• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Valedictorian Defies School District and Recites Lord's Prayer [W:618]

Should the school have banned the reading of the prayer by the student?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 27.3%
  • No

    Votes: 60 68.2%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 4.5%

  • Total voters
    88
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 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 ;)

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? 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.)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.) 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:

So why are you saying now he shouldn't be punished and his entire future ruined? Think of the emotional distress he must have caused in reciting The Lord's Prayer publicly?
 
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?

1.) im confused now i didnt say he "shouldn't" be punished.
I said im not advocating for him TO be punished
im ok with him not being punished and im not sure how him being punished would ruin his entire future?

i said if the school wanted to pull his mic and not let him participate in the rest of the ceremony that would be fine, this wouldnt ruin his life by a long shot

2.) for me it causes none but it might have for others, regardless its a none factor in the opinions and views i have put forth in this thread
 
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.

That's where you brought the argument, that isn't where it was originally. But, I'll just make the argument like this;

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.

These are not ambiguous terms that were used. They're straight forward.

Im my opinion, anything, since time began, whether or not the SCOTUS ruled one way or another, whether it seems to be counter-intuitive, whether it is a big ole pain in the ass, anything that prohibits or abridges the free exercising of religion or freedom of speech, is directly violating the simply put words of the First Amendment.

Now, my theology/philosophy is panentheistic, I wouldn't be considered your traditional Christian, though I am an ardent supporter of the social teachings of the Church. What I am however more so is an advocate for Religious Liberty.

That being said, anything short of the children starting a reenactment of the Holy Crusades on the school playground, I find not only tolerable, but acceptable and would encourage.

This conversation can get broader in scope, I mean I completely disagree with the pedagogical methods employed in our primary and secondary schools today. Rote memorization is only something that is needed to cover the basics and it is necessary in math and science but yet we find that this method is employed all the way through K-12, and well into college. It isn't until graduate work that we actually see some independent thought shine through. Even then it is limited, usually dealing with the prejudices of professors, and conforming to their tastes.

Our school system isn't one that educates, it indoctrinates -- forcing on our children what the current political fancies of the time happen to be. Don't make a stink. Follow the orders of your superiors without question. Don't express yourself, don't be different, accept everything that is different. Don't offend anyone, just bottle your feelings up inside you.

Do you know what this spawns? Passive Aggressive behavior. Ever go out? To work? To a social function? To the store?? It is on display, the upswing of this abnormality is so predominant, I don't believe I'd think you were being honest if you said you couldn't see it. Now I hope you understand I'm not saying that a grad speech not being allowed to have a prayer is the root cause, it is much bigger than that.

The point is people need to be able to express themselves, there is a time and a place for everything, yes, I whole heart-ed agree. Saying that -- I find a grad speech, time given to an individual student in recognition for his accomplishments, if he feels that that time, his time should be spent praying to God, than that is the right time and the right place. It is about the individual student, not the prejudices of the audience.







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.)


I was speaking about the conversation in general, not ours specifically.
 
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?
 
114 pages and the basic facts havent changed

The school has every right to censor, limit or not allow a privileged speech that is given at a school function.

now with that said people can debate thier opinions all they want about whether the kid did a good thing, bad thing etc etc but if the facts wont change.

also there is still ZERO proof the school censored the kids speech.
 
They have control over free speech?

To some degree, absolutely. Free speech is never an absolute anyhow. The school can decide, if a student says something they don't like, to suspend or expel the student from the school. That's controlling free speech, isn't it? They can take punitive measures to control what can and cannot be said within the school walls. However, in this particular case, there really are no more punitive punishments the school can apply to the student, the student is already beyond their control and influence. There's nothing they can do to the student to stop them from behaving the same way again. This has nothing to do with religion, the valedictorian could have gotten up there and cussed out the audience, the administrators, the teachers and all the other students and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it. It's not illegal and if it ever saw the inside of a courtroom, it would be an open and shut free speech case.

This is what happens when you provide people with an open forum to speak and you have no control over what they actually say. These things happen. It's not a good thing or a bad thing that they happen, just a true thing.
 
I'm still confused as to where this kid established a state religion.
 
I'm still confused as to where this kid established a state religion.

Anyone who says he did is wrong. He just made a serious error in good judgement.
 
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?
 
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 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...
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.

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.

The fact that the Lord's Prayer is a message of peace and not violence or hatrid makes all the difference.
 
Last edited:
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...

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.
 
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.


Something tells me you need to read the rest of the Bible.
 
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.

What is expected of a valedictorian other than addressing his/her classmates? Most speakers "hired" for an event are well vetted and paid in advance as a part of the contract...
 
Back
Top Bottom