- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,749
- Reaction score
- 32,388
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
yes, it was so much easier when you could just burn the heretics at the stake.
It was just easier when people didn't see the Lord's Prayer as hate speech. Lol.
1.)Why not, if what he did was so bad?
2.)To show our commitment to religious freedom shouldn't we really throw the book at him?
1.)i personally didnt say it was so bad.
all i have said is the school has the right to censor. limit or ban some speech as they see fit and that what he did broke the rules
"so bad" would never come from me
2.) no, no it this case, its done now, if they wanted to pull his mic and not let him participate in the rest of the cermony that would have been fine with me but they didnt so its past now :shrug:
the feather and tar him routine is for the hyperbolic dramatics, not myself X
1.)I was just wondering why those of you who say he's a criminal for doing what he did don't want him to pay for it?
2.) If he became an arm of the state by giving a speech and he violated the constitutional rights that you believe others have NOT to hear religious beliefs, why are you ok with him getting away with it?
1.) well i never said he was a "criminal" i said he broke the rules
2.) again i havent presented this argument as you are stating it.
i have said the school has the right to censor, limit and ban speech per SCOTUS, this is true
and as far as the rest, that i havent said, that would of had to go to trail for us to know that
you cant force people to hear prayer, this is true but im not sure that would win here, it would have to go to court.
my stance is he broke the rules and the school if they wanted to could have censored his speech and or punished him :shrug:
1.)So why are you saying now he shouldn't be punished and his entire future ruined?
2.)Think of the emotional distress he must have caused in reciting The Lord's Prayer publicly?
On the contrary, the notion that a school having some control over school functions is anti-first amendment is absurd. It is no different than a teacher having control over his/her classroom.
Who said I was offended by what he said? (btw, I am a Christian myself and have recited the Lord's Prayer on numerous occasions.)
It's not for the teacher to control, its for her superiors.So what? It still happened at school.
So what? It still happened at school. A teacher has control over content in the classroom just as administration has control over school functions. Is the connection that hard to follow?
They have control over free speech?
Anyone who says he did is wrong. He just made a serious error in good judgement.
What error was made? Is free speech now frowned upon depending on where it is located?
The error in good judgement came when the valedictorian decided to take an opportunity that was intended for one thing and use it to push their idiotic religious delusions on people who were not sitting in the audience for that purpose. He was free to do it, he was an idiot for actually doing it.
The one thing for which his presence and speech was intended was to address his class, and that is exactly what he did. That there was an error in judgement is only in your opinion...
And if he had gotten up there and given a different speech, one that advocated another religion, or that advocated racial violence or sexism or whatever, I'm sure you would have considered that an error in judgement.
What error was made? Is free speech now frowned upon depending on where it is located?
It always has been the case and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions with the most famous one being the decision in Schenck v. United States in 1919 "You can't shout FIRE! in a crowded theatre"
Until yesterday when a federal judge overturned a 1949 law, Americans could not protest in front of the Supreme Court
And if he had gotten up there and given a different speech, one that advocated another religion, or that advocated racial violence or sexism or whatever, I'm sure you would have considered that an error in judgement.
Why do you presume to know how I might react? An invited speaker is free to speak as they see fit for his/her audience. Should the audience disagree, there are many actions that would be appropriate...
Uh well ofcorse, because "forgive us for our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" is not comparable to racial violence....or violence of any kind.
Racial violence harms others, while forgiveness does not harm anyone. Logicaly one's opinion would have to be different for each.
No, invited speakers are hired and contracted to give a specific type of speech, for which they are paid for their time. If an invited speaker arrived at the local speaker's association, tasked with giving a talk on subject A and instead gave a talk on subject B, they'd have every right to be pissed off, to refuse to pay him and, perhaps to see him in court. Granted, this is a different situation, but there are still expectations for what he will do when he gets in front of the podium.
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?