|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5406 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Well, I DID stir up the mix THIS time!
holmes writes: Perfect. I could not agree with you more, Holmes! Your right not to hear the word "faith" (I don't think there was even the word God in the song) warbled by a graduating teen, because you don't like the suggestion that she might be religious, is seriously less important than her ability to express what she is feeling about life. She was offered a small moment in the sun by some students that wanted to hear what she had to say. Let her express herself.Schraff writes: Nope. I like it just the way it is! Maybe America is too pluralistic and tolerant of difference for you. People worry about this "theocracy" nonsense way too much, though. I would certainly rather have a country that is backed by Christian moral principals (even if it is hypocritically used to preserve U.S. power) than I would want to live in some pluralistic all inclusive wishy washy land where everybody gets to skip to their own beat.We need conformity to preserve U.S. power. Otherwise, the rest of this hungry world will eventually take all our advantage away and we will be a socialist planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5406 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
schraf writes: Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a place where everyone was compelled by the government to all think the same way. Based on your assertion:
Phatboy writes: We need conformity to preserve U.S. power. Schraf would appear to be right. But aren't you confusing 'conformity' with 'unity' ?Surely it is 'unity' of purpose in the country that is essential for 'preserving US power', not conformity to a single set of social and religious values. Can't we by unified in purpose without making everyone conform to Christian morality and values? Doesn't it seem like all these efforts on the part of the current administration to enforce conformity to their 'Christian values' (e.g. denying legal recognition for gay unions) are reducing unity among the citizens of this country, rather than increasing it? Unity in a culturally diverse state hinges on tolerance of diversity, not pandering excessively to one theistic group because of their perceived power as a voting block. I would argue that national unity is invariably reduced when the ruling power tries to enforce conformity. This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-29-2005 01:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I would certainly rather have a country that is backed by Christian moral principals (even if it is hypocritically used to preserve U.S. power) than I would want to live in some pluralistic all inclusive wishy washy land where everybody gets to skip to their own beat. Pluralistic would mean people can skip to their own beat, having Xian domination would not. I think the problem lies in the fact that several people here that are claiming to be espousing plurality, diversity, and tolerance are in fact exhibiting the exact opposite.
We need conformity to preserve U.S. power. No we don't, that's what this nation was founded on, the idea that we don't need conformity to be strong. All we need is unity. Out of many one, not make many into one.
Otherwise, the rest of this hungry world will eventually take all our advantage away and we will be a socialist planet. Socialism will not weaken this nation or the planet. I would argue limited socialism would be the best system for the United States. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, Jay Seculow scares me. IMHO he is unprincipled and a bigot.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3971 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
I recall searching around some topic earlier, and finding nothing.
Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is an arm of Pat Robertson designed to use Law, Suits and legislation to further Evangelical Christian Dogma. See their website
Their Mission Statement:
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is committed to insuring the ongoing viability of constitutional freedoms. By specializing in constitutional law, the ACLJ is dedicated to the concept that freedom and democracy are God-given inalienable rights that must be protected. The ACLJ engages in litigation, provides legal services, renders advice, counsels clients, provides education, and supports attorneys who are involved in defending the religious and civil liberties of Americans. As a non-profit organization, the ACLJ does not charge for its services and is dependent upon God and the resources He provides through the time, talent, and gifts of people who share our concerns and desire to protect our religious and constitutional freedoms. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1719 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
When individuals speak at ceremonies they are speaking for themselves unless it is specifically stated to be speech for the school. It was specifically stated. That's what it means when someone speaks at a graduation. They're speaking for the school. Don't you think that, before a student gives their speech, the pricipal probably tells them something like "hey now, you're representing our school, so no fart jokes, ok?" What do you think that means? Of course the speakers are agents of the school. They're allowed to speak in order to represent the school.
A teacher is an official of the state, a student is simply a fellow student whose opinions can be anything including boring and irrelevant to your life. A student who becomes a state actor is an agent of the state. For instance a school can't do an end-run around the constitution by appointing the class president to do their dirty work.
I just do not see it holding up under scrutiny, particularly with the negative atmosphere and precedent which would be set. Well, the thing is, it did hold up to scrutiny, by the people who's precise job it is to put these things to scrutiny. I haven't seen your law degree and trust me, I have none of my own, so who are we to say?
The Principal didn't want to take any chances on a separation of state vs religion thing and stopped her from singing. She decided to sue and lost. Hrm. Well, schools have a certain latitude to censor student speech when the student is in a position to speak for the school. I don't see that the school would have even had to substanitate unconstitutionality of speech in order to have a legal case to tell her she can't do or say something.
I don't think how this case was resolved solved anything, and I do believe asking us to treat students speaking at graduation ceremonies as state officials endorsing a position of any kind is not conducive to the diverse and tolerant community I want to live in, and believe this nation is supposed to be about. Students who speak at graduation do so at the pleasure of the school, and therefore, are state actors and subject to whatever restrictions the school sees fit. Much as if you hired someone to speak on your behalf; you would have a right to make sure they said what you wanted them to.
Extreme sensitivity to religious statements isn't exactly tolerant, and I think you'd want some degree of tolerance for your own speech wouldn't you? I wouldn't expect the organization on whose behalf I was speaking to affford me absolute tolerance of whatever I chose to say. I would expect them to excert influence over what I said when my speech would be representing them, and I find that reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
frogocrat writes: And we have a government OF By and FOR the people. Majority rules, and as long as we have a majority, I will encourage freedom of my religion...and anyone who wants the state to supercede my God will have to get the voting power back to do so. Until then, deal with it!
A student who becomes a state actor is an agent of the state...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Majority rules, and as long as we have a majority, I will encourage freedom of my religion...and anyone who wants the state to supercede my God will have to get the voting power back to do so. Until then, deal with it! Sorry but that is a gross mistatement of the political system in the US, thank GOD. The Majority does NOT rule and our system of Government is specifically set up to protect us from such a majority. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1719 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And we have a government OF By and FOR the people. I'm a person. You're saying I don't get constitutional rights just because I disagree with you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 260 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:quote: Wait just a second. Who are these "many individuals"? Graduation is not open mike. Only a selected set of people are given the opportunity to say something.
quote: Dunno. I'll have to give it more thought.
quote: As was responded, if "Imagine" could be claimed to be "atheistic," then one has a twisted vision of just what atheism is. After all, Lennon wasn't an atheist. Just because somebody disagrees with a particular religion's brand of supernatural geography doesn't mean that he's an atheist.
quote: There's such an argument to be made. Since such songs are not supposed to be sold to minors, one could say that they shouldn't be played to them without their parents' consent.
quote:quote: Excuse me? Who do you think put that folding chair on the platform? Who do you think put up that platform? The only reason the event exists at all is because the school made it happen. If the local Kiwanis want to be the ones who sponsor graduation, then they can do whatever they want. But since the school chose the venue, the format, and the speakers, then there is no way to deny that they are also sponsoring the speech.
quote: At the approval of the administrators. You don't think the school is going to let the students choose a "disruptive" speaker, are you?
quote:quote: Why not? I point out that the school determines whether or not you are allowed to attend. I don't mean if you have met the graduation requirements. I mean whether you are allowed to participate despite your fulfillment of graduation requirements. You don't have to go, but you don't get to go simply because you want to. Recall the recent story about the pregnant girl who was barred from graduation who waited for the class to walk, stood up from the audience, stated her own name, and walked across. The school had barred her from participation. The boy who got her pregnant, however, was allowed to walk. The school is most definitely the one in charge of the ceremony. Nobody attends except at the whim of the school. Nothing happens except by the consent of the school.
quote:quote: How about none?
quote: Says who? Doesn't context let us know whether or not something is a religious ceremony?
quote:quote: No. You will note, I did not say "students." I said "graduation speaker." You do understand the difference, yes? After all, I gave a specific example of a student making a religious comment at a graduation ceremony that would be perfectly protected constitutionally. Did you not read it? Here it is again:
If said student wants to talk about his religion while in line waiting to go to his seat, he should feel free. But that is him acting on his own without any action of the school involved. But the graduation speaker is there only at the whim of the school. He is therefore acting as an agent of the school. Now, that's strange. It was part of a slightly larger section than what you quoted. One wonders why it is you decided to respond to the third sentence in the paragraph while ignoring the two that immediately preceded it. Do you not see that I was making a distinction between a student spontaneously making comments on his own and a student being selected to by the school to address the students?
quote: Having been a speaker selected by a school, it is a job. Oh, you don't sign a W-2 or any such thing, but it's a job nonetheless. They demanded to see the text I was going to use and when they decided they didn't like it, they dropped me from the program. From what I can tell, it's because I wasn't offering a prayer. And this was at a public school.
quote:quote: But when every line has a logical error, it is hard to be thorough and not do so.
quote: Hah! You're one to talk. See above. That said, your claim is factually false. There was no question that preceded it. Here is your entire statement:
I have agreed that there is at least a side from which to make an argument in this case. I just do not see it holding up under scrutiny, particularly with the negative atmosphere and precedent which would be set. There is not just one set of rights here, there are two. Free speech of a non state employed individual needs to come before your "right" not to be offended by speech of a religious nature when in an audience at a public event. I don't see a question there. I see some statements, but no questions.
quote: So religious freedom is trumped by free expression? You can be forced to listen to a religious ceremony against your will because to stop the person from preaching would be a violation of their free expression? I say it's the other way around in this case. The freedom of religion trumps free expression. Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to preach your gospel. But not right here, not right now.
quote: You realize that you are making the same argument that "intelligent design" isn't religion because it doesn't use the g-word.
quote: She has every right to express herself. But not right here, not right now. No right is absolute.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) Do you seriously think the school would allow the students to choose a speaker whom they know would turn the ceremony into a circus? The speakers are chosen by the school. They may make the pretense of letting the students choose, but if the administration doesn't like the speaker, then the speaker will not appear. Do you really think the school above regarding the pregnant girl would have allowed her to be a speaker if the students had chosen her to be one?
quote: Strange, I have not witnessed one where the administration of the school does NOT choose students they believe reflect all the students and assign them what to say, editing out messages they feel they should not be endorsed by the school.
quote: Indeed. That's why the speaker should consider the feelings of the audience rather than being a selfish bastard and think it's all about him or herself.
quote: Indeed. That's why the speaker should put his own needs aside when he realizes that his actions are interfering with the practice and expression of beliefs of others.
quote: (*chuckle*) Etiquette does not demand the toleration of the rude. If a person can't contain himself until he finds himself in a more appropriate venue for his needs, then he needs to be gently but firmly removed to such a place.
quote: Of course. But etiquette and the law demand that you do such at the appropriate time and place. Anything else is rude at best and a violation of rights. Not right here. Not right now.
quote: When you are an agent of the school, you do not get the privilege of being able to express yourself in any way you wish. If you wish to retain that right, then you must refrain from placing yourself under the guidance of a governmental agency such as a public school. Sing your song around the flag pole. Invite everyone to share. But from the podium of the graduation ceremony? Not right here. Not right now.
quote: Is anybody telling her she is evil? Is anybody telling her that she should never, ever sing such a song? Is anybody trying to make it a crime to sing such a song in all places in all contexts? Is her religious identity so fragile that she cannot go 15 minutes without delivering a sermon? Are you claiming that a person has the right to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants? That the freedom of speech is absolute? Nobody can ever insist that now is not the time nor the place?
quote: Because it's all about her at that point. Her religion. Her glory. Her piousness. Look at me and see how I praise god. She is free to do that all she wants. Just not right here, not right now.
quote: (*chuckle*) So asking people at the movies to be quiet so that the rest of the audience can hear is being intolerant? It is never appropriate to point out that this is not the time nor the place to express yourself? That you're going to have to wait a brief moment until you find yourself in more appropriate venue for such expression? Is the right to express yourself absolute? Nobody is ever allowed to tell you not right here, not right now?
quote:quote: Ah, I see...YOU are the ultimate authority as to whether or not something is a mountain or a molehill. I guess we're back to crash's question: How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate? Violation of constitutional rights isn't rude? A question: If this truly is such a small issue, then why did she make such a big deal out of it? If it were trivial, then it wouldn't have mattered for her to simply acceed to the request not to do so. Why do the people who are objecting to the display of religious pomposity always have to be the ones who suck it up? Why can't the fanatics ever be made to keep their yaps shut for once?
quote: Because YOU are the ultimate authority of when someone's rights are being violated. Apparently, it's OK for a person's rights to be violated if YOU don't mind.
quote:quote: This isn't about the quality of the performance. This is about the content. How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate?
quote: Indeed, but this isn't about whether she sang her comments or spoke them or decided to do an interpretive dance. This is about the content. How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate?
quote: And it appeared to be the case that this was an overt religious ceremony.
quote: It isn't about god unless you use the g-word? Then I guess "intelligent design" isn't really about god, then. They never use the g-word, after all. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Don't you think that, before a student gives their speech, the pricipal probably tells them something like "hey now, you're representing our school, so no fart jokes, ok?" What do you think that means? This is an equivocation. A student may represent the caliber of students graduating from that school, but not be an official representative of the school. As it is school officials say a lot of things to students to get them to do, or not do, things. Students in turn do not always listen... and the school does not get in trouble when a student makes a fart joke at a ceremony. I should also point out that the article mentioned another student went into a speech specifically about the Bible at the ceremony the girl was stopped from singing. Yet the school was not sued nor fined for constitutional violation.
For instance a school can't do an end-run around the constitution by appointing the class president to do their dirty work. Agreed, but the girl was not being assigned to take the place of a teacher so as to sing a song, she was a student speaking during a section that involved students chosen by other students to speak.
Well, the thing is, it did hold up to scrutiny, by the people who's precise job it is to put these things to scrutiny. I haven't seen your law degree and trust me, I have none of my own, so who are we to say? Argument from Authority? Especially on court decisions, are you kidding me? So I take it you support the Constitutional end run that Scalia and Co did in 2000 as beyond your ability to question. I don't. Just because a Judge says something, doesn't make it right or beyond the question of people without law degrees. Like for example a judge stating that parents cannot teach their kid the wiccan religion?????
I don't see that the school would have even had to substanitate unconstitutionality of speech in order to have a legal case to tell her she can't do or say something. This is exactly why I have changed my position somewhat on the ruling. While I still believe the decision was a violation of her free speech rights, anyone "producing" or "directing" or "arranging" a ceremony is going to be editing out something based on some concern and so violating someone's free speech rights. For example he could have decided to skip the math club president's speech because he wanted things to move along and figured that wouldn't appeal to enough of the audience to make the time worthwhile. In that way his decision, while overcautious, is still defensible. I guess I don't care so much if you say he shouldn't have been sued, but to say the girl's actions would have been unconstitutional would be going too far.
Students who speak at graduation do so at the pleasure of the school, and therefore, are state actors and subject to whatever restrictions the school sees fit. Much as if you hired someone to speak on your behalf; you would have a right to make sure they said what you wanted them to. Well you certainly get your BS degree for that load of garbage. They do speak at the pleasure of whoever is finalizing arrangements and so limited by restrictions... but that does not make them tantamount to an employee. The whole point of a graduation ceremony, specifically the student speeches, is to let the students speak for themselves. They can and sometimes do say a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with the school or what they would "endorse". Did I graduate in some foreign country or something? The speeches and arrangements I saw had nothing in common with these Orwellian prop-ups you are suggesting. In fact, if this was the case wouldn't you want to fight it?
I wouldn't expect the organization on whose behalf I was speaking to affford me absolute tolerance of whatever I chose to say. I would expect them to excert influence over what I said when my speech would be representing them, and I find that reasonable. Holy shit, that is the saddest thing I have heard in some time. What happened to people with guts and personality? How about simple teenage rebellion? Your school is NOT your friggin' employer, and while they are not going to allow ABSOLUTE tolerance, singing a POP SONG by a POPULAR SINGER is hardly requesting ABSOLUTE tolerance. And indeed by your standards it appears that ANY tolerance is ABSOLUTE tolerance. I get that jerking off on stage followed by wiping your ass with a diploma is going to get you kicked off, but a bit of foul language or suggestions to wild partying to come in the free time to follow graduation, generally isn't off limits... and I find that reasonable. Same would go for rambling speeches about one's friends and family (is the school actually endorsing everyone who weren't those people's friends are losers?), or expressions of what helped them through school or hope for the future. I am very saddened to see that reason, tolerance, and diversity have come to mean rigid obedience to one's superiors and not allowing individual interests to be expressed publicly as that might cause offense to someone. Tolerance, back in my day, meant the ability to suck it up when people do something that does not interest, or perhaps annoys, you. The benefit was you got to be free to do things that might be boring or annoying to others. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 260 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phatboy writes:
quote: But that's the entire point behind having a Constitution: The majority does NOT rule. There's a reason why we don't have a direct democracy. There's a reason that the term for a senator is 6 years rather than 2 like the representatives. There's a reason that the Senate is not dissolved completely every election cycle but rather only one-third of the senators are ever up for re-election at any given moment. There is a reason why the Senate wrote the fillibuster into their rules centuries ago. "Majority rules" is mob rule and the mob is stupid. Was the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia that removed the criminal sanctions for miscegenation the correct deicision, Phatboy? Even though it flew in the face of over 70% of the population of the US at the time? If left to "majority rule," it would be a crime to marry outside your race. Is that right? Even though the Constitution clearly indicates that it isn't? What is it about the Constitution that upsets you so that you refuse to abide by its restrictions? That you would turn your liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution over to the mob? Just because you're currently part of the mob? Do you really think you're going to stay part of the mob forever? Do you not understand that by protecting the minority, you are protecting yourself?
quote: Phatboy, haven't you bothered to listen to the words of your own god? Render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar. Why are you so averse to following the commandment of your god to allow the government to remain the government and to keep your worship to god? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Rrhain, I am surprised! This actually was quite a good answer coming from you! You did not even *blink* and you gave me cause to think.
Do you not understand that by protecting the minority, you are protecting yourself? Maybe I've been listening to James Dobson and the ACLJ too much lately. I hear them every morning on the radio and they make it seem so right....until the agenda is exposed for what it is. Seculow does seem to make a lot of sense, however. The jury is still out on his sanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
As was responded, if "Imagine" could be claimed to be "atheistic," then one has a twisted vision of just what atheism is. After all, Lennon wasn't an atheist. Just because somebody disagrees with a particular religion's brand of supernatural geography doesn't mean that he's an atheist. Let me rephrase, would that song mean an endorsement of anti-Xianity (and perhaps Judaism and Islam)? Certainly you can see it being offensive to some based on rejecting their religious tenets, can't you? But I do find this pretzel logic quite interesting. Lennon's song would not be unconsitutional because he himself is not an atheist, despite the song clearly rejecting specific religious tenets of a popular faith. Yet Dion's song is unconstitutional as it is a religious performance because... why exactly? She uses the word faith? Prayer? Up above? As far as I can tell it doesn't advocate any particular religion at all and even polytheists and buddhists could handle it. So insult Xians, okay. Don't even insult atheists, except perhaps their intelligence, not okay.
There's such an argument to be made. Since such songs are not supposed to be sold to minors, one could say that they shouldn't be played to them without their parents' consent. 1) Would YOU be making such an argument? If not, what is your point? 2) If songs containing references to smoking, alcohol, drugs, or out of wedlock sex were not to be sold to minors, then there wouldn't be much of a rock scene at all. What Orwellian state do you live in that dictates such things cannot be sold to minors? The only thing I know off limits is graphic language regarding sex or violence.
But since the school chose the venue, the format, and the speakers, then there is no way to deny that they are also sponsoring the speech. But the SCHOOL DID NOT CHOOSE THE SPEAKER DEAR LIZA DEAR LIZA! Did any of you guys actually read the article, much less see how graduation ceremonies are planned? Where I came from it was NOT THE SCHOOLS CHOOSING THE STUDENT SPEAKERS. It was the students, or a group of students who themselves had been chosen as reps by students. And no matter what happened at my school the article clearly stated that the girl had been chosen by students. And I guess I'll point out once again, that the article also mentions that another student who spoke but did not submit what he was going to say first, delivered a speech with direct references to the Bible and biblical characters. Where was the outrage? None. Lawsuits? None. And if someone had sued the school, would they have been held accountable? Not.
You don't think the school is going to let the students choose a "disruptive" speaker, are you? You guys keep trying to ride the slippery slope. You are correct that administrators will try to prevent disruptions. That does not make them selectors or employers, it makes them deselectors. There is usually a pretty large latitude on what the students choose. A girl singing a Celine Dion song is not "disruptive" is it?
Recall the recent story about the pregnant girl who was barred from graduation who waited for the class to walk, stood up from the audience, stated her own name, and walked across. I'm sorry, what is your argument here? Are you suggesting what the school did was right or wrong? Because it is only going to help your case if you think it was right. And that would be an interesting position for you to take. I applaud that courageous girl going against a very wrong decision which schools should not be making. By the way, just because a single school does something does not mean that is how all schools do or should do something.
Says who? Doesn't context let us know whether or not something is a religious ceremony? Okay please detail how this would have been a religious ceremony.
No. You will note, I did not say "students." I said "graduation speaker." You do understand the difference, yes? Yes. Change "student" to "graduation speaker" in my question and answer it, instead of dodging it with this kind of hokum.
Having been a speaker selected by a school, it is a job. Oh, you don't sign a W-2 or any such thing, but it's a job nonetheless. They demanded to see the text I was going to use and when they decided they didn't like it, they dropped me from the program. From what I can tell, it's because I wasn't offering a prayer. And this was at a public school. 1) Your school is not all schools, and as was shown in the article if you had even bothered to read what is being discussed the school in question did not demand, much less read, all of the GRADUATION SPEAKERS' text. It was just that the girl wanted to sing a song and submitted the lyrics for approval. 2) How does having one's text read and/or being rejected as a speaker make being a speaker a job, such that you are an agent of the school? You could just suck, like being removed from a skit performance being held by the school.
But when every line has a logical error, it is hard to be thorough and not do so.
You were not pointing out a logical error. You were asking me a question such as to create a criticism, which was answered by the following statements. There was only a void for a question to be asked since you did not read the next following sentences. I guess it is easy to find errors (logical or other) when you don't read an entire argument, and insist on treating every sentence as an entirety.
I don't see a question there. I see some statements, but no questions. Your question, not mine.
The freedom of religion trumps free expression. Nobody is saying you aren't allowed to preach your gospel. But not right here, not right now. Freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM religion, such that one has to be free of anyone stating that they might be religious or what they get out of religion. She was not suggesting that you had to convert now, or that you even had to have a specific religious notion. She was not preaching, nor singing a gospel song. It was a personal song about how she finds help in faith... a very generic faith, with the biggest issue being that she wants to find someone else to love. Free speech means being able to speak freely. She was not going to change how you live your life or worship based on a Celine Dion song. As it is you might point out to me where it tells me as an audience member which religion I am supposed to be turning to, now that having read the lyrics I am convinced that religion must be the way.
You realize that you are making the same argument that "intelligent design" isn't religion because it doesn't use the g-word. Eh, no I'm not. If the claim is that she is performing some religious ceremony there would need to be more than references to "faith" in the song. Are you claiming George Micheal's song "faith" is a religious ceremony?
Strange, I have not witnessed one where the administration of the school does NOT choose students they believe reflect all the students and assign them what to say, editing out messages they feel they should not be endorsed by the school. Wow, that really sucks for you. Is that true of all California high schools and colleges? I guess I'm lucky to have grown up outside of domineering tyrannies. Then again, maybe its just that we had more guts. We definitely protested (including student walkouts and demonstrations) when we wanted change. The movie "election" sort of showed how most speeches were controlled by administrators in schools where I was. They wrung their hands as students said things they didn't like. Heck, one of those speeches seemed ripped from one that I attended. (technical note: the speeches in the movie were for student council and not graduation ceremony, though they were equally "school functions").
Of course. But etiquette and the law demand that you do such at the appropriate time and place. Anything else is rude at best and a violation of rights. Sorry, I don't speak Newspeak... threw out the dictionary they sent. Tolerance and diversity are not defined by "etiquette and law". If that were the case then gays should find the appropriate time and place to show their form of offensive love (which IS offensive to the majority of people) and keep it in the closet... right? Oh wait, no you are gay and so YOUR views and practices must be allowed to be practiced freely and people that think you are rude are just bigots and intolerant. Keep spinning dude. In reality (old speak) tolerance and diversity remain consistent: allowing others to express themselves even if it is not interesting or perhaps opposing one's views, while one gets to practice what one chooses to do even if others might find it boring or opposing one's views. See, a gray world where everyone does what the "law" says and remain constrained so that no one else might get offended is not "diverse", it is "singular" and "conformed". As soon as you start calling a person singing a song "rude", and demand they must stop, one has not exhibited tolerance. Freedom TO, not freedom FROM.
Is her religious identity so fragile that she cannot go 15 minutes without delivering a sermon? For a guy so insistent that he be able to call someone a liar for not getting facts straight, it is curious that you impugn the emotional stability of a girl using accusations which have no merit at all. Can you please explain where you got the facts that she cannot go 15 minutes without delivering a sermon. I saw no mention of a timeframe nor anything regarding a sermon. I have however seen some guy unable to contain his religious intolerance such that he ends up calling a girl he has never met a bunch of names, because he can't handle the idea of her singing a Dion song which mentions "faith".
Ah, I see...YOU are the ultimate authority as to whether or not something is a mountain or a molehill. No, but clearly you two aren't. You are both hypersensitive and intolerant. Heck, both of you keep insisting it would have been a religious ceremony... based on what facts?
How long would a worship service have to be before it would be unconstitutional to make you attend, even if you didn't have to actively participate? How is this question relevant when the subject of conversation is not a worship service? If you want to know, I'd say holding a service of any kind as part of a school function would be unconstitional. Though being the tolerant type, I'd suck it up unless they got demeaning or preachy to me.
If this truly is such a small issue, then why did she make such a big deal out of it? If it were trivial, then it wouldn't have mattered for her to simply acceed to the request not to do so. Why do the people who are objecting to the display of religious pomposity always have to be the ones who suck it up? Why can't the fanatics ever be made to keep their yaps shut for once? I do agree that it really wasn't worthy of a lawsuit. But people pick an choose their battles. As it stands she didn't feel it was worth pursuing a higher appeal on. As for the last two sentences, yes you are intolerant and hypersensitive. She just asked to sing a Celine Dion song because she felt it was inspiring to her. Whoa.
Because YOU are the ultimate authority of when someone's rights are being violated. Apparently, it's OK for a person's rights to be violated if YOU don't mind. Heheheh... yes. Or are you suggesting that YOU are the ultimate authority? That the courts are the ultimate authority? As far as what the balance between rights is in this case, and the general fallout by choosing freedom FROM religion over the freedom TO speak, I do appear to have a better handle on things. At least I'm not calling this young girl names and questioning her stability. What's next, we stick her pigtails in the ink well?
Indeed, but this isn't about whether she sang her comments or spoke them or decided to do an interpretive dance. This is about the content. Really??? It's all about the CONTENT???? Crash admitted he never even looked at the lyrics, and you don't appear to have even read the article, much less the lyrics.
And it appeared to be the case that this was an overt religious ceremony. No, no it didn't. Not even the principal said this. Please explain how singing a Celine Dion song is an over religious ceremony.
Then I guess "intelligent design" isn't really about god, then. They never use the g-word, after all I didn't say a song couldn't be religious without using the word God. However to be a "religious ceremony" would require indications of some specific faith of some kind. This is so bland and generic (its a freakin' pop song) it could be from any religious or spiritual belief system. The only people who it might get lost on is atheists, though they might be able to agree with some of the other song's sentiments about life, and feeling a "faith" in something outside or inside themselves. Certainly I am an atheist and I'm more put out by the prospect of hearing a girl butcher a song a cappela in front of a hot and sweaty crowd, rather than the text of that particular song. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024