PDA

View Full Version : With his speech, valedictorian brings God to graduation




Brett85
06-06-2013, 10:04 PM
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/06/hear-what-valedictorian-said-for-cheers/comment-page-2/#comments

LibertyEagle
06-06-2013, 10:22 PM
Good for the kid. That took guts.

Neil Desmond
06-06-2013, 11:02 PM
These people sure do like to impose their theistic agenda on everyone else whenever they have an opportunity to abuse, such as with their religious chants during what is supposed to be an academic convocation. This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state. I wonder if the reaction will be the same when a muslim, hindu, jewish, buddhist, or valedictorian of some other religion does their own religious chant during what's supposed to be a graduation speech.

Debbie Downer
06-06-2013, 11:49 PM
This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state.

The libertarian position is that government has no right whatsoever to infringe on freedom of speech.

FrankRep
06-06-2013, 11:53 PM
This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state.

I wasn't aware such a libertarian position existed. Besides, this kid is practicing "Freedom of Speech," which, I think, is still a libertarian position.

Debbie Downer
06-07-2013, 12:01 AM
Good. The Freedom From Religion Foundation can go fuck themselves.

AlexAmore
06-07-2013, 12:06 AM
Best part? He's doing a speech at LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL. Holy F***! And freedom of speech is not "imposing" anything.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:07 AM
The libertarian position is that government has no right whatsoever to infringe on freedom of speech.
When did I ever say that government has any right watshoever to infringe on freedom of speech, and what does that have to do with what I quoted? Did I call for his arrest on the grounds that he doesn't have 1st Amendment rights or something? I'm not sure you even understand the difference between freedom of speech and this incident.

FrankRep
06-07-2013, 12:12 AM
When did I ever say that government has any right watshoever to infringe on freedom of speech, and what does that have to do with what I quoted? Did I call for his arrest on the grounds that he doesn't have 1st Amendment rights or something? I'm not sure you even understand the difference between freedom of speech and this incident.

Just admit you made an asinine statement about the non-existent "separation of church and state."

AlexAmore
06-07-2013, 12:12 AM
When did I ever say that government has any right watshoever to infringe on freedom of speech, and what does that have to do with what I quoted? Did I call for his arrest on the grounds that he doesn't have 1st Amendment rights or something? I'm not sure you even understand the difference between freedom of speech and this incident.

Thought experiment! Perhaps if the PUBLIC school did not have rules banning religious speech and preliminary speech reviews, then he wouldn't have thought "F*** this, I'm gonna exercise my freedom of speech, just to spite their asses."

Edit: Oh wait...I just read it was a protest. No thought experiment necessary.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/valedictorian-rips-up-graduation-speech-recites-lords-prayer-to-protest-censorship-97454/

PaulConventionWV
06-07-2013, 12:20 AM
These people sure do like to impose their theistic agenda on everyone else whenever they have an opportunity to abuse, such as with their religious chants during what is supposed to be an academic convocation. This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state. I wonder if the reaction will be the same when a muslim, hindu, jewish, buddhist, or valedictorian of some other religion does their own religious chant during what's supposed to be a graduation speech.

Kid reads a prayer and it's "imposing their theistic agenda on everyone else"... How does a simple graduation speech impose on anyone? Just because it's a public meeting where people of different faiths are going to be in the same room, that doesn't mean the 1st amendment doesn't apply. Reading a speech in a public setting isn't imposing on anyone just because some people might be offended. Taking offense at something like that is only the result of insecurity, anyway. Atheists always are unsure of how other people will take someone else's message, so they feel the need to attack, ridicule, and stifle those who would try to teach people something other than a completely secular position.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:23 AM
I wasn't aware such a libertarian position existed.
Well, I think it's kind of important to be aware of the libertarian positions that exist; many of us on this forum are libertarian types.

http://www.lppa.org/about/the-libertarian-philosophy.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Principles_+_Values.htm


Besides, this kid is practicing "Freedom of Speech," which, I think, is still a libertarian position.
Can a scientist walk into the church of a religion that believes in creationism and start talking about the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, etc? After all, by your logic, wouldn't that also be freedom of speech? Religious ritual wasn't the purpose of going up to that podium and speaking to that audience. The audience isn't there to listen to a religious chant; they're there because students are graduating. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to things like disturbing the peace, trespassing, breach of contract, etc.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:27 AM
Just admit you made an asinine statement about the non-existent "separation of church and state."
You're right that it's non-existent in the sense that this idea of church and state are the same thing or have ever been merged to begin with is itself an asinine myth. I admit that church and state has absolutely no business in being involved with each other at all.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:29 AM
Thought experiment! Perhaps if the PUBLIC school did not have rules banning religious speech and preliminary speech reviews, then he wouldn't have thought "F*** this, I'm gonna exercise my freedom of speech, just to spite their asses."

Edit: Oh wait...I just read it was a protest. No thought experiment necessary.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/valedictorian-rips-up-graduation-speech-recites-lords-prayer-to-protest-censorship-97454/
What was the purpose of this thought experiment exactly?

Debbie Downer
06-07-2013, 12:31 AM
Can a scientist walk into the church of a religion that believes in creationism and start talking about the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, etc? After all, by your logic, wouldn't that also be freedom of speech? Religious ritual wasn't the purpose of going up to that podium and speaking to that audience. The audience isn't there to listen to a religious chant; they're there because students are graduating. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to things like disturbing the peace, trespassing, breach of contract, etc.

I don't think you understand the difference between private organizations and government. The government is bound by the Constitution, private citizens and organizations are not.

FrankRep
06-07-2013, 12:32 AM
Well, I think it's kind of important to be aware of the libertarian positions that exist; many of us on this forum are libertarian types.

http://www.lppa.org/about/the-libertarian-philosophy.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Principles_+_Values.htm


That position is certainly NOT one of the basic tenets of Libertarian philosophy. It would be your own personal viewpoint.



Can a scientist walk into the church of a religion that believes in creationism and start talking about the theory of evolution, the age of the earth, etc? After all, by your logic, wouldn't that also be freedom of speech? Religious ritual wasn't the purpose of going up to that podium and speaking to that audience. The audience isn't there to listen to a religious chant; they're there because students are graduating. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to things like disturbing the peace, trespassing, breach of contract, etc.

The Valedictorian was asked to give a speech. He gave a speech. What's the problem?

AlexAmore
06-07-2013, 12:34 AM
What was the purpose of this thought experiment exactly?

To find the thought process behind his reasoning of giving the religious speech. You said he was imposing his views on the children, I said he may be protesting the state's rules.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:37 AM
Kid reads a prayer and it's "imposing their theistic agenda on everyone else"... How does a simple graduation speech impose on anyone?
He didn't read the speech; he tore it up. You can even see it in the video. Instead, he goes into a religious chant.


Just because it's a public meeting where people of different faiths are going to be in the same room, that doesn't mean the 1st amendment doesn't apply.
It doesn't necessarily mean that it applies; either. But why does everyone keep bringing up freedom of speech. I guess it's a diversion or red herring tactic. They don't usually work well on me, because I try to go based on the facts. Again (and I will say it again and again and again until it gets through to people), I'm not even figgin disputing freedom of speech. If I were, I'd be saying that he ought to be arrested because he doesn't have freedom of speech.


Reading a speech in a public setting isn't imposing on anyone just because some people might be offended.
I didn't argue that being offended was the issue. I'm quite an advocate for offending myself.


Taking offense at something like that is only the result of insecurity, anyway. Atheists always are unsure of how other people will take someone else's message, so they feel the need to attack, ridicule, and stifle those who would try to teach people something other than a completely secular position.
Sure, atheists too. Add them to the list of people who might talk about their stuff instead of giving a relevant graduation speech.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:39 AM
I don't think you understand the difference between private organizations and government. The government is bound by the Constitution, private citizens and organizations are not.
It's a question, not a statement. I want to see what the response is. Your mind reading skills need work.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:43 AM
That position is certainly NOT one of the basic tenets of Libertarian philosophy. It would be your own personal viewpoint.
Ok, fair enough. It's my viewpoint that it is a basic tenet of libertarian philosphy and it's your viewpoint that it isn't a basic tenet of libertarian philosophy. I guess I have no choice but to accept that there are people who are unwilling to communicate.


The Valedictorian was asked to give a speech. He gave a speech. What's the problem?
I explained what it is in my first response on this thread. Furthermore, by doing so I'm also exercising my own freedom of speech. What's the problem?

LibertyEagle
06-07-2013, 12:43 AM
Well, I think it's kind of important to be aware of the libertarian positions that exist; many of us on this forum are libertarian types.

Let's see what the man for which this forum was named after has to say about the issue, shall we?


Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.


The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 12:52 AM
To find the thought process behind his reasoning of giving the religious speech. You said he was imposing his views on the children, I said he may be protesting the state's rules.
Wait a minute, the speech was not religious, the chant was. I never said anything about imposing views, I was talking about theistic agenda. I also wasn't referring to any children (I guess you mean the graduating students); I'm referring to anyone who was attending this graduation, such as members of the student body, family, friends, teachers, etc.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 01:00 AM
Let's see what the man for which this forum was named after has to say about the issue, shall we?





http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Do you expect everyone on this forum to be a mindless drone who agrees or goes along with 100% of everything Ron Paul says? I almost do myself, and this is one of those rare exeptions where the two of us don't see eye to eye. Furthermore, we can probably go back and forth digging up countless quotes by Ron Paul to give each other rebuttals. What exactly was the purpose of quoting me with what you quoted me with in this reply, anyways?

LibertyEagle
06-07-2013, 01:05 AM
Do you expect everyone on this forum to be a mindless drone who agrees or goes along with 100% of everything Ron Paul says? I almost do myself, and this is one of those rare exeptions where the two of us don't see eye to eye. Furthermore, we can probably go back and forth digging up countless quotes by Ron Paul to give each other rebuttals. What exactly was the purpose of quoting me with what you quoted me with in this reply, anyways?

You claimed you were representing "the libertarian view" and the fact of the matter is, that you are not.

You also were completely wrong in your statement about separating church and state. Do you even realize that?

PierzStyx
06-07-2013, 01:18 AM
Ok, fair enough. It's my viewpoint that it is a basic tenet of libertarian philosphy and it's your viewpoint that it isn't a basic tenet of libertarian philosophy. I guess I have no choice but to accept that there are people who are unwilling to communicate.


I explained what it is in my first response on this thread. Furthermore, by doing so I'm also exercising my own freedom of speech. What's the problem?

The problem is that you would use force to keep someone else from practicing their freedom of speech. You can disagree, argue that it is an inappropriate time for this subject, etc. But once you appeal to separation of church and state and argue something should be done to prevent this person from saying these things then you're violating the First Amendment, that person's freedom of speech, and the Non-Aggression Principle since you're using force against a peaceful protest to shut it down. None of those things are "libertarian" in nature. That is the problem.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 01:21 AM
You claimed you were representing "the libertarian view" and the fact of the matter is, that you are not.
No, that's a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what I stated. I said "many of us on this forum are libertarian types." People very rarely, if ever, agree with 100% of everything in a political platform. Ron Paul has his view, I have my view, you have your own view, and there's the libertarian philosophy of separation of church and state which I happen to agree with.


You also were completely wrong in your statement about separating church and state. Do you even realize that?
Do you realize that I stated that this is one of those rare situations where Ron Paul and I don't see eye to eye?

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 01:38 AM
The problem is that you would use force to keep someone else from practicing their freedom of speech. You can disagree, argue that it is an inappropriate time for this subject, etc. But once you appeal to separation of church and state and argue something should be done to prevent this person from saying these things then you're violating the First Amendment, that person's freedom of speech, and the Non-Aggression Principle since you're using force against a peaceful protest to shut it down. None of those things are "libertarian" in nature. That is the problem.
Again (and I will say it again and again and again until it gets through to people), I'm not even figgin disputing freedom of speech. If I were, I'd be saying that he ought to be arrested because he doesn't have freedom of speech.

I'll also add that it's aggression for someone to try to impose their religion on someone else. If it comes to it, it's ok for someone to use force against someone else who's trying to impose their religion on them.

FrankRep
06-07-2013, 01:45 AM
there's the libertarian philosophy of separation of church and state which I happen to agree with.



The Libertarian Philosophy (http://www.lppa.org/about/the-libertarian-philosophy.html)

Separation Of Church And State

Libertarians insist upon strict separation of church and state (as built into the Constitution by our founding fathers).


What the Constitution Actually Says:


Amendment I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)


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.


The Valedictorian's speech did NOT involve Congress. This is the second time you made this asinine statement.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 01:57 AM
What the Constitution Actually Says:


Amendment I (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment)


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.


The Valedictorian's speech did NOT involve Congress. This is the second time you made this asinine statement.
You're cherry picking.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 02:23 AM
These people sure do like to impose their theistic agenda on everyone else whenever they have an opportunity to abuse, such as with their religious chants during what is supposed to be an academic convocation. This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state. I wonder if the reaction will be the same when a muslim, hindu, jewish, buddhist, or valedictorian of some other religion does their own religious chant during what's supposed to be a graduation speech.

1) There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution.
2) Taking away someone's 1st amendment rights is not a "libertarian position. Ron Paul rightly advocated freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 02:25 AM
I'll also add that it's aggression for someone to try to impose their religion on someone else. If it comes to it, it's ok for someone to use force against someone else who's trying to impose their religion on them.

So it's aggression for me to try to convince you that my religion is the correct religion? I don't have the right to speak freely and try to convince others through pursuasion that my religion is the correct one?

asurfaholic
06-07-2013, 04:24 AM
So it's aggression for me to try to convince you that my religion is the correct religion? I don't have the right to speak freely and try to convince others through pursuasion that my religion is the correct one?

Yes. That's right, and since you are assaulting me with God, I now have the right to use force to make you stop.







/ trying out this whole "I hate god people" thing

Nobexliberty
06-07-2013, 07:31 AM
These people sure do like to impose their theistic agenda on everyone else whenever they have an opportunity to abuse, such as with their religious chants during what is supposed to be an academic convocation. This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state. I wonder if the reaction will be the same when a muslim, hindu, jewish, buddhist, or valedictorian of some other religion does their own religious chant during what's supposed to be a graduation speech.
Aren't tradional western morals based on the bible? Because i think it is and a goverment without any religion to back on is impossible.

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2013, 07:52 AM
The libertarian solution is obvious: abolish government schooling camps. Any "rights violation" committed by the student is pretty minimal compared to that.

"I was just forced to be interred in a mindless propaganda camp for the past 12 years, and then on the day they released me, I had to hear a prayer. Ouch! My ears hurt!"

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 02:33 PM
1) There is no separation of church and state mentioned in the Constitution.
I didn't mention the Constitution & the Constitution also doesn't mention combining church and state either.


2) Taking away someone's 1st amendment rights is not a "libertarian position. Ron Paul rightly advocated freedom of speech and religious liberty.
Again (and I will say it again and again and again until it gets through to people), I'm not even friggin' disputing freedom of speech. If I were, I'd be saying that he ought to be arrested because he doesn't have freedom of speech.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 02:44 PM
So it's aggression for me to try to convince you that my religion is the correct religion?
If you try to use the state to coerce or force me to worship your religion, give some of my money to it, etc., then yes, that's aggression.


I don't have the right to speak freely and try to convince others through pursuasion that my religion is the correct one?
That depends. In many cases I suppose you do, but you can't for example walk into someone's house uninvited and do that.

Blueskies
06-07-2013, 03:02 PM
If I had been there, would you guys arguing free speech have been OK with me shouting him down?

"SHUT UP! GET OFF THE STAGE IDIOT! GOD IS DEAD"

Would that've been cool?

Sonny Tufts
06-07-2013, 03:08 PM
Since the prayer was the student's own idea and wasn't instigated by government officials, I don't see a First Amendment issue. There is no right to not be offended, so the possibility that someone in the audience might be turned off by the prayer is beside the point. The purpose of the separation of church and state in this context is to insure that the government doesn't promote religious beliefs.

Whether this was an appropriate occasion for the student to express his beliefs through prayer is another matter. He might want to read Matthew 6:5-6:


5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 03:27 PM
If you try to use the state to coerce or force me to worship your religion, give some of my money to it, etc., then yes, that's aggression.

How does it force you to worship the Christian religion by having a kid recite the Lord's prayer at a graduation ceremony? That's the issue we're discussing, not some theoretical law passed by Congress that would force you to follow the Christian religion. No one here supports that.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 03:28 PM
Whether this was an appropriate occasion for the student to express his beliefs through prayer is another matter. He might want to read Matthew 6:5-6:

The Bible also says to go out and make disciples of all nations. No one is going to be converted to Christianity if Christians just keep their religious beliefs to themselves.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 03:30 PM
If I had been there, would you guys arguing free speech have been OK with me shouting him down?

"SHUT UP! GET OFF THE STAGE IDIOT! GOD IS DEAD"

Would that've been cool?

Sure, but I also wouldn't have a problem with a few of the bigger men there escorting you out of the room.

tod evans
06-07-2013, 03:31 PM
Didn't click the link but it's good to know one young man out there has the balls to stand up and speak his mind.

I'm all for Neil speaking his too (even though I disagree with him)

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 04:01 PM
Aren't tradional western morals based on the bible? Because i think it is and a goverment without any religion to back on is impossible.
The purpose of government isn't to impose morals, it's to impose laws. People can be moral but not law abiding; and people can be law abiding, but immoral. I don't think that religion is the only way to get morals, and I also don't think that religion necessarily makes a person moral.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 04:24 PM
How does it force you to worship the Christian religion by having a kid recite the Lord's prayer at a graduation ceremony?
This is a loaded question that doesn't follow from what you quoted of me.


That's the issue we're discussing, not some theoretical law passed by Congress that would force you to follow the Christian religion. No one here supports that.
Who's "we"? You're trying to alter the issue that we're discussing into something designed to have a more favorable outcome for your agenda.

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 04:28 PM
Sure, but I also wouldn't have a problem with a few of the bigger men there escorting you out of the room.
Would you have a problem with a few of the bigger men there escorting the religion chanter out of the room?

Neil Desmond
06-07-2013, 04:30 PM
Didn't click the link but it's good to know one young man out there has the balls to stand up and speak his mind.

I'm all for Neil speaking his too (even though I disagree with him)
Thank you, tod; and I also don't require that people have to agree with me.

heavenlyboy34
06-07-2013, 04:33 PM
The purpose of government isn't to impose morals, it's to impose laws. People can be moral but not law abiding; and people can be law abiding, but immoral. I don't think that religion is the only way to get morals, and I also don't think that religion necessarily makes a person moral.
These two concepts are inseperable. When you enforce a law, you by nature of that are imposing your morality. Law without morality invariably destroys society. We have no way to make value judgments of laws without morality. i.e.- Is it wrong to outlaw pot? If so, why? Answering these sort of questions will invariably force you to make a value judgement-tacitly or explicitly moral.

JCDenton0451
06-07-2013, 04:59 PM
Good for the kid. That took guts.

To quote one of the commenters from the CNN article:

"Will the school administration sit quietly as an atheist valedictorian decides to give a two minute talk about the nonexistence of God?"

Now, that would really take some guts in South Carolina!

VIDEODROME
06-07-2013, 05:01 PM
If another student has the same freedom to express Paganism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Islam, Judiaism, or Voodoo, or any other Religious-ism as well as Secularism than I'm fine with this.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 05:02 PM
To quote one of the commenters from the CNN article:

"Will the school administration sit quietly as an atheist valedictorian decides to give a two minute talk about the nonexistence of God?"

Now, that would really take some guts in South Carolina!

I wouldn't have any problem with that. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind and say what they want, whether what they say is controversial or not.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 05:05 PM
Would you have a problem with a few of the bigger men there escorting the religion chanter out of the room?

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. People that attend a graduation ceremony are expected to be quiet when someone is speaking. If someone decided to start screaming during a valedictorian's speech, that person should really consider whether they've actually entered into adulthood and whether they have some severe mental problems that need examining.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 05:07 PM
This is a loaded question that doesn't follow from what you quoted of me.

Why? That's what the discussion is actually about. We're discussing whether it's Constitutional or not for a valedictorian to mention God or religion in his or her speech. My view is that it's Constitutional, and that it would in fact be unconstitutional to prevent a valedictorian from mentioning religion during his or her speech.

Christian Liberty
06-07-2013, 05:07 PM
These two concepts are inseperable. When you enforce a law, you by nature of that are imposing your morality. Law without morality invariably destroys society. We have no way to make value judgments of laws without morality. i.e.- Is it wrong to outlaw pot? If so, why? Answering these sort of questions will invariably force you to make a value judgement-tacitly or explicitly moral.

While technically true, generally "Enforcing morality" does mean going beyond enforcing the NAP.


You're cherry picking.

No, he's correct. THe 1st amendment only applies to Congress, not the States or the People.

Weston White
06-07-2013, 05:36 PM
Since the prayer was the student's own idea and wasn't instigated by government officials, I don't see a First Amendment issue. There is no right to not be offended, so the possibility that someone in the audience might be turned off by the prayer is beside the point. The purpose of the separation of church and state in this context is to insure that the government doesn't promote religious beliefs.

So very false. As to religion, the I Amendment serves to prevent churches from establishing themselves under a theocracy and the government from restricting or denying religion to its citizenry. America has been founded wholly upon Christianity. Perhaps a rereading of our Declaration of Independence (also see the closing of both the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution—“Y/year of our Lord”) will refresh you blighted mind?

There is nothing unconstitutional or otherwise illegal with a government agent, official, or representative discussing religion or stating a prayer, much less the students of a public school.

The irony in all of this is that the public education system has omitted proper religion from its classrooms and covertly replaced it with paganistic notions and beliefs.

“Human legislatures can undertake only to prescribe the actions of men: they acknowledge their inability to govern and direct the sentiments of the heart. . . . It is one of the greatest marks of Divine favor . . . that [God] gave them rules . . . for the government of the heart.”
[John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son as the Bible and its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 62, fn. 211]

“The precepts of philosophy . . . laid hold of actions only. He [Jesus] pushed His scrutinies into the heart of man, erected His tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.”
[Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies (1830), Vol. III, p. 509, from Jefferson’s “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus Compared with Those of Others,” to Dr. Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803, fn. 212]

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry [hypocrisy] would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was make only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
[John Adams, Works (1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, to the Offices of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798, fn. 213]

“[T]hree points of doctrine . . . from the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immorality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. . . . [Let] a man . . . disbelieve either of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark; the laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.”
[John Quincy Adams, Letters … to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings, pp. 22-23, fn. 214]

“[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
[Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1748, fn. 215]

“When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principles and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated . . . by religion and education.”
[Jones, Biographical Sketches, pp.6-7, fn. 216]

“[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important.”
[Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut Now in Session, fn. 217]

“[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible. We increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.”
[Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore: The Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14, fn. 218]

“Without the restraints of religion . . . men become savages.”
[Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, for the American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 505, “To American Farmers About to Settle in New Parts of the United States,” March 1789, fn. 219]

“Let it simply be asked, ‘Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert…?”
[George Washington, Address … Preparatory to His Declination, p. 23, fn. 220]

“[T]he cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness, . . . inspires respect for and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric.”
[Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster's Address at the Laying of the Cornerstone of the Addition to the Capitol, July 4, 1851 (Washington: Gideon and Co., 1851), p. 23, fn. 221]

“[T]he education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention . . . for it is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system for preserving moral than to correct by penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system.”
[Noah Webster, A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings on Moral, Historical, Political, and Literary Subjects (Boston: Isaiah Thomas and E. T. Andrews, 1790), p. 22, from his “On the Education of youth in America” (1788), fn. 222]

“[To] promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when those prevail, civil laws will have little to do.”
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, pp. 118-119, from his Lectures on Moral Philosophy, Lecture 14, on Jurisprudence, fn. 223]

“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
[Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1852), p. 172, from an Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Bible Society in Boston, May 28, 1849, fn. 224]

“We regard it [public education] as a wise and liberal system of police by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured. We seek to prevent in some measure the extension of the penal code by inspiring a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in an early age. . . . [W]e seek . . . to turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the censures of the law and the denunciations of religion, against immorality and crime.”
[Daniel Webster, Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. I, pp. 41-42, from a speech at Plymouth on December 22, 1820, fn. 225]

“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. . . . [by] the universal education of our youth in the principles . . . of the Bible.”
[Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel Bradford, 1798), p. 112, from his “Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book” (March 10, 1781), fn. 226]

“My mother was the daughter of a Christian clergyman, and therefore bred in the faith of deliberate detestation of war. . . . Yet, in that same spring and summer of 1775, she taught me to repeat daily, after the Lord's Prayer, before rising from bed, the Ode of Collins on the patriot warriors. . . . Of the impression made upon my heart by the sentiments inculcated in those beautiful effusions of patriotism and poetry you may form an estimate by the fact that now, seventy-one years after they were thus taught me, I repeat them from memory without reference to the book.”
[John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, pp. 5-6, to Mr. Sturge, 1846, fn. 232]

Weston White
06-07-2013, 05:50 PM
The purpose of government isn't to impose morals, it's to impose laws. People can be moral but not law abiding; and people can be law abiding, but immoral. I don't think that religion is the only way to get morals, and I also don't think that religion necessarily makes a person moral.

Except that public laws are intended to be representative in upholding moral values throughout society, nothing more and nothing less; which is what the Bible is ultimately all about. Violating the virtues inherent therein tend to lead to violating the public order (e.g., it is not illegal to covet, though coveting can lead to conversion, theft, stealing, fraud; hating is not illegal in itself, though may result in vandalism, assault, battery, murder; etc.)

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2013, 08:18 PM
Why? That's what the discussion is actually about. We're discussing whether it's Constitutional or not for a valedictorian to mention God or religion in his or her speech. My view is that it's Constitutional, and that it would in fact be unconstitutional to prevent a valedictorian from mentioning religion during his or her speech.

As a strict Constitutional constructionist, I find basically everything you said in the above paragraph bizarre. Just the whole frame of the conversation...totally bizarre. Things that happen at schools are not "Constitutional" or "unconstitutional;" constitutionality just doesn't apply. The Constitution applies to junk Congress (and the rest of the FedGov) does -- all of which is *un*constitutional, by the way (Ok, 99%). The Constitution was written to restrict the FedGov, not to restrict us.

So all Constitutional arguments fail here. At the time of the Constitution's ratification (supposed ratification, actually illegal counter-coup) in fact, Massachusetts had a State-established Church. And continued to for many decades afterward. This was not unconstitutional. For the FedGov to interfere with their state church would have been unconstitutional. That was the whole point. Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion. Not one way, not the other. They're to just butt out.

The Libertarian question then is whether it is right to have a state church. The answer is of course no, even though it's Constitutional. Having state-run education violates this totally. A state school is, of course, educating its wards in *something*. That something is beliefs. The "high school" is nothing but a seminary, and the "elementary school" an intensive daily Sunday School. This is the real problem you should be getting upset about, Neil, IMHO. Details of what specific beliefs are promulgated in the state seminary system do not alter the fundamental offensiveness of it. Whether singing Baby Beluga, or chanting the Pledge of Subservience, or listening to the Lord's Prayer, it's all state religion, and it's all wrong. Abolish the seminaries! Empty the cult camps! Save -- yes -- The Children(TM)!

Brett85
06-07-2013, 08:20 PM
Whether this was an appropriate occasion for the student to express his beliefs through prayer is another matter. He might want to read Matthew 6:5-6:

Christ also commanded Christians to go and make disciples of all nations. He never told Christians to keep quiet about their beliefs.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 08:24 PM
As a strict Constitutional constructionist, I find basically everything you said in the above paragraph bizarre. Just the whole frame of the conversation...totally bizarre. Things that happen at schools are not "Constitutional" or "unconstitutional;" constitutionality just doesn't apply. The Constitution applies to junk Congress (and the rest of the FedGov) does -- all of which is *un*constitutional, by the way (Ok, 99%). The Constitution was written to restrict the FedGov, not to restrict us.

So all Constitutional arguments fail here. At the time of the Constitution's ratification (supposed ratification, actually illegal counter-coup) in fact, Massachusetts had a State-established Church. And continued to for many decades afterward. This was not unconstitutional. For the FedGov to interfere with their state church would have been unconstitutional. That was the whole point. Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion. Not one way, not the other. They're to just butt out.

The Libertarian question then is whether it is right to have a state church. The answer is of course no, even though it's Constitutional. Having state-run education violates this totally. A state school is, of course, educating its wards in *something*. That something is beliefs. The "high school" is nothing but a seminary, and the "elementary school" an intensive daily Sunday School. This is the real problem you should be getting upset about, Neil, IMHO. Details of what specific beliefs are promulgated in the state seminary system do not alter the fundamental offensiveness of it. Whether singing Baby Beluga, or chanting the Pledge of Subservience, or listening to the Lord's Prayer, it's all state religion, and it's all wrong. Abolish the seminaries! Empty the cult camps! Save -- yes -- The Children(TM)!

I basically agree with everything you said. However, I don't believe that a state government or a local government should have the right to violate freedom of speech, which was my point. I don't believe that a school district actually has the right to punish a student simply because the student has certain religious beliefs that they expressed publicly. In my opinion that violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment. Would it be Constitutional in your view for public school officials to punish a student for advocating libertarian political views in the classroom?

kcchiefs6465
06-07-2013, 08:42 PM
To quote one of the commenters from the CNN article:

"Will the school administration sit quietly as an atheist valedictorian decides to give a two minute talk about the nonexistence of God?"

Now, that would really take some guts in South Carolina!
That's a good question. I generally think that many Christians would be angered by this.



If another student has the same freedom to express Paganism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Islam, Judiaism, or Voodoo, or any other Religious-ism as well as Secularism than I'm fine with this.
I somewhat agree.


If I had been there, would you guys arguing free speech have been OK with me shouting him down?

"SHUT UP! GET OFF THE STAGE IDIOT! GOD IS DEAD"

Would that've been cool?


Sure, but I also wouldn't have a problem with a few of the bigger men there escorting you out of the room.


I wouldn't have any problem with that. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind and say what they want, whether what they say is controversial or not.
If someone was giving a speech at a graduation on the illegitimacy of religion or some other atheist view and a Christian man yelled out something or began to boo, would you support the removing of them from the venue?

At the end of the day I guess I'm just of the opinion that there's a time and a place for everything. If someone wants to thank God in his graduation speech that is one thing, but if they were to go on and on preaching the word of Christ, that's something else. It's a tricky situation. I don't really have a concrete opinion and am open to hear the debate from both sides.

Me personally, it would not bother me. I could see the argument from those who may be strict ____ and feel it is a violation towards their God to listen. (imo that would be a strange God if it could not understand your intentions or what have you, but whatever.. someone would probably feel violated)

This is an interesting thread.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 08:48 PM
If someone was giving a speech at a graduation on the illegitimacy of religion or some other atheist view and a Christian man yelled out something or began to boo, would you support the removing of them from the venue?

Yes, I believe I would. I think that the audience should be respectful of the speaker, even if the speaker is saying things that some members of the audience believe are offensive. If people don't like it they can just walk out and leave.

kcchiefs6465
06-07-2013, 08:59 PM
Yes, I believe I would. I think that the audience should be respectful of the speaker, even if the speaker is saying things that some members of the audience believe are offensive. If people don't like it they can just walk out and leave.
There is a time and place for things though. I wouldn't support someone giving their graduation speech to go off on a tangent about atheism or whatever. Many people worked very hard to get to that place, family came from all over to see... it wouldn't be the place. So if the crowd starting booing the speaker and the administration removed them from the stage, I would have no problem with that. It wasn't the appropriate time and place to give that speech.

Now if someone was giving a graduation speech and said, "I want to thank God, who through him all things are possible," and left it at that, I'd be fine. If someone in the crowd booed or started yelling something I would support the removal of them from the venue. If, however, the speaker used the time to condemn Non-Christians in the crowd to a life of hell fire and went off on a tangent, I would support if people booed or he was asked to quit speaking.

Know your venue. You may get away with certain things certain places that other places will have you booed off stage. South Carolina, the Bible was probably a safe bet. Had he been quoting the Koran he may not have gotten a good response. And that response coming from the same Christians who get upset that the Ten Commandments can't be posted in school. Though frankly, it's all a little bit silly to me.

kcchiefs6465
06-07-2013, 09:02 PM
When I say "it's all a little bit silly to me" I am referring to people in general and the way they act. Just for a clarification.

matt0611
06-07-2013, 09:13 PM
Saying a prayer or talking about God in a speech at a graduation ceremony at a school is not "congress establishing a religion" and is completely Constitutional.

That is all.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 09:20 PM
There is a time and place for things though. I wouldn't support someone giving their graduation speech to go off on a tangent about atheism or whatever.

I wouldn't "support" it, but I would support their right to do it. I wouldn't want to use the force of government to prevent the atheist student from expressing his or her beliefs.

Christian Liberty
06-07-2013, 09:28 PM
Now if someone was giving a graduation speech and said, "I want to thank God, who through him all things are possible," and left it at that, I'd be fine. If someone in the crowd booed or started yelling something I would support the removal of them from the venue. If, however, the speaker used the time to condemn Non-Christians in the crowd to a life of hell fire and went off on a tangent, I would support if people booed or he was asked to quit speaking.


He didn't condemn anyone to hellfire though. Although even if he did that, I wouldn't use government to stop them from doing it. If you don't like it, privatize the school system...

kcchiefs6465
06-07-2013, 09:33 PM
I wouldn't "support" it, but I would support their right to do it. I wouldn't want to use the force of government to prevent the atheist student from expressing his or her beliefs.
I was not referring to the use of force by the government.

You have to understand, there is a time and a place for everything. Controversial statements, especially depending on where you are or the importance of the event to others will have a reaction. Perhaps that could be the intent of the hypothetical speaker.. to troll the graduation. Them simply being removed and told to get the fuck out could very well be the best thing that could happen. There is a time and place for everything. The first thing about giving a speech that I would tell someone is to 'know' your audience.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 09:37 PM
I was not referring to the use of force by the government.

You have to understand, there is a time and a place for everything. Controversial statements, especially depending on where you are or the importance of the event to others will have a reaction. Perhaps that could be the intent of the hypothetical speaker.. to troll the graduation. Them simply being removed and told to get the fuck out could very well be the best thing that could happen. There is a time and place for everything. The first thing about giving a speech that I would tell someone is to 'know' your audience.

The issue here goes beyond whether it's "appropriate" to give a speech like this in this venue. It's also an issue of legality in our country. This school had a policy of not allowing any mention of God in graduation speeches, because atheist groups had threatened them with lawsuits if they allowed their students to mention God or religion in graduation speeches. It goes to a larger issue of whether the establishment clause of the 1st amendment actually prohibits a student from talking about God in a graduation speech. Obviously, it doesn't. It simply says that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. This has abolutely nothing to do with Congress passing any law.

kcchiefs6465
06-07-2013, 09:40 PM
He didn't condemn anyone to hellfire though. Although even if he did that, I wouldn't use government to stop them from doing it. If you don't like it, privatize the school system...
Quite frankly, I personally don't care. Him saying the Lord's prayer was short and concise. I wouldn't have erupted into applause or praise about it either. I would have bowed my head to show respect.

The reaction kind of falls back onto my statement that I find this all kind of silly. I'm sure God looks down on them with good graces after they whistled or clapped louder than anyone else. :rolleyes: It's like wearing one of those colored rubber bracelets they have.. for the different causes. Just not my style.

kcchiefs6465
06-07-2013, 09:49 PM
The issue here goes beyond whether it's "appropriate" to give a speech like this in this venue. It's also an issue of legality in our country. This school had a policy of not allowing any mention of God in graduation speeches, because atheist groups had threatened them with lawsuits if they allowed their students to mention God or religion in graduation speeches. It goes to a larger issue of whether the establishment clause of the 1st amendment actually prohibits a student from talking about God in a graduation speech. Obviously, it doesn't. It simply says that Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. This has abolutely nothing to do with Congress passing any law.
This falls back on my statement that people are silly as well. Take the "In God We Trust" off of the dollar etc. It appears to me that people have the natural inclination to be in someone's business. They get off on it. Being able to force their views or beliefs on someone.

His speech didn't affect anyone. Many actually liked it. But low and behold if there isn't someone who was offended. Well, the news is out. People being offended offends me. (there's for the hope that one of these types reads that and their head explodes at the ridiculousness of that statement) It's all out of hand. The political correctness of everything. It's a joke.

And I'm saying this too, knowing for a fact that should that kid have gone up there, said something in Arabic and quoted a verse from the Koran, the people would have booed almost as unanimously as they cheered. And not a damn thing would be said about the 1st Amendment or anything else. By Christians in particular who I'd like to point out are by and large hypocrites when it comes to this issue. Which is actually another thing I find amusing and rather silly.

Brett85
06-07-2013, 10:13 PM
And I'm saying this too, knowing for a fact that should that kid have gone up there, said something in Arabic and quoted a verse from the Koran, the people would have booed almost as unanimously as they cheered. And not a damn thing would be said about the 1st Amendment or anything else. By Christians in particular who I'd like to point out are by and large hypocrites when it comes to this issue. Which is actually another thing I find amusing and rather silly.

I can't speak for them, but I would stand up for the 1st amendment rights of a Muslim student who wanted to express his or her religious beliefs in a public venue. "Religious liberty" doesn't mean "Christian liberty."

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2013, 10:51 PM
I basically agree with everything you said. However, I don't believe that a state government or a local government should have the right to violate freedom of speech, which was my point. I don't believe that a school district actually has the right to punish a student simply because the student has certain religious beliefs that they expressed publicly. In my opinion that violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment. Would it be Constitutional in your view for public school officials to punish a student for advocating libertarian political views in the classroom?

Yes, absolutely. The Constitution just doesn't come into it. Right and wrong do, as always. But the Constitution doesn't put limits and restrictions on states and local thugs, generally speaking. So, let's say the local sheriff murders someone and then exonerates himself because he's the coroner, too. Not unconstitutional. A gross violation of rights, etc., but not under the federal government's purview, for better or worse. Or Illinois passes a tax on income. Horribly tyrannical, totally immoral and disgusting, but not banned in the Constitution. That's federalism. The overarching gov of the confederation does very little, and the member states do whatever they want, possibly with great variation.

In this case the right or wrong is so mixed up in a system so thoroughly, rancidly corrupt and evil, that to sort out whether it would be more a violation of the speaker's rights to kick him out or the listener's rights to listen to religion being "established" upon them would be impossible and is ludicrous anyway. The rights of everybody there are being violated. Either way.

By the way, you and others keep saying Congress can't establish a religion, which is only half true. It also can't *forbid* any establishment of religion. It can't say yes, it can't say no; it basically just can't do anything regarding religion. That way both Virginia and Massachusetts are happy and join. The federal judges telling the states what to do on these matters are way out of bounds.

DamianTV
06-08-2013, 02:34 AM
My Summary.

I fully do NOT agree with what he said, but will defend his Right to say the thing that I differ on opinion WITH MY LIFE.

(that is to say I dont agree with what you said [hypothetical here]. I'll DIE to protect your right to have said it to begin with, regardless of my opinion of your statement.)

Protect the Right to make a Choice that is Free of Illusion with no regards to the Choice you would have made.

tod evans
06-08-2013, 03:35 AM
This is how things should be..

However in our nation of whiners and hurt feelings crying to a higher authority is the norm..

People used to be tough, able to listen to conflicting opinions and different ideas.....

People also used to be polite in expressing themselves.

Fist-fights and public humiliation used to curb behavior not acceptable to the majority, so if you didn't fit in you moved to where you did.

Things will change..



Yes, absolutely. The Constitution just doesn't come into it. Right and wrong do, as always. But the Constitution doesn't put limits and restrictions on states and local thugs, generally speaking. So, let's say the local sheriff murders someone and then exonerates himself because he's the coroner, too. Not unconstitutional. A gross violation of rights, etc., but not under the federal government's purview, for better or worse. Or Illinois passes a tax on income. Horribly tyrannical, totally immoral and disgusting, but not banned in the Constitution. That's federalism. The overarching gov of the confederation does very little, and the member states do whatever they want, possibly with great variation.

In this case the right or wrong is so mixed up in a system so thoroughly, rancidly corrupt and evil, that to sort out whether it would be more a violation of the speaker's rights to kick him out or the listener's rights to listen to religion being "established" upon them would be impossible and is ludicrous anyway. The rights of everybody there are being violated. Either way.

By the way, you and others keep saying Congress can't establish a religion, which is only half true. It also can't *forbid* any establishment of religion. It can't say yes, it can't say no; it basically just can't do anything regarding religion. That way both Virginia and Massachusetts are happy and join. The federal judges telling the states what to do on these matters are way out of bounds.

VIDEODROME
06-08-2013, 06:07 AM
These two concepts are inseperable. When you enforce a law, you by nature of that are imposing your morality. Law without morality invariably destroys society.

I wonder about this. Does creating Law and the means to enforce common security or things like Contracts really need to equate enforcing morality?

Though I suppose out on the street with Patrol Officers is where morality would have to come into play somehow. Real life situations don't always have an easy By The Book answer.

I guess I'd say The Law is more for common security than morality, but should be crafted in a way that it gives Judges and Police the means to carry out their jobs in a sane way. For example, not implementing lucicrous Zero Tolerance Laws that tie the hands of law enforcement or the courts. That's the stuff Judge Jim Gray was complaining about regarding the tragic Drug Prohibition laws.

I do kind of wonder if Morality written into the Law itself leads to problems like Prohibition actually, but a reasonable law that gives a good judge to exercise Morale Judgement would be a good thing IMO.

Sonny Tufts
06-08-2013, 09:17 AM
America has been founded wholly upon Christianity. Perhaps a rereading of our Declaration of Independence (also see the closing of both the Articles of Confederation and U.S. Constitution—“Y/year of our Lord”) will refresh you blighted mind?

The Declaration never mentions Christ, and the reference to "Our Lord" in the Constitution was simply the way people expressed dates in 1789. Or do you think that if they had dated it "Thursday, January 5" it would men they believed in Thor and Janus?

If America had been founded wholly upon Christianity, the First Amendment wouldn't permit the belief and practice of polytheism and other non-Christian faiths. But it does.

Debbie Downer
06-08-2013, 09:23 AM
If America had been founded wholly upon Christianity, the First Amendment wouldn't permit the belief and practice of polytheism and other non-Christian faiths. But it does.

Of course it wouldn't. Christianity does not rely on force or the threat thereof against those of other faiths, but rather on love and evangelization.

Neil Desmond
06-08-2013, 07:39 PM
These two concepts are inseperable. When you enforce a law, you by nature of that are imposing your morality. Law without morality invariably destroys society. We have no way to make value judgments of laws without morality. i.e.- Is it wrong to outlaw pot? If so, why? Answering these sort of questions will invariably force you to make a value judgement-tacitly or explicitly moral.
Morals determine what's right and wrong, but the state doesn't necessarily make laws that are consistent with morals. There are immoral laws, moral things that are not mandated by law, or immoral things that aren't banned by law. Some people (such as erowe1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?3403-erowe1)) hold the position that the state is inherently evil; I think that this kind of thing would imply that laws and morals are mutually exclusive. It's wrong to outlaw pot (because there is no victim), yet it's outlawed anyways; on the other hand, you have things that are considered immoral, such as lying and abortion, yet they're usually legal.

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about the idea of something that destroys society. That seems very broad and vague. For example, someone might say that divorce, or acts or situations that lead to divorce, destroys society because it destroys the family, and family is a key or the core of society (or something to that effect); but we do have divorce and people are still around and have day jobs, the hospitals are still open, you can still go to the store and buy stuff, the trains or planes still run on schedule, etc. In that case the idea that society has been destroyed is really just referring to a superficial change or difference in a characteristic of society, not that everyone got wiped out of existence as if they had all succumbed to some sort of deadly plague.

liberty2897
06-08-2013, 07:45 PM
Of course it wouldn't. Christianity does not rely on force or the threat thereof against those of other faiths, but rather on love and evangelization.

That may be true of the christian philosophy, but it sure doesn't seem to be true of Christians in general. No, not looking for a fight. Just an observation of mine.

Neil Desmond
06-08-2013, 08:04 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.
The question is based on the statement you made, with the only difference being that I'm referring to the valedictorian instead of the hypothetical heckler. It's a simple yes or no question; you either have a problem with it or you don't. It's not something that I know how to break down into something more basic than that.


People that attend a graduation ceremony are expected to be quiet when someone is speaking.
Freedom of speech means not having to be quiet. What happened to freedom of speech? Now it doesn't matter, anymore? Seems to me like you're smashing the foundation of your argument, here.

You also state that you don't have a problem with a few of the bigger men escorting the heckler out of the room; what if the heckler doesn't want to be escorted out of the room and chooses to remain in the room?


If someone decided to start screaming during a valedictorian's speech, that person should really consider whether they've actually entered into adulthood and whether they have some severe mental problems that need examining.
Not entering adulthood and having severe mental problems that need examining are not crimes or reasons for having a few of the bigger men there escort a heckler out of a room. The same argument could be made about the religion chanter who tore up the speech and the members of the audience who applauded - maybe these individuals should also really consider whether they've actually entered into adulthood and whether they have some severe mental problems that need examining.

emazur
06-08-2013, 08:38 PM
Something tells me the people defending this guy's speech wouldn't take so kindly to him bringing up religion in a public school function if he had instead said something like "you are your brother's keeper, so socialism is justified" - the same argument that Obama used when running in 2008 - see 37:00 into the video "McBama vs. America":
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_mcbama_vs_america

Get a clue people - even if you are Christian you shouldn't want Christianity anywhere near public schools. The government will hijack it and mold it to suit its agenda in much the same way it has hijacked History, Social Studies, American Government, Civics, Economics, and more.

Quoting the article "Free to Be" from Liberty magazine:
The state might find Christianity useful, but that usefulness is dangerous to the church... When the church gets too close to the state, it stops speaking prophetically about the dangers the state represents. Conservatives seem to recognize the dangers in a powerful state. Whey, then, would we want to risk that voice by becoming a tool for the state to create a more stable society?

And what of the quality of Christians that are already out there? How likely is it that this valedictorian is a Ron Pauler rather than a Santorum shill? Chuck Baldwin wrote an article about the modern state of Christianity - Good for Nothing Christians (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin520.htm):


It grieves me to say that, for the most part, the modern Christian, the modern pastor, and the modern church have lost their savor. Taken as a whole, we have lost our inner character: the ability to resist decay and preserve the land has long departed, and America is fast being "trodden under foot of men."

Truth is about as popular as a bad case of the measles, and yes, I mean among today's professing "Christians."

Should it surprise us, then, that we see the encroachment of our liberties and the erosion of constitutional government coming hard and fast? Should it surprise us that America is losing its conscience--not to mention our heritage?

Guess what - you're not gonna get a bunch of Chuck Baldwins in the public schools, the Rick Santorums of the world will far outnumber them. So do yourself a favor and agree that there should be a separation of church and state (and the public schools are VERY much wards of the state) and do atheists and non-Christian religionists a favor by not subjecting us not only to what we don't want to hear but to what would be corrupting if we did hear - state co-opted religious messages.

Brett85
06-08-2013, 08:41 PM
Something tells me the people defending this guy's speech wouldn't take so kindly to him bringing up religion in a public school function if he had instead said something like "you are your brother's keeper, so socialism is justified" - the same argument that Obama used when running in 2008 - see 37:00 into the video "McBama vs. America"

I probably wouldn't like it very much, but I would absolutely support his right to make such a statement. If it offended me, I could choose to walk out and leave the building.

Neil Desmond
06-08-2013, 08:58 PM
Why?
It's a loaded question because I never stated or claimed that the problem with what the valedictorian did was something that forced anyone to worship a religion. If that wasn't your intention then what you quoted of me is not cohesive with your response - in which case, what was the point or purpose of quoting what you quoted of me?


That's what the discussion is actually about. We're discussing whether it's Constitutional or not for a valedictorian to mention God or religion in his or her speech.
I'll try this again - who's "we"? You might be talking about that, but that's not what I'm discussing or talking about. If you want to dispute me and claim that it is, that's fine; please point out to me what it is that I said that seems to be giving you that impression. Your use of the word "we" is ambiguous; it's not even clear to me if you're trying to imply or claim that it is what I'm discussing or talking about. Something somewhere needs to be clarified, somehow, so I can at least find out where I'm making a mistake about what I've said; I don't even know where to look or find what you could be referring to. Provide more info to fill in the gaps, otherwise I'm just going to base my responses on the premise that you're just writing random and incohesive things.


My view is that it's Constitutional, and that it would in fact be unconstitutional to prevent a valedictorian from mentioning religion during his or her speech.
Well, I myself haven't have not gotten to addressing what my view is on that. It doesn't mean I agree, disagree, or care to address this issue (for now, at least).

Neil Desmond
06-08-2013, 09:11 PM
I probably wouldn't like it very much, but I would absolutely support his right to make such a statement. If it offended me, I could choose to walk out and leave the building.
I think now we're getting somewhere, here. That's what my point is about. The valedictorian chooses to say or do something religious or not, and you choose to walk out or not. Neither of those things inolved force.

Now, since not everyone, including me, attended this graduation so they could have the opportunity to walk out on it, I'm doing so "virtually" (i.e., something in lieu of walking out) via the statement I made in post #3. That's all I'm doing; I'm not talking about constitutional rights nor did I even bring it into the discussion. I'm also trying to argue that in an abstract sense covers the idea that if you wanted to walk out but were not permitted to do so, that would be force, coersion, or aggression I had been referring to. Now do you see my point?

Brett85
06-09-2013, 04:09 AM
I think now we're getting somewhere, here. That's what my point is about. The valedictorian chooses to say or do something religious or not, and you choose to walk out or not. Neither of those things inolved force.

Now, since not everyone, including me, attended this graduation so they could have the opportunity to walk out on it, I'm doing so "virtually" (i.e., something in lieu of walking out) via the statement I made in post #3. That's all I'm doing; I'm not talking about constitutional rights nor did I even bring it into the discussion. I'm also trying to argue that in an abstract sense covers the idea that if you wanted to walk out but were not permitted to do so, that would be force, coersion, or aggression I had been referring to. Now do you see my point?

I think my main problem was with this original sentence that you wrote:

"This totally goes against libertarian position of strict separation of church and state."

I don't believe in a "strict separation of church and state" when the Constitution itself doesn't contain that phrase. The 1st amendment only says that Congress can't pass a law establishing any religion. But, if you had simply said from the beginning that you personally oppose what this kid said but support his right to say it, I wouldn't have had any problem with that. I have a problem with the idea that a valedictorian giving a speech at a graduation ceremony violates the "separation of church and state."

Weston White
06-10-2013, 02:07 AM
The Declaration never mentions Christ, and the reference to "Our Lord" in the Constitution was simply the way people expressed dates in 1789. Or do you think that if they had dated it "Thursday, January 5" it would men they believed in Thor and Janus?

If America had been founded wholly upon Christianity, the First Amendment wouldn't permit the belief and practice of polytheism and other non-Christian faiths. But it does.

See what happens when one speaks out from their own ass? They expose themselves among those foolish. Well, I take it that you didn’t bother reading any of those quotations I had included, such as:

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry [hypocrisy] would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was make only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
[John Adams, Works (1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, to the Offices of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798, fn. 213]


Our Declaration of Independence therein emphasizes:

“to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“—And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”


Thor and Janus, really? Well perhaps if our Forefathers were citizens of the ancient Roman Empire, but they were not, obviously—so your misdirected prose is completely moot.

Now why exactly would the use of “Our Lord” have been such a popular expression? Because our forefathers were a very religious people, yes? Of course that is precisely why such an expression would have been so popular. Clearly, they were not referring to English lords, Allah, Muhammad, Yahweh, YHVH, or even Budda, but Our Lord, which is the Christian’s theological connotation for: Creator, Divinity, Eternal, Father, God, Jesus, Maker, Messiah, Providence, Supreme Being, et al. As is “Adonai” under Judism, for “Lord” or “Master”, as but one example for the many religious variations (a practice imposed by nearly every religion, i.e., to replace the word God, which uttering is frowned upon by their own religious order, for a religious connotation).

Regardless, of the I Amendment, the individual right to practice other religions, multiple religions, or to even worship multiple gods would exist, for America was built upon a higher notion of maintaining a free society, bound and protected by a strict constitutional republican form of government—our Bill of Rights, merely serves to timelessly enshroud such core human rights from condemnation by tyrannical rulers.


America’s Christian founding has carried through to present day; it can be observed on our currency “IN GOD WE TRUST”, when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or in taking a binding oath or public office.

Just as America’s standard for reading and writing is English, its standard for religion is Christian; however, honest people of all languages and religions are perfectly welcome.