High School Graduate Doesn’t Get Diploma after Urging Audience to Seek Jesus

Tropical Wilds said:

The issue here isn’t they have a problem with his faith, it’s that they have a problem with his deceptiveness and going against what he was told (and agreed) to do.

Click to expand...

!

RileyG said:

If it’s a public school-they cannot promote anyones religion. That’s the law.

Click to expand...

The school employees and officials cannot promote religion while acting in that capacity. As long as students are not employed by the school system, they are free to do so under the 1st Amendment. For example, a teacher cannot hand out a tract but a student can. Nor can a school bend the rule by having a set time of religious reaching every morning that is lead by a student. That said, if a school does things such as allow extracurricular activities on campus, they cannot then discriminate against a religious activity.

Remember that this is a student's speech, words to the graduates, conducted each year. If a school allows these speeches but then forbids a student from making any religious comments, then they are violating the student's right of free speech. This is the student giving the speech, not the principle, not superintendent, or any other school employee. The only reasonable way a school can prevent religious comments in such a speech is to not allow student speeches at all.

By your interpretation, a child cannot draw a nativity scene in school nor have it displayed with other children's artwork, or, if displayed, covered with a sheet of paper. That happened in Georgia some decades ago. By your interpretation, a child cannot say a prayer of thanks during snack time in a public school. That happened, too. Both were violations of the student's 1st Amendment rights. Just as it's a violation of a student's 1st Amendment right to forbid any mention of Christ or the plan of salvation, if the student wished to mention it in the speech.

BNR32FAN said:

And I think you would as well, but that just part of the dilemma with freedom of speech, isn’t it? Sooner or later someone is going to say something you don’t like and you’re just going to have to deal with it.

Click to expand...

A dilemma? Nothing about free speech says it must be speech someone finds agreeable. I like Oscar Wilde's quote, though it may not be appropriate for a Christian forum.

FireDragon76 said:

This isn't merely about what we like or don't like. Religious beliefs are far more than just opinions. In the United States, religious identity is considered, in our legal system, an intrinsic and inalienable part of a person, with the right to choose whatever religious beliefs as is dictated by their conscience, and therefore we have a separation of Church and State.

Click to expand...

Which means that the government can’t push religious beliefs on civilians, it doesn’t mean that civilians are not allowed to express their religion in government facilities because the first amendment specifically states that the government cannot establish any laws prohibiting civilians from practicing or expressing their religious beliefs. You’re only focusing on half of the amendment and ignoring the half that protects people’s right to freedom of speech and religious expression.

Tuur said:

By your interpretation, a child cannot draw a nativity scene in school nor have it displayed with other children's artwork, or, if displayed, covered with a sheet of paper. That happened in Georgia some decades ago. By your interpretation, a child cannot say a prayer of thanks during snack time in a public school. That happened, too. Both were violations of the student's 1st Amendment rights. Just as it's a violation of a student's 1st Amendment right to forbid any mention of Christ or the plan of salvation, if the student wished to mention it in the speech.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between private prayer, and a student using a graduation ceremony as an opportunity to preach. One is a free exercise of religion, the other is imposing ones religion upon others with the sanction of the State.

Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. There are certain times and places that a persons freedom is limited by social responsibilities.

You can bet that if this young man were exhorting his fellow students to put their trust in the Buddha of Infinite Light to escape the wheel of Samsara in the ocean of Birth and Death, many here wouldn't be so quick to defend his right to "religious freedom".

Tuur said:

It matters that:

1. They attempted to censor his speech.
2. They punished him for exercising his 1st Amendment right specifically because he proclaimed his faith.

Click to expand...

Ignoring this isn’t a first amendment issue, if it was the Valedictorian getting up there talking about how she owes it to the doctor who performed her abortion, that would be ok? Or if she said her girlfriend inspired her to push herself to achieve and she couldn’t have done it without her, you’d be fine? Or if the Muslim or Satanist talked about M and Satan (respectively) and wishes their respective blessings on the crowd, you’d cheer them on because they’re proclaiming their faith?

Tuur said:

Somehow I doubt the school administration would have objected.

Click to expand...

I notice that you’ve ignored the question.

Tropical Wilds said:

Ignoring this isn’t a first amendment issue, if it was the Valedictorian getting up there talking about how she owes it to the doctor who performed her abortion, that would be ok? Or if she said her girlfriend inspired her to push herself to achieve and she couldn’t have done it without her, you’d be fine? Or if the Muslim or Satanist talked about M and Satan (respectively) and wishes their respective blessings on the crowd, you’d cheer them on because they’re proclaiming their faith?

Click to expand...

Oscar Wilde's observation often holds, but the point of free speech is that that it's free. Whether the listener agrees or disagrees is beside the point. Free speech isn't limited to speech we agree with. You examples would be "okay" in that they have the right to say it, whether I agree with what they say or not.

Tropical Wilds said:

I notice that you’ve ignored the question.

Click to expand...

Think what you please.

Tuur said:

Oscar Wilde's observation often holds, but the point of free speech is that that it's free. Whether the listener agrees or disagrees is beside the point. Free speech isn't limited to speech we agree with. You examples would be "okay" in that they have the right to say it, whether I agree with what they say or not.

Click to expand...

So you’d support their going up to say such things?

Tropical Wilds said:

So you’d support their going up to say such things?

Click to expand...

Yes. I thought that was clear. I really don't think I should quote Wilde on this board, but I really like what he said about it. I'd disagree with what they said, but they'd have the right to say it.

Trying to play selective speech is a seductive trap. It's easy to think "Oh, but you wouldn't want them to say that, would you?" and then cede your own right of free speech lest someone say what you find offensive. It's not as attractive to say "Are you willing to never proclaim the name of Jesus Christ if nobody can say what you consider offensive?" but it's the same question. So many Christians have seemed willing to cede free speech on the grounds of the first question, never realizing it also means the second.

Tuur said:

Yes. I thought that was clear. I really don't think I should quote Wilde on this board, but I really like what he said about it. I'd disagree with what they said, but they'd have the right to say it.

Trying to play selective speech is a seductive trap. It's easy to think "Oh, but you wouldn't want them to say that, would you?" and then cede your own right of free speech lest someone say what you find offensive. It's not as attractive to say "Are you willing to never proclaim the name of Jesus Christ if nobody can say what you consider offensive?" but it's the same question. So many Christians have seemed willing to cede free speech on the grounds of the first question, never realizing it also means the second.

Click to expand...

This isn't merely about offending people. It's violating the rights of others in imposing religious preaching at a secular, non-religious event, where a people from a variety of faiths, or none, must be accomodated and respected.

Violating the rights of others is never moral, no matter what the justification.