Religiously inspired misbehaviour

[No Swansong]

Speak for yourself. It doesn'T matter to me whether you replaced the references to Jesus with "Allah", "Buddha" or "Xemu" - it'd still be highly inappropriate. In another setting, in another tone, this little speech might even have been perfectly okay. But as it is, it just comes across as the ramblings of a fanatic suffering from a persecution complex.

And yet she earned the opportunity to address the class. Something she obviously worked hard for. What exactly is inappropriate?

 

[No Swansong]

fallacy of a authority? Your argument distilled is that its ok what she did because of her position. If she took off her robe and stated to touch would you have the same opinion. afterall she is simply expressing herself right?

And yet she didn't do that. She did exactly what she had earned the right to do, and that is to address the class concerning their and her futures from her perspective. Her speech was precisely what a valedictory speech is suppose to be. That some don't like the content is their problem not hers.

 

[Fin12]

And yet she didn't do that. She did exactly what she had earned the right to do, and that is to address the class concerning their and her futures from her perspective. Her speech was precisely what a valedictory speech is suppose to be. That some don't like the content is their problem not hers.

So if a scientologist was elected president, you wouldn't feel it was wrong for them to damn everything bar xenu?

America is secular, it's not allowed to promote one religion over another. That is what the girl was using her position to do, exhalt one religion and condemn another set of spiritual beliefs.

 

[No Swansong]

So if a scientologist was elected president, you wouldn't feel it was wrong for them to damn everything bar xenu?

America is secular, it's not allowed to promote one religion over another. That is what the girl was using her position to do, exhalt one religion and condemn another set of spiritual beliefs.

She is not an agent of the government nor was she speaking on behalf of the government. No religion was promoted by the government in any way.

 

[LittleNipper]

fallacy of a authority? Your argument distilled is that its ok what she did because of her position. If she took off her robe and stated to touch would you have the same opinion. afterall she is simply expressing herself right?

You are going way off the deep end. Speaking of one's convictions and exposing one's self are entirely different matters.

If say this lady was a Lesbian and made condemning remarks of how the students and institution might better understand homosexuality, would you be as concerned ------------------- or is only speaking openly of one's sexuality just sociality acceptable at present?

 

[LittleNipper]

I have mixed feelings about her "free speech rights" vs the state-run school's "establishment of religion" problem, but that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about her lies.

In an effort to balance her rights with the school's required neutrality, the school suggested that there would be no problem with a "short and inoffensive" benediction. That is what she agreed to. She lied.

I will not argue the length of the benediction. Although it seemed interminable, it actually took less than four minutes. But inoffensive? Did she really believe she was being inoffensive when she called education idolatry? Was she being inoffensive when she took it upon herself to claim that all of the graduating class thanked Jesus for His death (ignoring the atheists, Jews, and other non-Christians that were graduating -- or worse yet put words blasphemous to their own religious beliefs into their mouths saying "You alone will be lifted up in all of our lives")?

She is a Christian. A Christian should pray as a Christian. If education is considered the end all pinicle of human desire, then in reality it is idolatry.

I must admit, I would likely not have prayed as she did; however, we didn't attend that institution and we certainly do not fully understand what she may have faced as a Christian attending there.

 

[ArteestX]

What do you make of the behaviour of this girl? Do you think this qualifies as a short and inoffensive benediction?

I wasn't offended. It was fairly short, she earned the right to say what she wanted to say, and I think it's clear that she spoke as an individual and not as an officially sanctioned position of the college.

I thought it was an extremely poor representation of Christianity, the type that has nothing but arrogance and insensitivity over everyone else who isn't on their side. So she didn't do anything illegal or particularly immoral. It was merely insensitive and selfish, all about what she wanted with absolutely no concern for anyone else's beliefs. That's her choice, classless as it was.

 

[bliz]

Speak for yourself. It doesn'T matter to me whether you replaced the references to Jesus with "Allah", "Buddha" or "Xemu" - it'd still be highly inappropriate. In another setting, in another tone, this little speech might even have been perfectly okay. But as it is, it just comes across as the ramblings of a fanatic suffering from a persecution complex.

OK - she's a fanatic suffering from a persecution complex, who had it together enough to to be top of her class. Why does this threaten you so much?

 

[MoonLancer]

You are going way off the deep end. Speaking of one's convictions and exposing one's self are entirely different matters.

they are both expressions of free speech are they not? free speech is free speech and being considered of others can be shown in many ways. I took the logic of some posted on this board and took it to its logical extreme.

If say this lady was a Lesbian and made condemning remarks of how the students and institution might better understand homosexuality, would you be as concerned ------------------- or is only speaking openly of one's sexuality just sociality acceptable at present?

depends. is this person saying they are repenting for themselves and others for having straight sex? because that's what this lady did in the video, using your your example.

 

[MoonLancer]

I must admit, I would likely not have prayed as she did; however, we didn't attend that institution and we certainly do not fully understand what she may have faced as a Christian attending there.

oh nos intellectuals!

 

[MoonLancer]

I thought it was an extremely poor representation of Christianity, the type that has nothing but arrogance and insensitivity over everyone else who isn't on their side. So she didn't do anything illegal or particularly immoral. It was merely insensitive and selfish, all about what she wanted with absolutely no concern for anyone else's beliefs. That's her choice, classless as it was.

I am pretty tolerant of others in that i think anyone has the right to free speech. I think she had the right to say what she said, BUT ONLY if when she was done I would have the right stand up (afterword), tell her to F her and her god and F her rejection of her own of intellectual ability and talent, and burn my diploma on site. Oh yeah i would do that in a heart beat.

What can i say, i take the first amended seriously.

 

[LittleNipper]

they are both expressions of free speech are they not? free speech is free speech and being considered of others can be shown in many ways. I took the logic of some posted on this board and took it to its logical extreme.


depends. is this person saying they are repenting for themselves and others for having straight sex? because that's what this lady did in the video, using your your example.

No, speech is oral, and exposing one's self is visual. Clearly not the same, nor necessary where smart people are concerned.

 

[LittleNipper]

I am pretty tolerant of others in that i think anyone has the right to free speech. I think she had the right to say what she said, BUT ONLY if when she was done I would have the right stand up (afterword), tell her to F her and her god and F her rejection of her own of intellectual ability and talent, and burn my diploma on site. Oh yeah i would do that in a heart beat.

What can i say, i take the first amended seriously.

And you would be demonstrating her point exactly.

 

[uberd00b]

That poor girl. She doesn't even know what she's implying. Nevertheless as Quatona already said, she is free to make a fool of herself, and I do support the right to free speech. I'm not sure she has a lot to repent for in her worship of the intellectual mind. it doesn't seem like she worshipped it much at all.

That truly was a doozy.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, speech is oral, and exposing one's self is visual. Clearly not the same, nor necessary where smart people are concerned.

so silent films are not protected speech but ones with voice acting are? or That's to say only the Voice track is protected but not the visuals?

LOL!!!!! worst argument EVER!

The courts clearly have shown that when the constitution talks about free speech it is talking about expression. Exposing one self is a type of Expression and thus protected by the first amendment.

 

[MoonLancer]

And you would be demonstrating her point exactly.

that she is crazy and i don't agree with what she says?

 

[Mling]

As an American, I do find it offensive that she would represent a publicly funded school with a prayer that did *not* represent that school.

If I was still Christian, I would be concerned about the fact that she openly lied to God, while praying.
"This *will* be a day of death to old habits, thought and ideas. This *will* be a day of new life." Well, maybe she wants it to be that for herself, but she's speaking for everybody, and I'm sure not everybody has that intention.

"We praise you, God. We worship and adore you. We stand in awe of the king of the universe..."

Now that part is an outright lie. It is not a religious school, not everybody there is Christian. Many are probably atheist or non-religious. To claim otherwise is a lie. To claim otherwise *to God* is a very silly lie. Surely, if the Christian god exists, he/she would know who praises him and who doesn't. Surely, when this girl bows her head in prayer and claims to speak on behalf of a group that praises him, when she had to fight to be allowed to pray *at all,* he/she would know that she is lying. As a group, they are not praising him. Individually, some are, some aren't.

"Thank you Jesus for your [death?]. We do not esteem it lightly." Some there do. Some don't believe it happened at all, and some don't care. It is also completely irrelevant to the reason they are gathering so, as a group, they aren't esteeming it much at all, positively or negatively.

"You are holy, and *you alone* will be lifted up in this place, and in all of our lives." Lie. Outright, brazen lie. It's a school of education, not religion. "Lifting up" God there, as a school, is legally inappropriate, and probably doesn't happen very often. Lifting up "only" the Christian god...huh? Well, she is calling love of knowledge an idol, and thus a competitor for god's affections, so clearly other 'gods' *are* being worshiped there--this love of knowledge and education. And it will continue to be praised, because that's the entire point of the establishment: it's a secular school, where the teaching of religion is *illegal.*

She was speaking on behalf of the school--a school which didn't really *want* her to pray on their behalf at all, as evidenced by the fact that there was controversy over it, and they had to settle on one that was "short and nonoffensive." If they had wanted her prayer, there would have been no controversy, and no such compromise would have been necessary.

As a representative of these people, she gave an unwanted prayer, in which she made untrue claims about the nature and beliefs of those people, repented for things that, likely, many of them did not view as sins, and made promises to God about how the school would run that are completely at odds with the very nature of the school.

As an American, I'd say what she did is sort of irritating. But from a Christian point of view, it's pretty horrific.

 

[No Swansong]

As an American, I do find it offensive that she would represent a publicly funded school with a prayer that did *not* represent that school.

If I was still Christian, I would be concerned about the fact that she openly lied to God, while praying.
"This *will* be a day of death to old habits, thought and ideas. This *will* be a day of new life." Well, maybe she wants it to be that for herself, but she's speaking for everybody, and I'm sure not everybody has that intention.

"We praise you, God. We worship and adore you. We stand in awe of the king of the universe..."

Now that part is an outright lie. It is not a religious school, not everybody there is Christian. Many are probably atheist or non-religious. To claim otherwise is a lie. To claim otherwise *to God* is a very silly lie. Surely, if the Christian god exists, he/she would know who praises him and who doesn't. Surely, when this girl bows her head in prayer and claims to speak on behalf of a group that praises him, when she had to fight to be allowed to pray *at all,* he/she would know that she is lying. As a group, they are not praising him. Individually, some are, some aren't.

"Thank you Jesus for your [death?]. We do not esteem it lightly." Some there do. Some don't believe it happened at all, and some don't care. It is also completely irrelevant to the reason they are gathering so, as a group, they aren't esteeming it much at all, positively or negatively.

"You are holy, and *you alone* will be lifted up in this place, and in all of our lives." Lie. Outright, brazen lie. It's a school of education, not religion. "Lifting up" God there, as a school, is legally inappropriate, and probably doesn't happen very often. Lifting up "only" the Christian god...huh? Well, she is calling love of knowledge an idol, and thus a competitor for god's affections, so clearly other 'gods' *are* being worshiped there--this love of knowledge and education. And it will continue to be praised, because that's the entire point of the establishment: it's a secular school, where the teaching of religion is *illegal.*

She was speaking on behalf of the school--a school which didn't really *want* her to pray on their behalf at all, as evidenced by the fact that there was controversy over it, and they had to settle on one that was "short and nonoffensive." If they had wanted her prayer, there would have been no controversy, and no such compromise would have been necessary.

As a representative of these people, she gave an unwanted prayer, in which she made untrue claims about the nature and beliefs of those people, repented for things that, likely, many of them did not view as sins, and made promises to God about how the school would run that are completely at odds with the very nature of the school.

As an American, I'd say what she did is sort of irritating. But from a Christian point of view, it's pretty horrific.

Actually my friend she is not a representative of the school nor is her benediction considered representative of the School.

 

[Mling]

Actually my friend she is not a representative of the school nor is her benediction considered representative of the School.

How not? Any time I tossed on a marching band uniform, I was constantly reminded that the uniform represents the school, and any and all actions taken *in* uniform reflected the nature of the school.

Surely wearing a graduation robe while holding the status of "Valedictorian," *while* standing behind the podium at the most important event of the school, with all the faculty lined up behind you, is a *little* more impressive than buying funnel cake in a stiff wool straight-jacket.

 

[LightSeaker]

Do you think what she does is acceptable, or even moral?

Where and when she did what she did is not acceptable. People came to see a graduation, not a sermon.

I don't see it as a moral issue though.

.