• 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
AGENT J said:
Scotus proves me right and supports my claim 100% as already proven with links

my statement was 100% true
"schools have the right to censor, limit and not allow a speech at a school function"





facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, lol my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
Click to expand...

None of your post is relevant to the case under discussion. You lost.:cool:
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I will continue to post it because they are a captive audience, they had NO CLUE what was going to happen with this speech. A school sponsored speaker went out of his way to promote his religion over others.
 
iacardsfan said:
I will continue to post it because they are a captive audience, they had NO CLUE what was going to happen with this speech. A school sponsored speaker went out of his way to promote his religion over others.
Click to expand...

He went out of his way to express his religious convictions. That expression is protected by the Constitution.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
None of your post is relevant to the case under discussion. You lost.:cool:
Click to expand...

awww thats cute you actually thought this lie would work didnt you, nobody is falling for it LMAO

sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again

heres my statement:
AGENT J said:
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.
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...

heres you saying im wrong:

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it wrong.
Click to expand...

Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right

Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser

In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenity. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "[t]he process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order." Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that: "Consciously or otherwise, teachers--and indeed the older students--demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class." [6] Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption—the Tinker standard—but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive.
Click to expand...

Main article: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' ... even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.[7]
Click to expand...

my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
 
AGENT J said:
awww thats cute you actually thought this lie would work didnt you, nobody is falling for it LMAO

sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again

heres my statement:


heres you saying im wrong:



Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right

my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
Click to expand...

The opinions you cite are irrelevant to the case at hand. You lost.
 
Jack Hays said:
The opinions you cite are irrelevant to the case at hand. You lost.
Click to expand...

opinions? you mean facts, oh white and remind me who said scotus disagrees with me?

Jack Hays said:
, your claim has been definitively quashed by the SCOTUS. You were wrong
Click to expand...

BOOM you were wrong again, with every post you lose more and more

heres my statement:
AGENT J said:
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.
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...

heres you saying im wrong:

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
, your claim has been definitively quashed by the SCOTUS. You were wrong
Click to expand...


Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right

Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser

In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenity. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "[t]he process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order." Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that: "Consciously or otherwise, teachers--and indeed the older students--demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class." [6] Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption—the Tinker standard—but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive.
Click to expand...

Main article: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' ... even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.[7]
Click to expand...

my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
 
AGENT J said:
opinions? you mean facts, oh white and remind me who said scotus disagrees with me?



BOOM you were wrong again, with every post you lose more and more

heres my statement:


heres you saying im wrong:






















Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right





my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.


tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
Click to expand...

The cases you cite are irrelevant to the matter under discussion. You lost.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The cases you cite are irrelevant to the matter under discussion. You lost.:cool:
Click to expand...

awww thats cute you actually thought this lie would work didnt you, nobody is falling for it LMAO

sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again

heres my statement:
AGENT J said:
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.
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...

heres you saying im wrong:

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
, your claim has been definitively quashed by the SCOTUS. You were wrong
Click to expand...


Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right

Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser

In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenity. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "[t]he process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order." Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that: "Consciously or otherwise, teachers--and indeed the older students--demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class." [6] Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption—the Tinker standard—but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive.
Click to expand...

Main article: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' ... even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.[7]
Click to expand...

my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
 
AGENT J said:
awww thats cute you actually thought this lie would work didnt you, nobody is falling for it LMAO

sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again

heres my statement:


heres you saying im wrong:















Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right





my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
Click to expand...

Your citations are irrelevant. You lost.:peace
 
iacardsfan said:
I will continue to post it because they are a captive audience, they had NO CLUE what was going to happen with this speech. A school sponsored speaker went out of his way to promote his religion over others.
Click to expand...
The school didn't know he was going to do that.

There's no obligation for privat persons to give all religions equal time.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your citations are irrelevant. You lost.:peace
Click to expand...

awww thats cute you actually thought this lie would work didnt you, nobody is falling for it LMAO

sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again

heres my statement:
AGENT J said:
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.
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...

heres you saying im wrong:

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
, your claim has been definitively quashed by the SCOTUS. You were wrong
Click to expand...


Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right

Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser

In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenity. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "[t]he process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order." Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that: "Consciously or otherwise, teachers--and indeed the older students--demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class." [6] Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption—the Tinker standard—but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive.
Click to expand...

Main article: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' ... even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.[7]
Click to expand...

my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The school didn't know he was going to do that.

There's no obligation for privat persons to give all religions equal time.
Click to expand...

Good evening, Jerry. :2wave:

How many of us have had to sit and listen to a speaker say things we don't agree with? Why does religion always bring this frantic response? Whatever happened to tolerance? My mom would say "he's not talking to you, so stop taking it personally!" Sheesh.... :doh:
 
Jack Hays said:
You lost.
Click to expand...

awww thats cute you actually thought this lie would work didnt you, nobody is falling for it LMAO

sorry the discussion is about you saying my statement was not true and that being false, you lose again

heres my statement:
AGENT J said:
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.
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...

heres you saying im wrong:

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you have it wrong.
Click to expand...
Jack Hays said:
, your claim has been definitively quashed by the SCOTUS. You were wrong
Click to expand...


Here Soctus proving you wrong and me right

Main article: Bethel School District v. Fraser

In Fraser, a high school student was disciplined following his speech to a school assembly at which he nominated a fellow student for a student elective office. The speech contained sexual innuendos, but not obscenity. The Supreme Court found that school officials could discipline the student. In doing so, it recognized that "[t]he process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order." Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that: "Consciously or otherwise, teachers--and indeed the older students--demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class." [6] Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption—the Tinker standard—but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent or plainly offensive.
Click to expand...

Main article: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The Hazelwood School District case applies the principles set forth in Fraser to curricular matters. In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld a school's decision to censor certain articles in the school newspaper which was produced as part of the school's journalism curriculum. Echoing Fraser, the Supreme Court observed that "[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with 'its basic educational mission' ... even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school." School authorities and educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.[7]
Click to expand...

my statement was 100% true
facts and the thread history prove you wrong again.

tell me that cool line about losing again?
sorry you lost, your argument was destroyed lol
my statement was 100% true

like i said if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide and factual proof to the contrary
 
Moderator's Warning:
Jack and Agent J. We've SEEN your posts several times already. MOVE ON.

And others need to cease the personal attacks, also.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
The Jefferson Letter: Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin was upholding that there will be no established national religion, and that nobodoy will inhibit the free excercise of religion. The laws today go well beyond that, and slash people of thier rights.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. People always have their individual rights....especially the right to pray as Jesus preferred....in silent....not like the hypocrites that like to pray in public so that others can see them and they can pretend to be all holy and righteous.....this idiot is a perfect example of the people that Christ spoke out against.
 
I will put it simply this way ...when your on property that is not yours, business, state, federal, local......you don't have exercisable rights to do as you wish.

you have privileges, and they can be denied, or expanded on by those entities, depending on your behavior.
 
ChezC3 said:
Free Speech so long as it isn't advocating an illegal behavior or its purpose to incite hate, or cause turmoil, is universal, doesn't matter where you are.
Prayer doesn't fall under any of these exemptions.

Don't like prayer? Do like the majority of people do. Day dream.
Click to expand...

first... I .am not against prayer.

but you as a citizen, don't have rights to use schools any way you feel.

I am not against students, getting together and praying, however I am against people taking things into there own hands, over the objections of other people.
 
Mathematician said:
Answer the easy question of "who in the heck was harmed whatsoever?"
Click to expand...

no one.....but people don't have to listen to prayer if they don't want too, I am not against prayer, I pray myself, but today, other people don't want to hear it they should not have to if they are, at a assembly of many people, and its just sprung on them.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yeah, there is, it's right there in the first amendment. You know that part about how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That's the separation of church and state part. I can see how it might be confusing, since it isn't written "separation of church and state", but they've come to mean the same thing.
Click to expand...

As I have said before, the Constitution separation of church and state would not prohibit what happened at this event. The Constitution only says there can be no law made to establish a national religion.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
As I have said before, the Constitution separation of church and state would not prohibit what happened at this event. The Constitution only says there can be no law made to establish a national religion.
Click to expand...

Bingo. SCOTUS has made clear that such speech in such a setting is protected under the Constitution.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom