn't.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

92. And the schools lawyers will make that argument

while billing their usual and customary fee.

That money being spent is money that won't be spent on books and teachers.

Kids act out ALL the time in school. Its the schools job to handle in a mature fashion without letting it escalate to the courts where it costs everyone.

Once this is said and done here's the final score:

School: Courtroom victory. Tens of thousands in legal fees

Girl: Court room loss: Her case is proably being handled pro bono by....

Fundy organization: They spend their donation on making a loud "point" about how Christians are once again victimized. Their loss will generate more donations to fight the "liberal scouge"


The school was baited and they fell for the bait.

[Erika]

103. Fundies using tax payer monies to promote their causes

They should be counter sued to recover legal costs. If it is shown as frivilous this can happen.

[riderinthestorm]

70. It's the law. I live in fundieville.

Wheaton Illinois, home of Wheaton College which trains televangelists and missionaries. Turning the high school graduation speeches into prosyltizing events would be a wet dream around here.

The school is absolutely right to nip this right where they did. This is about a legal point of view, not the girl's religion. The school didn't act stupidly, they acted within the law.

It's important. It matters. Especially for those of us who would face an avalanche of this kind of graduation speech if this door were opened. It would be a terrible assault on our constitution to allow it, even once.

As long as our separation of church and state laws stay strong however, it won't be a problem.

I stand with the school on this one.

[Erika]

76. Akbar Allah.

As a previous poster said, how would this go over?

[riderinthestorm]

85. Yup. Exactly. nt

[Freedom_Aflaim]

77. Its not important

Well its important to fundies and anti-theist.

Most people really don't get worked up about this sort of thing (from either viewpoint)

[riderinthestorm]

83. I beg to differ

In our increasingly theocratic US, it is really important regardless of your religious beliefs.

[Erika]

86. Can you imagine if a valedictorian said Akbar Allah

Do some critical thinking.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

106. Muslims have as much right to speech as anyone else

While its true that if she made such comments, it would inflame different people, the issues would not be any different.

[riderinthestorm]

111. I am assuming (hoping) that you realize Erika and I are a bit facetious

here.

We are playing on the fact that the Christian fundies would have gone into a froth defending the separation of church and state if a Muslim fundie had been up there delivering the sermon.

But you are entirely correct. The issue is exactly the same. The separation of church and state means that sermons of any kind aren't allowed in this kind of setting.

And the school was entirely correct for cutting her mike. This isn't a free speech issue at all no matter how much anyone wants to make it into that.

[Erika]

130. Yep. n/t

[kevinbgoode]

63. I'll bet one of the christo-fascist law organizations are behind this

again. . .and it IS a frivilous lawsuit. She was NEVER prevented from saying the words "Jesus Christ"...the school drew the line when her speech became a sermon to the other students, thus violating their right to worship according to parental direction and personal choice. She SAYS it involved "Jesus Christ for me, period". . .but her speech was supposed to be representative of ALL the graduates - so self-references should not be the bulk of her remarks.

[Raster]

67. BINGO! It's The Rutherford Institute.

[jerry611]

87. I think there is some paranoia here....

Sounds to me some people are starting to become paranoid when it comes to religion. Me? I could care less. Apparently any mention of the word "god" in a school is a major issue to many people. And I don't know why. What's the big deal? Arn't there other things going on in the world that deserve attention than what a girl says about god at a graduation speech?

So she had 15 mintues of fame to say what she wants and she decides to talk about god. Why is that offensive? Why is that intrusive on another's rights?

[Erika]

91. It's about rules and self discipline, not religion

If she had a fight to fight it should have been done prior to the speech. Her raspberries weren't really an adult thing.

[riderinthestorm]

94. Because it's the law

And some of us care about it.

Furthermore, I believe more Americans should be concerned because we have an Administation that is determined to chip away at precisely this kind of law. It's dangerous precedent.

I am paranoid about religion. I see the crazy effects every single day here in fundieville. It's made me extremely vigilant about any erosion to church and state laws.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Some of the plans for a theocratic America are really scary.

[Erika]

98. I joined the Interfaith Alliance to fight fundies

They even speak up for the rights of atheists as tax-paying and voting Americans.

[riderinthestorm]

109. Interesting. Do you have a link? I'd love more info. nt

[renate]

156. the Interfaith Alliance ROCKS!!!

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=120694

(bolding is mine)
Our 150,000 members across the nation represent diverse religious and spiritual traditions – Jews, Christians,Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs – 70 faith traditions in all, as well as many Agnostics and Atheists.

Here's their home page, which right now has a snippet about the Voting Rights Act (because they're about democracy, not just religious freedom):
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=447561

And also, they have great friends--here, Walter Cronkite (who's been involved with the Interfaith Alliance since its beginning, I think) and George Clooney:
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=937809

[Freedom_Aflaim]

102. There are Fundies, and there are anti-thiest

(Note anti-thiest is not the same as athiest. While anti-thiest are always athiest, athiests are not usually always anti-theist)

With that out of the way, both the fundies and the anti-thiest get entirely irrational on this subject.

One tries to jam religion into every facet of life, while the other runs around trying to stamp it out of every facet of life.

One acts as though its poison to the ears to hear the word "God", the other thinks it should be in every sentence.

It would be nice if both groups would leave the other 95% of the population alone, but thats wishing to much :)

[Solon]

115. Nice Generalizations slick, I'm a POLYTHEIST, and I agree with the so...

called "anti-theists" nice FUNDY term you use there, on this thread. She crossed the line, plain and simple.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

122. Congratulations on being Polytheist

Isnt it wonderful to be free to choose as we see fit?

Yes, those terms are intentionally polar opposites, in fact that idea of polar opposites was exactly what I was trying to convey. Glad you picked that up.

I agree that she did cross a line. Whats seems to be in dispute is its impact and consequences.

Personally, I think she baited the school and the school grabbed the bait and ran with it. Now she (and the group that is backing her no doubt), is getting exactly what they want, courtesy of the school district and tax payers.

[Solon]

166. The School had no choice, the law is the law, and must be enforced. n/t

[Freedom_Aflaim]

190. The school is not an arm of law enforcement

And the girl acting as an individual broke no laws.

The concept of seperation of church and state is not a law. The words "seperation of church and state" do not even appear in the constitution.

It is of course a legal principle that keeps the state out of the affairs of religion and when the state violates that principle, we as individuals have the right to seek an injuction to stop the actions of the state....and that has happened many times as we know.

But its not a law. No individual, anywhere in the country is serving a sentence for religious speech.

[Solon]

198. The School is obligated to follow the Constitution, including the First...

Amendment, this means they must follow the concept of separation of church and state. Also I didn't say the student is CRIMINALLY liable, that's ridiculous, rather I said the SCHOOL was OBLIGATED to follow the law, of which the Constitution AND ITS AMENDMENTS is the supreme law of the land.

[kiahzero]

209. She was speaking at a government function

She was just as much an arm of the government as a rabbi coming to give a graduation prayer.

[charlie]

104. She didn't get cut off for mentioning God

The mike went out when she veered into sectarianism, the Jesus Died For Us All bit.

[kevinbgoode]

105. Excuse me...I've read about this case at the time when it happened

She was allowed to make references to God, particularly in an example of the influence in her life. What she is not allowed to do is turn her speech into a church sermon and advertisement for her religious beliefs. It is a public school graduation. The speech is not about self-aggrandizement - it is supposed to be a reflective representation of the many facets and experiences of the graduation class - and one of only one or two student voices allowed to speak at the entire classes graduation. It was rather rude for the speaker to ignore the audience and the occasion simply to spend the entire speech making a POLITICAL statement about her own personally selected religious beliefs. I knew they would sue about it - she was likely told beforehand how this would be scripted so the wingnuts WOULD sue. . .it was too calculated.

It was a public school ceremony. Simply earning the best grades does not entitle any speaker to attempt to proselytize their religious beliefs to an audience whose PARENTS are supposed to be entitled to make those selections.

[Swamp Rat]

113. You goddamn right! This country is being taken over by theocratic fascists

Or are you not paying attention? That bastard Hagee is in DC right now requesting that Bushler start the Armageddon. :eyes:

[misternormal]

171. I don't think paranoid is the word...

... There is a "man" in the WH that claims to be a "born again" christian, and that God is directing his actions.

That is a scary thing, my friend. The RR is frothing at the mouth to get their religo-fascist agenda in full gear. We are just being cautious, and making sure that everyone is on the same page concerning religion and the government, and the separation of same.

[Bill McBlueState]

201. nice oversimplification

It's not the mention of the word "god" that upsets people, although the fundies want to make it seem that way. It's the implied threat that if you don't cover yourself in the blood of Jesus, whatever that means, then terrible things will happen to you.

[charlie]

81. Text of her speech

Note that she wasn't cut off at the first mention of God, she enjoyed some latitude until she got to the Christ Died For Us All bit:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-20-Tue-2006/opinion/8027170.html

[Quixote1818]

141. Oh, Jesus Christ! No pun intended

That speech sucks!!! The whole fucking thing is religious prostitution. If I had been their I would have walked out.

[pitohui]

90. what an ill mannered little witch with a b

was she brought up in a barn?

didn't her mother ever tell her not to force religion on people in public places? eeeeek! how totally rude, you simply don't take advantage of an opportunity like this to preach

i hope the school can take her honors away from her, she certainly is not anyone i would want representing MY school

four years of high school and no one taught her even the basics of good etiquette

it's too bad they can't yank her diploma and have a court order to send her to a finishing school where she can learn some feckin' manners!

do not, do not, do NOT preach at people when you have them trapped

in my ideal world the school would counter-sue and strip her of her diploma and honors, ha ha, oh well, life will punish her soon enough for thinking that she can impose her opinion on everybody else

[Erika]

97. You abide by rules or fight them at the appropriate time n/t

[Spangle]

99. Not just her Grad Night. Others should sue her for ruining it!

School isn't a 'free speech zone'. Teachers can NOT say as they please or the school can be sued. EVERY time someone goes before the student body, a school official discusses what can and can not be said/ talked about, etc. Because the school will be held liable for that persons comments. When that girl stepped up to the mic, she wsa in the same postion as everyone else who stands before children. There are things you can say, and things you can not say. END OF STORY!

The school treated the girl just like everyone else and explained what she could/couldn't talk about. Even reviewed her speach. She willfully planned on this and SHE should be held liable for her actions. The school did their part.

While this girl is whining about HER rights, she is forgetting that this isn't just HER night. She has classmates and their parents. She ruined THEIR night. A night that can't be given back.

If there is ANYONE in that group that objects to her comments, they should sue her for damaging their night and their right to have seperation of church and state. She tried to take that away from them.

This very same girl and those who put her up to this trick wouldn't set and allow someone of a non-christan faith to stand up and give such a speach dripping with religus stuff that wasn't Christan. THey wouldn't! But they demand such a right for themselfs. THey don't understand that this 'rule' goes both ways. They want it one way. They speak, everyone else don't.

This was a media stunt and the lawsuit is to make it hit the news. A counter law suit would do the same thing and hopefully prevent this type of stupid stunt!

[Erika]

101. She did make the night about her

and her religion.

[zcflint09]

108. They came for a graduation, not a church service...

Is she going to annoit the student body with holy water after the speech too?

[mdmc]

116. She should be able to say what she wants.

It is a tradition to allow the student with the highest gpa, the valedictorian, to give a speech at the graduation ceremony.

The should be able to express themselves any way that they desire to; they have earned it.

She should be able to talk about God, or Allah, or the Freak Brothers, or of Hugh Hefner.

valedictorian speeches are often so lame. I would much rather have an interesting, thought provoking talk.

[liontamer]

118. when I was valedictorian I wasn't allowed to say whatever I wanted

I was reminded that while I was given the honor because of my academic performance, graduation was not all about me, and that I should have respect for the rest of my graduating class.

[Selatius]

119. Not if it BREAKS THE LAW

You CANNOT use a public forum funded by taxpayer dollars to proselytize. It is a violation of the separation of church and state. If it were anything else besides religion, she should be FREE to say whatever she wants.

[mdmc]

120. I disagree

I think that she stated her opinion, and earned the right to. The school, or taxpayer, or whatever wasn't promoting one religion over another.

A student gave a speech.

I agree that she couldn't yell "Fire!" or incite a riot, but all else should be fair game.

[Selatius]

121. You're still using public property to preach a religion, which is wrong

It's tantamount to endorsing a religion. She earned a right to speak; that's true, but not violate the law. If she wanted to proselytize, she could've done it anywhere else besides a microphone and speaker at a high school graduation, which was paid for by taxpayer dollars.

[Quixote1818]

126. I think she may have a case

Students are allowed to distribute religious literature at school so I would suspect they also have the right to speak about there religion. She is not faculty she is a student. She is not asking others to pray, all she is doing is speaking of her own religious feelings just like many politicians do in political debates. I think she is absolutely free to express her religious beliefs to other students.

Faculty to student is one thing but student to student is probably OK.


July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

[Selatius]

132. See post #127

[mdmc]

133. you may be right

but I think that a student's speech should be considered separate from the state. She didn't offend anyone or disrespect anyone's religion. She talked about God.

Let me ask you a question - Would she be able to give this speech at a city council meeting?

[Selatius]

134. Everybody's considerations should be taken into account

There is a problem in your statement though. If she was allowed to proselytize the gospel of Jesus, what would you say to those who do not follow Jesus who were also in the audience? Would you let them have time on the podium as well? Would you let the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindis, the Buddhists, the Deists, the Atheists, the Agnostics, and everyone else have a say too?

I say that because that microphone and the speakers were paid for by everybody (i.e. the taxpayers), and not everybody is a follower of Christianity.

With respect to your question, though, the set-up is too vague to tell. Did the City Council ask her to impart her religous views? Or was she asked a question and simply veered off towards proselytizing rather than answering the question?

[mdmc]

136. let me clarify

if a city council meeting has an open microphone policy where people can address the city council, could she make this speech there?

[Selatius]

138. A qualified yes

If the City Council, for some reason, was asking people from the community to come forward, and the question is, "What are your religious beliefs?" Then she should be free to speak her mind. Why? Because the Council's actions aren't seen as endorsing any religion, merely soliciting views. For instance, who says a Buddhist monk isn't next in line?

[mdmc]

140. perhaps the next valedictorian will be a buddhist

:)

[Raster]

215. Perhaps the next valedictorian will be a rabid scientologist...

won't that be a treat.

[Quixote1818]

139. She probably could however "children" are a different story

Adults can survive someone talking about religion however when you are talking about religion influencing children you are playing with fire. As a Valedictorian she is seen as a respected almost authority figure with a captured audience of kids with many different religions. The law may or may not be on her side on this but my feeling is she should leave religion out of a speech to the whole school of impressionable minds.

[marions ghost]

206. How do you figure

she didnt offend or disrespect anyone? There are many people who might be offended by a speech promoting "God."

[kiahzero]

210. Not just the abstract notion of "God"

Which is bad enough, violating one of the principles of the Lemon test. Instead, she promoted the very specific tenets of a subsection of a subsection of one religion. How that's OK by some here is a mystery to me.

[Guaranteed]

145. It's not illegal. You're telling me people aren't allowed to stand

out on the sidewalk and preach to passersby? It's public, it's taxpayer funded and it's a forum if you make it one.

The idea behind the separation of church and state is that the government can not give the impression that it is endorsing a particular religious point-of-view. It is an issue of authority.

If the principal of the school- an agent of the state- had asked her to do what she did, that would be illegal.

If she decided to do it on her own, that's not illegal- in the LEAST. HOWEVER- the school is running the event. If they gave her notice that she needed to run her speech by the school before giving it, and she went around that, they have every right to yank her.

[Quixote1818]

155. Thanks for your thoughts. I think you may be right on.

Students do have the right to say what they want about their religion, however the school does have some say about what she can or cant say in her speech. Just because she had the best grades in her class doesn't mean she has the right to go around the schools rules and say what ever she wants. The case will hinge on weather schools can prohibit kids from using too much religion in such speeches. I think the law does allow schools the right to edit such speeches so all kids feel included by what she is speaking about.

I read her speech and it was filled with Jesus this and Jesus that. It was definitely an effort to convert the other kids.

[Quixote1818]

123. It's possible the law is on her side on this

Since it's not a prayer and she is not part of the faculty, it's possible she is free to say what ever she wants about her religion in her speech. Then again, I don't know what the schools rules are or what the law says about Valedictorian speeches.

Take a look at some of these ACLU cases:

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.


September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

125. Yea, I don't think its a slam dunk

While I think she'll lose, she does have the benefit of not being an agent of the state.

If this were a faculty member, no way in hell would that pass muster.

But she is simply a private individual making a statement

Just because one is standing on public property, this does not give the government the right to quell your speech. In fact Id say you have MORE right to speech while standing on public property.

My guess is that she lose on the basis that the school has the right to regulate student behavior, as opposed to seperation of church vs state because this girl does NOT represent the state.

She proably has just enough of case so as to lose without it being declare frivilous.

[Erika]

128. Her lawsuit is one thing, her personal growth is another

She needs to know when to stand up for her rights and when to shut up. She needs to learn self discipline and timing.

[Quixote1818]

129. It's an interesting case as it could open the door to kids giving speeches

about there being no God or believing in the Devil or that people are reincarnated from Cows. If she wins then she has opened Pandora's box or as someone once said "a box of Pandora's".

[Erika]

131. That's why there is oversight.

Appreciate your post.

[Selatius]

127. I don't see any case that could serve as precedent except one

1st case: Nobody can stop an individual on his or her own initiative from passing out literature at school because the school itself did not endorse the activity. If the school did it instead of the individual, there's a problem. A person passing out books on his or her own initiative is not tantamount to the school, and by extension, the public municipality from endorsing a religion. This is freedom of speech, not an issue of church-state separation.

2nd case: This could possibly serve as precedent in this case. What was the verdict in this trial?

3rd case: As long as the yearbook itself is not published with endorsements of any religion because it would be tantamount to an endorsement of religion by virtue of the use of public property, the student should be able to be quoted whatever he or she says, even if it is proselytizing. Why? Because it is in his or her words (the use of quotations) and not that of the school or the municipality that funds the school.

4th case. Like the first case, as long as the school itself is not sponsoring students passing out messages advocating or endorsing a religion, then there is no problem. Students should be free to pass out whatever messages they wish on their own initiative. It's a 1st Amendment issue, not a church-state separation issue.

[Quixote1818]

135. Good points

This is an interesting case. It could go either way. I hope they rule against her as she did seem to be preaching to the other kids plus she has a CAPTURED audience to preach religion to!!!! Some parents might counter sew claiming a right NOT to have to hear about her religion. Just because she was the Valedictorian doesn't mean what worked for her will work for everyone else. I think she was being selfish and her ego is driving this.

[sweetheart]

142. What ever happened to talking

Is every disagreement a lawsuit? Can't people just discuss like adults and not
waste public money and time when it is needed sorely elsewhere.

She does not run the school, and when she's paid to speak for the school, then
she'll be in a position to dictate its tones.

But doesn't the entire thing detract from what the schools are really for, to
manufacture a regime of willing disempowered workers to enter its system of
job-corporatism where every person "is" their sklls, and has no value outside
of their speed on the assembly line.

I'm sure god wants a fight, the girl clearly knows jesus's well...

[Warren DeMontague]

143. So I read the speech, and, I'm sorry.. but.. PAGING DR. FREUD!

What is it with this weird, sublimated sexuality emerging as religious mania? It shows up in the rapture stuff, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1620096

I guess that's what repression will do.


...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-20-Tue-2006/opinion/8027170.html

"Up until my freshman year in high school, I continually filled certain voids with shapes that proved often peculiar and always too small."

"even first place left me feeling empty. Either way, the shape entitled "accomplishments" proved too small to fill the void"

"this teacher standing above me, trying to help me: God. I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul."

"This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting."

...

Call me crazy, but somebody really needs to send this girl the Good Vibrations catalog.

[neebob]

178. Word. And thanks for the link.

I'm trying to imagine how you could edit that speech and have it not be proselytizing. It's totally about her and very clearly crafted to persuade others to join her faith. It's witnessing, or what Mormons would call bearing one's testimony, pure and simple.

I'm surprised they let her speak at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

191. I think it's the difference- utterly lost on fundies- between saying

"I believe this"

and "This is the final truth and YOU need to believe it, too"

[B Calm]

183. I hope her parents have her on the pill before sending her away to

college

[yellowcanine]

219. Were the shapes clogging up the tangled tubes of the internets?

[AuntPatsy]

150. (sigh) just another pony show for the fundamentalists.

[dysfunctional press]

154. why can't christians ever accomplish ANYTHING on their own...?

do they all HONESTLY believe that there is some man-god hybrid somewhere- somehow not just monitoring ALL of ALL of not just theirs, -but EVERYONE'S EVERYWHERE thoughts and actions simultaneously, while at the same time taking action and influencing events surrounding all of those thoughts and actions? (mot to mention all the unknown unknowns- to us anyway, that he would also have to be monitoring and acting upon at the same time)...24hrs. per day, 7 days per week, 364 1/4 days per year? for eternity?

plus the animal/insect/bacterial worlds too?

while at the same time keeping all parts of the universe running smoothly...?

it's all so fucking ludicrous on it's face that it just makes me ANGRY that so many otherwise rational human beings can be taken in by such UTTER BULLSHIT :mad:

fucking weak-minded MORANS, continually screwing up the world for the rest of us, all throughout history...:mad:

i just can't take it anymore.

WAKE UP FOOLS! WE'VE GOT A FUCKING PLANET WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR FUCKING SELVES

please?

and all you other religions and religoids aren't any prize either! :mad:

[progressivebydesign]

159. Give me a break.. Turn the other cheeck ya whiner. n/t

[kiahzero]

162. Lee v. Weisman

Guess she didn't do too well in her government classes, otherwise she would know why the school district did what they did - they were complying with the law.

[DFLer4edu]

168. I had to look up your case, I think it makes it all the more interesting

For those of us who don't memorize supreme court decisions here is a synopsis of Lee v. Weisman http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/206/
This is an interesting case. I think you're right in that as she is trying to convert other students she represents organized religion, but I wonder if this would be true if she had just said something at the end like "may Jesus Christ be with you", or something as simple as "thank you and god bless us all" It is interesting because it really goes to the heart of the issue. Under this ruling her speech obviously violates separation of church and state as the other students would have been forced to listen to her try and convert them. However, do phrases such as "god bless you" fall into this category as well? Politicians say "god bless America" all the time, which is fine because no one is forced to listen to them. However, is it ok for Bush to say god bless you to troops who are required to attend a speech? Is it ok for him to talk about god in such a situation?

[kiahzero]

172. A comment at the end would probably be OK

It'd be divisive and unnecessary, but I don't think that it would be much of an issue - largely because the school district wouldn't be able to do anything about it before the speech was already over.

However, do phrases such as "god bless you" fall into this category as well?

Probably not, since there's a certain amount of tolerance for minor breeches of the law; while precedent followed strictly would probably hold such an utterance to be outside the bounds, I have my doubts that a court would be so committed to enforcing the Establishment Clause to actually rule against a school district in such a case.

However, is it ok for Bush to say god bless you to troops who are required to attend a speech? Is it ok for him to talk about god in such a situation?

Legally, it's probably OK because the rules for schools are stricter than the rules for other institutions. For instance, it's acceptable to open public meetings with an invocation (so long as there is no offical bias towards one particular faith), whereas a similar invocation at a school ceremony such as a graduation would be wholly inappropriate and unconstitutional.

[neebob]

174. "... because it wasn't what I wanted to say."

I don't believe that.

I'd like to know what Brittany McComb's classmates have to say and what particular faith she claims, but it's a little hard to find among 28,000 mostly right-wing Google hits.

For now, my guess is she felt it was her responsibility to preach to her classmates, and when the school officials told her she couldn't do it, it came down to her personal salvation. Say it the school's way, deny Jesus (in her mind), and suffer the eternal consequences, or go ahead and be persecuted.

The little twit can't even tell the truth about why she did it: because Jesus would be mad.

[arwalden]

181. Whaaaaah!

[Bill McBlueState]

193. I wonder what their general policy is

I wonder what their general policy is for speech that contains the imagery of excruciating death and bloodbaths. After Columbine, etc., I think school districts are understandably on the watch for kids who fixate on violence.

[neebob]

195. I'd like to see the guidelines she was given

and the edited version of her speech.

[U4ikLefty]

203. When she falsely agreed to the "approved speech" wasn't she "bearing

false witness", a violation of one of God's commandments?

[Raster]

216. yes, and justifying it was O.K. because, ultimately, she was doing Gawd's

work. Once you decide you've got the backing of the Almighty, you can justify all kinds of things. Blowing up buses, flying planes into buildings, hell, even burning people at the stake.

I was raised in a religious environment and for years I believed that "taking the Lord's name in vain" meant saying goddammit. I no longer believe that. I now believe taking the Lord's name in vain is presuming that you speak for God/Goddess. Look at george dumbya. I truly believe that he has himself convinced that he is doing the Lord's work and all his actions are part of some higher plan.

[yellowcanine]

218. The fundy way is to say "Gawd-duh" Two syllables. Get with the program.

[MUSTANG_2004]

221. No, you abbreviated the commandment

The ninth commandment is "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."