• 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
ChrisL said:
I thought the point we were arguing was whether or not it is appropriate? Of course, the only punishment they could dole out would be to hold his diploma, and I don't think anyone wants that. Some people just want stubborn misconceived people who don't understand the principal behind separation of church and state to get it through their thick skulls that if you want to pray then go to church and keep it out of school. Schools are for learning, and NOT about religion. There are already private religious schools for those of you who want to include your religious beliefs in your child's education. There is a lot of diversity in our schools now, and not ALL students are Christian or believe in God or Jesus or Allah or whatever. These kinds of things just make things more complicated for the school and everyone else involved. It could all be simply avoided by NOT DOING IT. I don't think that's asking a lot either.
Click to expand...

Separation of church and state. Btw, no such thing is found in the constitution.
 
Henrin said:
Would the kid use blood? That might be interesting.
Click to expand...

Maybe he could sacrifice a couple of goats or something too. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
Separation of church and state. Btw, no such thing is found in the constitution.
Click to expand...

You'll have to familiarize yourself with the thread. There are links. One in particular on post #691 but others too.
 
Jack Hays said:
". . . o'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.":2usflag:
Click to expand...

Typical tactic for someone with nothing left to say. :mrgreen: Start citing quotes.
 
ChrisL said:
No it doesn't. The question has been answered. Individual school districts do have a right to limit and/or restrict a student's free speech while at school or school-sponsored events. If the school board thinks that religious content is acceptable, then they can allow it with a disclaimer that it does not represent the school's position. I hope I've cleared up your confusion. You welcome in advance. :)
Click to expand...

But there is no precedent binding on all jurisdictions. That was the point of the original link, as I read it.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
But there is no precedent binding on all jurisdictions. That was the point of the original link, as I read it.:cool:
Click to expand...

If a school is going to allow religious content above and beyond what is normally allowed (such as private prayer gatherings for students with like-minded beliefs, etc.), then they MUST have a disclaimer, otherwise it could be interpreted that this is also what the school believes and THAT would be the school endorsing religion.
 
ChrisL said:
If a school is going to allow religious content above and beyond what is normally allowed (such as private prayer gatherings for students with like-minded beliefs, etc.), then they MUST have a disclaimer, otherwise it could be interpreted that this is also what the school believes and THAT would be the school endorsing religion.
Click to expand...

And they can decline to oppose religious expression in a valedictorian's speech.
 
Jack Hays said:
And they can decline to oppose religious expression in a valedictorian's speech.
Click to expand...

Not without a disclaimer. Are you getting it yet?
 
Jack Hays said:
Depends on the school and the work.
Click to expand...

Are you going to continue on with this intellectual dishonesty that is on full display here, or are you going to concede that schools do have a right to monitor and limit what is said in student speeches at school sponsored events where the school is liable for statements made?
 
ChrisL said:
Lol! Just because some of crowd cheered does in no way mean no one was offended. It's in the news. Must have bothered somebody somewhere. Stop making me LOL.
Click to expand...

And "someone being offended" is not the gold standard for restricting free speech. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to not be offended.
 
clownboy said:
And "someone being offended" is not the gold standard for restricting free speech. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

Well it is at a school sponsored event.
 
ChrisL said:
That's because it's up to the school what rules they set when it comes to speeches. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No, read the decision again and the legal analysis. The school does not have this power, the courts in the local jurisdiction do and as a conseqeunce of that the school board may set policy. However, if you read on you'll find that even local jurisdictional policy decisions do not override the student's right to the First (as long as they are not speaking for the school).
 
clownboy said:
No, read the decision again and the legal analysis. The school does not have this power, the courts in the local jurisdiction do and as a conseqeunce of that the school board may set policy. However, if you read on you'll find that even local jurisdictional policy decisions do not override the student's right to the First (as long as they are not speaking for the school).
Click to expand...

You're wrong again.
 
ChrisL said:
If a school is going to allow religious content above and beyond what is normally allowed (such as private prayer gatherings for students with like-minded beliefs, etc.), then they MUST have a disclaimer, otherwise it could be interpreted that this is also what the school believes and THAT would be the school endorsing religion.
Click to expand...

Once again, valedictorian speeches are the thoughts of the student, NOT the school. It is up to the school to provide the disclaimer NOT the valedictorian (who clearly did anyway in this regard by putting his speech away and making it public it was his own decision).
 
ChrisL said:
Well it is at a school sponsored event.
Click to expand...

Does not matter in this case. Especially since the attendance was fully voluntary. If it were mandatory that would be different. This is according to all the SCOTUS rulings on the matter.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, valedictorian speeches are the thoughts of the student, NOT the school. It is up to the school to provide the disclaimer NOT the valedictorian (who clearly did anyway in this regard by putting his speech away and making it public it was his own decision).
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The valedictorian clearly represents the school, especially when the graduation itself is a school sponsored event. It's really not that complicated an issue to understand. The problem with THIS specific case is that the boy submitted a speech for pre-approval which it was, then changed his speech and did not get approval for those changes.

The school was NOT given an opportunity to provide a disclaimer in this situation.
 
clownboy said:
Does not matter in this case. Especially since the attendance was fully voluntary. If it were mandatory that would be different. This is according to all the SCOTUS rulings on the matter.
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't been reading the links, or even your OWN link for that matter. The conclusion clearly states that schools CAN limit a student's speech if they feel such speech would be offensive. The audience being voluntary is besides the point. Also, it WOULD be a captive audience simply for the fact that parents are there to see their children graduate, just as people standing in line at a grocery store would be considered a captive audience.
 
clownboy said:
Not germaine to this case at all. You have the relevent court decision already (Lee), and it disagrees with your stance.
Click to expand...

LOL! I already posted the conclusion of court case in your link, and it does agree with what I've been saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom