- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Not sure how that was relevent to my statement.
Your speech can be limited here as per the rules the you agreed to when you signed up here.
I think he had a right to say it but it just looks nuts. He might as well have said...
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?
People having an issue with it, but not claiming its "unconstitutional".
I think there's a big difference between "It's going to offend the crowd, don't do it" and claiming "That's unconstutional! You can't do it".
What country and flag is your loyalty to, Winston?
False. He is free to say anything he wants and express any view he wants when not speaking at a state sponsored event. Free speech does not mean that you can say anything, any where, at any time.
I'm not calling him a brave hero. What I'm saying is that this isn't as big a deal as people seem to want to make it.
I don't have a problem with this so long as equal treatment is given to all opinions.
Now the gross spying and databasing our government is doing against us, THAT'S something to get all riled up over.
Last I checked all 50 states were important.
Then plug your damn ears! This student earned the privilege of speaking about their success. Mentioning of God or religion motivating them doesn't flip the switch on your religion, thus you still have the freedom of religion. It's not freedom from religion. Got it?
The right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include the right to have a captive audience for that prayer or to compel other students to participate.
I've posted this about 15 times already but apparently nobody understands it so I will post it again.HEARING another person pray or speak about religion is "imposing their religious views" upon people?
The right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include the right to have a captive audience for that prayer or to compel other students to participate.
He is not only representing himself, he is representing his school and graduating class.
Then you have proven my point. Since the administration did not have to give the valedictorian the podium his position was that of privilege, not a right.
I think most here who disagree with the actions of the student in OP are not critical of his faith, but rather his misguided and potentially harmful use of it.
I've posted this about 15 times already but apparently nobody understands it so I will post it again.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Yep, thanks. Sorry that after I had posted.
My one issue is this runs a VERY thin line in my eye because it was not the school or a school official making the statement, it was a student. The Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT, not individuals. I'm not quite sure if all restrictions we'd place on what a school administrator in terms of what they could say are the same that should be placed upon a student.
And how does the Constitution limit this speech? It doesn't.
Are you from the US? Of course there are limits on free speech!
I can see what you are saying. But I believe personally since it was a school sponsored event then it would fall under the same category, but either way it's not a huge deal in my eyes, just pointing out there was a case on it
Yes I am.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include the right to have a captive audience for that prayer or to compel other students to participate.
And you can keep on posting it and it will continue to be ignored. There is no "captive audience" here. This is not a mandatory event. It's entirely voluntary. There is no law mandating graduation ceremonies, they are strictly tradition and are not required for actual matriculation.
I've posted twice where the SCOTUS considers student speech like that of the valedictorian to be expressions of the student's views, NOT the school's views and thus are protected under the First.
Your post is all well and good, but the post I was responding to was seemingly trying to play the "Gotcha, hypocrite!" card by suggesting that conservatives would act in a similar fashion as some liberals are acting now if it was the Muslim Call to Prayer instead of the Lords Prayer. My point was that the actions would likely NOT be similar, as the foundation of much of the liberal response has been that its unconstitutional because it's a violation of church and state and I suggested that would NOT be the response you'd likely get from Conservatives.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?