Guys, it's serious.

[Illdo]

Freedom of speech? More like freedom of antifreedom.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html

[eX_Do0mY]

What the district did was wrong.

While religious discussion isn't allowed on this forum, I want to sneak one comment in.

The Bible says Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs. Perfect example right there.

[Nomad]

Politics aren't really allowed either, but whatever. I'm going to try to slip my comments in before this is locked as well.

This is bullshit. She had every right to say what she wanted. Whether the audience were Christian or not, it's not like they would have revolted (OH MY GOD! She Said Christ! BURN HER AT THE STAKE!!). As she said herself, "People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas--those are my opinions."

The whole "separation of church and state" thing is so retarded. The only thing it really applies to is establishing a "Church of America." Having references to religious figures on the money doesn't have anything to do with it. While it's not exactly fair to other religions, it doesn't really oppress them or anything. I think it would be considerate to omit those sorts of things from government related stuff, but it's not hurting anyone if it does. I'm not Christian, and I couldn't give a shit less what's on my money. I just want my damned hamburgers.

I definitely think that the district was in the wrong.

[Sigma]

Considering that it was a public school, the right decision was made. If she wished to speak about Christ she should have enrolled in a Catholic school. That's what they're for.

It is ironic, considering we are not allowed to speak of these issues here either. Does that make it fallacious? No. It spares people from becoming emotional and idiotic.

I'd like to see her sit complacently as I took the stage armed with a bombastic speech about how I hate America, hate women, abhor African Americans and how everyone should worship Satan. While I am not proclaiming I would do this or that I even believe these statements, such a speech would have to be considered just as reasonable as hers in the said circumstance.

[Catsy]

No, what the district did was enforce the rules that apply to everyone equally, rules which she flaunted willingly. She knew beforehand that the rules for commencement speeches forbade using it as a platform for religious proselytizing. She wrote a speech that directly challenged that, and after having it vetted and being told which parts were against the rules, went ahead and gave the unredacted speech anyway.

She didn't like the rules as they were written, so instead of either abiding by them or refusing to participate, she broke the rules, turning an event shared by her entire graduating class into an opportunity to make a point.

However sincerely held her beliefs, what she did was inconsiderate to everyone else who will now remember their commencement less for their own achievement in graduating than for the melodrama caused by a self-centered activist who deliberately made herself a test case for a rule she didn't like.

[Sigma]

Well said; an accurate substantiation of the point.

[ace]

This is a difficult matter for me to pick one argument to side with.

On the one hand, she broke the rules deliberately, which she should not have done. She was aware of the consequences, and instead of doing the mature thing, no matter how unappealing it would be, she decided to go ahead and take those consequences. Her mistake, and now that's going to cause a whole bunch of trouble that needn't have happened in the first place.

On the other hand, the rule in itself can be considered a violation to the freedom of speech. She wanted to proclaim her beliefs. Is it a bit forward? Probably. But would it have been fair to let her say those things, or to not have had that rule in place to begin with at all? I think so. "Freedom," as I see it, isn't that common in the law as one would like to believe. They say we want freedom and should give it to the people, but at the same time, they don't want to upset people because someone said something that they don't believe. Small things like this happen all the time and they certainly don't cause wars, so people shouldn't be concerned that people in country X are going to attack us because of what some girl said at her highschool graduation.

So either way, it's a negating situation that in the end is a conundrum; she broke the rule, but the rule may not be considered fair, and yet the rule is still existent so she should have followed it, despite the fact that it wasn't so appealing. It just goes on and on and nobody gets anywhere without the other side losing it.



I'd like to not see this locked, because it provides good conversation, but considering that it's against the rules: in before the lock! :p

[Sigma]

The "freedom of speech" must have demarcations however. One cannot scream "Fire!" in a theater for the same reasons. Futhermore, for these same principles, is the cause of this thread being locked. ;)

This supposed "freedom" is worthless if people do not have tolerance for other beliefs. Because of the fact that her audience would not be rewarded a chance to fabricate a rebuttal, I would consider her speech deleterious. Catsy stated it in perfect fashion.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

Actually you can yell fire in a crowded movie theater. But actions have consequences. So you are free to do so, so long as you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. :D

[jetflock]

meh, i don't wanna hear anything christ, if i did, i would go to a christian church.

[eX_Do0mY]

No, what the district did was enforce the rules that apply to everyone equally, rules which she flaunted willingly.

You see, these "rules" go against everyone's equal freedom of speech.

And about the catholic school comment, the catholics basically worship the pope. The pope is just a false prophet (there are no more prophets after the new covenant discussed in the new testament of the Holy Bible). The whole catholic basis is wrong.

None of the Christian denominations really agree on one thing. The Church of God denomination is the only denomination that agrees 100% with the Bible. Catholic schools and churches are for those of you who want to follow the pope's teachings, not the Lord's teachings.

[Danimetal]

And about the catholic school comment, the catholics basically worship the pope. The pope is just a false prophet (there are no more prophets after the new covenant discussed in the new testament of the Holy Bible). The whole catholic basis is wrong.

None of the Christian denominations really agree on one thing. The Church of God denomination is the only denomination that agrees 100% with the Bible. Catholic schools and churches are for those of you who want to follow the pope's teachings, not the Lord's teachings.

Wowowowow!!!. Interesting point at the end but I´d like to point a couple of things out... O.k, first it´s about the Lord´s teachings: what do we actually know about them?. Let me guess... Surely nothing: there´s no direct, unbiased testimonial about any god´s will and if we have to rely on the whole Christian Church (on this case) structer the matter is even worse as the Bible has suffered many changes on content and ideas since it´s very beginning. Did God write it?. Surely not... Consider how the Bible was written by men and you´ll get an idea of what we know about God.

Then, worshipping the pope... Errr... I don´t think that´s right. I mean, any Pope is no prophet but head of the Christian Church´s structure: nothing else. If I remember correctly there´s no reference to Peter as a prophet in the Bible (that Bible written by men like this Peter) and considering that popes are heirs of Peter there´s not a lot of light on the prophet´s idea... Then there´s the fact of the mortality and humanity of any pope: that should enough to keep them away from being worshipped but I´m not sure about how does one come to the conclusion that popes are worshipped in Christian´s Church.

Still there are things to discuss about the whole catholic basis and about the different "varieties" or "flavours" (sorry, just adding a little smile to this chat) in wich Christian Churches come... I guess there could be as many as interpretations of the Bible can be. Reverse the whole thing until you ask again what do we know about God.

[Grimlock[EOD]]

There are no claims of divinity to the pope or by the pope. The pope for all intensive purposes is like a US supreme court justice. He's appointed for life. He's an "elected" official by the cardinals until such time as he dies or steps down.

He's the head of a hierarchical structure. Someone has to ultimately interpret the rules/beliefs for the official organization. Members however are always free to read and worship on their own.

That's the great thing about this country, if you decide you don't want to be roman catholic but still believe in Christ, you can read the bible on your own and worship your own way without a cleric sending a group to your house to kill you.

[FATAL]

']That's the great thing about this country, if you decide you don't want to be roman catholic but still believe in Christ, you can read the bible on your own and worship your own way without a cleric sending a group to your house to kill you.
Heh, and the rest countries don't allow any freedoms when it comes to religion?

It's only a few countries that really enforce people's religions. Many of those countries are USA's friends, Saudi Arabia for example. ;)
So much for supporting freedoms in this world.

[Aliotroph?]

Canada has managed to get so you're more free to bash christians than muslims. Political correctness ruins freedom. (Political correctness and fear of terrorim maybe) :(

Making fun of groups, be they religions, cultures, political parties, Star Wars fans, mothers, children, or people with screwy eyes like mine is a fundamental freedom that we need more of. :p

[Shaniac]

Freedom of speech? More like freedom of antifreedom.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html

Good, I'm glad to see what they did. It's okay to have a religeon, I don't want to hear about it. It's like those Johoes coming to your door. I have better things to do than listen to you ramble about how good your god is.

Face it Christians, not everyone shares your same opinions. If you sit through my talking about how much I don't like god, I'll sit through you talking about how much you love god.