• 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
AlabamaPaul said:
This may be the more basic question to consider, "Why should a valedictorian's commencement speech require approval?"
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder why the smartest kid in the school can't say whatever he wants to say! :shock:
 
polgara said:
It makes you wonder why the smartest kid in the school can't say whatever he wants to say! :shock:
Click to expand...

The administrators are always concerned about embarrassment... :lamo
 
undecided
IMO, Creation and evolution are theories; there are too many non-answered and poorly answered questions concerning ...well life....
So, if one takes 120 seconds to do what he feels is right, where can any harm be ???
On the other hand, the religious freaks do get carried away...a human trait..
So, I do not know...
 
polgara said:
It makes you wonder why the smartest kid in the school can't say whatever he wants to say! :shock:
Click to expand...

Because. Even the "smartest kid in school" has to follow the rules. As do adults at work and in other public arenas. It's all an important part of actually being a grown-up.
 
JC Callender said:
Well mannered? Didn't he break the rules?:2razz:
Click to expand...

not only break the rules he was deceitful and it was obviously preplanned, common sense tells you kids need monitored and schools are smart to do so
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The country was built on the sweat of immigrants, nothing new here except for the influx of illegals...
Click to expand...

The point is the rise and expected future rise in immigrant population in the United States since the 1970s, which is what you asked. :)
 
ChrisL said:
Because. Even the "smartest kid in school" has to follow the rules. As do adults at work and in other public arenas. It's all an important part of actually being a grown-up.
Click to expand...

Again, it was a graduation ceremony. The students have completed this facet of their lives...
 
ChrisL said:
So? How would you feel about a kid getting up there and cursing? And the schools do have control, responsibility and liability of all school sponsored events.
Click to expand...

I've seen/heard it, multiple times, usually comes off like a turd in the punch bowl and the kid is sufficiently embarassed in front of his/her peers. Sometimes it's a lol moment. It's all in the context and the delivery. And no, the schools do not have control over this aspect.

Don't get me wrong, admins and teachers pretend they do, it's part of maintaining the illusion of control until the kids are gone and realise they've been had. But in actuality, as long as no laws are broken, they can't do a thing.
 
JC Callender said:
Well mannered? Didn't he break the rules?:2razz:
Click to expand...

Think for a second. I'm saying to let the valedictorian say what they want. That is, that rule shouldn't be there or should be more lenient. What the student wanted to say should not be reasonably deemed offensive.
 
shlunka said:
Separation from church and state, the valedictorian is in the wrong. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
NO...not simple at all....
Absolute separation of church and state does not exist and never did.
 
notquiteright said:
Not shocking but not allowed, and you move the goalpost by saying not shocking now. It was a majority culture and when asked if other religions as the issue is supposedly freedom of religion you take a powder and refuse to discuss any other religion. You seem to be of the mind only 'our GAWD' is possible in prayer and any attempt to show that as wrong you deflect as not under discussion...

By your yardstick only what is dominant culture is appropriate. not what the Constitution says at all. If the HONOR student who is the one you claim has soooo much of his daily life involved with his faith then why not a Muslim or Hindu who feels the same way? Why do you think the 'Dominant' culture won't accept the Muslim reading or the Buddhist prayer? for that matter why is it dependent on the dominant culture to be acceptable?

The current Christian feeling that all liberals are out to get them, fear them and want to eliminate the religion from the nation is where my comment on martyrdom comes from.

Now just between us I don't see a prayer as 'right' on most any occasion but if this young man wanted to say a prayer he could have done so in a moment of silence coz i was taught GAWD hears us even if our lips don't move so a prayer said outloud isn't a matter of Faith but a SHOWING of Faith and that is a horse of a different color.

Now if you had spent half as much of your youthful Sundays in the evangelical churches I have you would think the ONLY way to spell GAWD is GAWD as that was the ONLY way you would ever have heard it... :)
Click to expand...

Is that how the people around you pronounce God and that's why you write it that way?

Most of my sundays were spent on the soccer field, it's the only REAL sport out there :cool: I honestly have no idea what you are saying in most of your first paragraph so if you re-write it in English that would be great. "you take a powder and refuse to discuss..." Honestly what the **** does that mean? 'take a powder'?

Anyways, I did discuss your fake scenario although I admit to not seeing the point in discussing your fake scenario on another religion since it has nothing to do with this topic and it's purely speculative.

I studied different cultures in school, international studies was the broader scope of my major with a specialty in globalization. It's the very expensive way to look into different cultures. There are a lot of subcultures in america, I would not go into a different sub-culture and start talking about my faith in a generalized way unless it was relevant to those in that particular area, christianity is the major religion in the south and that holds true for most of South Carolina from what I've seen although when I was in Charleston they were almost as liberal as my hometown which is pretty ****ing liberal but that's a seperate discussion. My point here is that when you are in a particular area with a typical christian american culture then it's not all that surprsing to find someone wanting to express that in a personalized speech. That is normal there. To ask them not to for what is likely due to some sort of ****ed up political agenda because a few people are afraid of hearing anything about religion is just screwed up, it's stupid and it's completely ignorant. We don't all have to ignore who we are and yes religion for a lot of people is who they are, just because a minority thinks it impedes on their rights to hear the word of God (or Gawd if that's how they say it where you are from) in an area where most of the people believe in that particular God.

The constitution says nothing about a student reciting a prayer in his personal address to his fellow students.

I just want a little common sense instilled in my fellow countrymen and women, you are not going to die if you here someone mention God, they are not forcing you to join their religion by saying a prayer that is relevant to most of the people in the crowd, you are invading their sub-culture if you cannot deal with it then you should be seeing a therapist daily, that's your issue not theirs. You could also move to the Godless northeast (we pronounce the word how it's spelled here), I will gladly take your tourism money and taxes if you should so choose to move here to help support myself and those in my own community ('you' being the generalized form of the word).
 
ChrisL said:
The point is the rise and expected future rise in immigrant population in the United States since the 1970s, which is what you asked. :)
Click to expand...

The entire foundation of the country was based upon immigrants and their quest to be free. It would be difficult to rise above that little tidbit of fact...
 
AGENT J said:
so many random postings in this thread im not sure what everybody is actually arguing so ill state some facts

The school has every right to censor, limit or not allow any speech that is given as a privileged to anybody at a school function.
The kid broke the rules.


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

AGENT J said:
exactly not to mention its the schools duty to manage and monitor the kids, its basic common sense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you have it wrong.

The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools: In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[1]

The core principles of Tinker remain unaltered, but are tempered by several important decisions -- Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick.[2] Despite respect for the legitimate educational interests of school officials, the Supreme Court has not abandoned Tinker; it continues to recognize the basis precept of Tinker that viewpoint-specific speech restrictions are an egregious violation of the First Amendment.[2] In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court declared: "Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional." Rosenberger held that denial of funds to a student organization on the sole basis that the funds were used to publish a religiously oriented student newspaper was an unconstitutional violation of the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, for other speech, that is, on-campus speech which is neither obscene, vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive under Fraser nor school-sponsored under Hazelwood nor advocating illegal drugs at a school-sponsored event under Frederick, Tinker applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school.

Is this a great country, or what?:2usflag:
 
I posted the relevent SCOTUS decision and what it means. The kid here was not doing anything wrong.
 
ChrisL said:
The point is the rise and expected future rise in immigrant population in the United States since the 1970s, which is what you asked. :)
Click to expand...

And our Constitution is our gift to all of them.

The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools: In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[1]

The core principles of Tinker remain unaltered, but are tempered by several important decisions -- Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick.[2] Despite respect for the legitimate educational interests of school officials, the Supreme Court has not abandoned Tinker; it continues to recognize the basis precept of Tinker that viewpoint-specific speech restrictions are an egregious violation of the First Amendment.[2] In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court declared: "Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional." Rosenberger held that denial of funds to a student organization on the sole basis that the funds were used to publish a religiously oriented student newspaper was an unconstitutional violation of the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, for other speech, that is, on-campus speech which is neither obscene, vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive under Fraser nor school-sponsored under Hazelwood nor advocating illegal drugs at a school-sponsored event under Frederick, Tinker applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school.:mrgreen:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Again, it was a graduation ceremony. The students have completed this facet of their lives...
Click to expand...

The school is still liable for all school sponsored events. They set the rules and the guidelines for their events. :shrug: That's life.
 
clownboy said:
I posted the relevent SCOTUS decision and what it means. The kid here was not doing anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools: In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[1]

The core principles of Tinker remain unaltered, but are tempered by several important decisions -- Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick.[2] Despite respect for the legitimate educational interests of school officials, the Supreme Court has not abandoned Tinker; it continues to recognize the basis precept of Tinker that viewpoint-specific speech restrictions are an egregious violation of the First Amendment.[2] In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court declared: "Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional." Rosenberger held that denial of funds to a student organization on the sole basis that the funds were used to publish a religiously oriented student newspaper was an unconstitutional violation of the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, for other speech, that is, on-campus speech which is neither obscene, vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive under Fraser nor school-sponsored under Hazelwood nor advocating illegal drugs at a school-sponsored event under Frederick, Tinker applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school.
 
ChrisL said:
The school is still liable for all school sponsored events. They set the rules and the guidelines for their events. :shrug: That's life.
Click to expand...

Except when their rules violate the Constitution.

The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools: In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[1]

The core principles of Tinker remain unaltered, but are tempered by several important decisions -- Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick.[2] Despite respect for the legitimate educational interests of school officials, the Supreme Court has not abandoned Tinker; it continues to recognize the basis precept of Tinker that viewpoint-specific speech restrictions are an egregious violation of the First Amendment.[2] In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court declared: "Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional." Rosenberger held that denial of funds to a student organization on the sole basis that the funds were used to publish a religiously oriented student newspaper was an unconstitutional violation of the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, for other speech, that is, on-campus speech which is neither obscene, vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive under Fraser nor school-sponsored under Hazelwood nor advocating illegal drugs at a school-sponsored event under Frederick, Tinker applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Bingo.

The issue of school speech as it relates to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is one that has been of much debate and the subject of much litigation since the mid-20th century. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech applies to students in the public schools: In the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court formally recognized that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."[1]

The core principles of Tinker remain unaltered, but are tempered by several important decisions -- Bethel School District v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Morse v. Frederick.[2] Despite respect for the legitimate educational interests of school officials, the Supreme Court has not abandoned Tinker; it continues to recognize the basis precept of Tinker that viewpoint-specific speech restrictions are an egregious violation of the First Amendment.[2] In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Supreme Court declared: "Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional." Rosenberger held that denial of funds to a student organization on the sole basis that the funds were used to publish a religiously oriented student newspaper was an unconstitutional violation of the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, for other speech, that is, on-campus speech which is neither obscene, vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive under Fraser nor school-sponsored under Hazelwood nor advocating illegal drugs at a school-sponsored event under Frederick, Tinker applies limiting the authority of schools to regulate the speech, whether on or off-campus, unless it would materially and substantially disrupt classwork and discipline in the school.
Click to expand...

SOME people would consider a Christian prayer to be offensive. That is something you need to realize.
 
ChrisL said:
The school is still liable for all school sponsored events. They set the rules and the guidelines for their events. :shrug: That's life.
Click to expand...

Liabilty is not an issue here, nothing was done that would trigger the school being liable for anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom