gordo:

But it wasn't class. It's a once a year event. What does that say about the purportedly captive audience? Let me it put this way, this was high school graduation and not Guantanamo. Are the words "God", "Lord", and "Christ" otherwise so infectious that they can't be uttered once a year, and that depending on whether the valedictorian[s] rely on notions of Deity to inspire them greatness? And you can sub in Vishnu or Allah, or the Buddha or Mohammed, and it doesn't change anything. My world won't end tomorrow if I and my own need attend the graduation wherein the class valedictorian credits Allah and Mohammed for his advanced placement honor roll high school career. Of course, that's probably because since this isn't Guantanamo, I'm just happy with the success and don't quite understand why that's not good enough for all of us in this circumstance. Shouldn't this be a cause for rejoicing? What is she gonna say to change that? If there's any change, such says more about us than it does about her. And for those desiring to live in a multicultural world, well, they're in trouble, since the omens and signs are not good when the Christian girl can't thank God and Jesus, the Muslim boy Allah and Mohammed, and the Buddhist girl the Buddha [for bringing her enlightenment and the notion that resignation might lead to clear vision].

I'd like to call it crazy, since as I remarked on that other thread re the fence leveler who leaves nailed boards exposed in his yard for our children to injure themselves on, this simply does not compute for me. I otherwise feel like Alice in Wonderland, since it seems to me that the ones preaching tolerance are acting rather intolerant. I mean, let's assume for a moment that the speech was proselytizing in part. Who cares? I might disagree with her, as a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an animist, a wiccan, an atheist, whatever, but I'd be flattered that she at least thought enough of me to offer me the secret of her success. And as an adult and as concerns myself, well, I am presumably competent to evaluate the evidence [or lack thereof] and the competing claims, and decide for myself [her words don't present any clear and present danger in that regard]. As a parent, well, I did rather poorly if a relatively short one time speech from the class valedictorian undermines my prior parental direction and guidance. I've otherwise been holding my own "captive" for much longer than the class valedictorian. And if I've done my job, then my own has the same reaction as me, and who cares who gets the credit for the inspiration, since education/learning and success with respect to the same is an absolute good in the first instance. And maybe we might otherwise just simply play the worthy soul and share and rejoice in her/his success. Lastly, to compare the event in question with own experience, just the other day as a matter of fact, and, well, I'm not Buddhist, but that didn't stop me from being genuinely happy, and showing it, when my neighbor reported to me while in the elevator, that with the Buddha's help, her frightening predicament had been resolved. My first and only thought was good for you. I don't see why things ought to be any different at graduation.

Now let me add that which I left out of my last. Beyond the obscene, maybe they might review for your more direct personal attack. I mean, in line with what I've said, sorry, but I've no time at all for the notion that it's offensive and unacceptable and cannot be uttered simply because one disagrees with what is said. But that is not the same as someone standing up for the speech and saying that all atheists will burn in hell [to use that for my example]. My objection with respect to that circumstance doesn't have anything to do with religion and/or expression and/or conscience, but simply with the fact that the purpose of the graduation is not to have a divisive indictment and/or debate, so such remarks would simply be out of place and inappropriate in the circumstance [and so never mind notions of free exercise and establishment of religion]. But there ought not be anything divisive or objectionable in one simply sharing the opposing view in the context of her/him trying to impart that which led to her/his success. My considered opinion is otherwise simply that if we have a problem doing that, then we are without hope, and to borrow from Bob who borrowed from Haile, our multicultural world will remain in but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained...and everywhere is war...

Let me end by noting, for cruel irony, the recent anger of some over certain remarks made by the Pope. The Pope just offered his opinion on Islam and Mohammed. He didn't declare war and call men to arms. And for the crucial context, he wasn't otherwise speaking at the inter-faith conference, where such remarks might have been inappropriate [though that would depend on further context, i.e., if the respective merits of the competing faiths were at issue, then the Pope's remarks would have been in context]. I see the reaction and objection of the persons in question in both instances as being more or less synonomous. And so now you also know why I think that we have some of our own home grown "Islamofascists" to deal with, and never mind Osama in that regard [since by home grown "Islamofacists", I am here NOT speaking of any Muslim(s)].



entspeak:

See the above for installment one re my reply to your remarks re the "reasonable dissenter". Can you dissent from my beliefs and still rejoice with me in my success? And here's my valedictory speech:

I'd like to tell you how I did it, and what it all meant for me, and then you could then decide for yourselves whether any of it might work for you, but I can't, since I'd have to talk about my faith, and how it defines me, and since some cannot have that, I'll now turn it over to the video man for some filler time with mind-numbing, spirit crushing, game shows, but while your mind is numbing and your spirit crushed, simply consider the impotence of the following...

"As the 9th Circuit had explained in Cole, a proselytizing speech has the same coercive effect, in that a dissenting member of the audience would feel that his or her silence in the face of the prayer or speech would signify approval of its content."

Really? Darn, then I sent the wrong message when I went to my Jewish friend's Bar Mitzvah [there's nothing more proselytizing than the Bar Mitzvah, well maybe Yom Kippur and the day before, but I digress...]. But here I thought that I was just supporting my friend. But, no, Judge Graber, this reasonable dissenter doesn't believe that his attendance at his friend's Bar Mitzvah in something more than silence signifies my approval of the content [wonder and joy were the expressions]. I suppose that if I ever attend one again, I'll have to wear that disclaimer reading: I am a Christian, he is a Jew, but by the grace of God we are who we are and I otherwise make no other endorsement by or through any of my conduct here today. I'd call Judge Graber's understanding an exercise in the legal theory of the...but I had better not say lest I take strike two low and on the outside corner, though I will say that maybe I should go to oral argument, and every time I disagree with something the court reports, stand up and interject, lest someone perceive my silence as approval of the court's stated content [I wonder how that reasonable dissent would go over?]. And for absurdity, please compare the above excerpt from Cole with this rather perceptive word from a self-professed supporter of the decision in Cole:

"A prayer offered before an audience generally purports to express the audience's beliefs, while a proselytizing speech is given to persuade or convert the audience to the speaker's beliefs."

And so, if given to persuade or convert, just how does the dissenting member's failure to do anything other than remain silent signify her or his approval of the content? Maybe he or she is just ignoring those words of persuasian or conversion, in the interest of being polite?

Now to be fair to Judge Graber, never mind notions of the state establishing religion, it was simply inappropriate for the student in Cole to have asked the crowd whether they had accepted Jesus as their savior. We might have a call to go the nations, but it doesn't say that we have to convert at the graduation exercise and that simply wasn't the time and place for that mission, at least not when undertaken in the manner that it was.

Actually, I will say more re Judge Graber and Cole, which is that the Judge and the court don't understand what it means to proselytize:

"Although a disclaimer arguably distances school officials from 'sponsoring' the speech...it does not change the fact that proselytizing amounts to a religious practice that the school district may not coerce other students to participate in, even while looking the other way."

Uhh, Judge, we proselytize by how we live. Or as that Francis who was so fond of animals and they apparently so fond of him put it, with my repetition for emphasis, spread the gospel through the whole world; if necessary, and only if necessary, use words. The mere fact that the state compels me and my neighbor to go school means that the state supports and compels a religious practice [since I'm not supposed to be telling him about Christ, but showing him Christ]. Again, why not simply say that this isn't about the state establishing religion, but about the proper role of the valedictory speech[es] at high school graduation and that if one wants to ask about saviors, one can do so in this same forum, though not in the same manner and position as valedictory speaker, since that isn't the purpose of that role and speech? I mean, I would find it just as inappropriate if the speaker asked us all whether we ate a proper diet, got enough sleep, etc. And to make the critical distinction, note that I did not say that the speaker cannot attribute her or his success to a proper diet and enough sleep, only that I'm not there to be the subject of inquiry re the same. And so she can speak about how her belief in God inspired her to educational greatness, but she need not ask me whether I have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Lastly, the reasonable dissent is pretty weak and pathetic if this is the reality:

"To be sure, there's a general distinction between a prayer uttered on behalf of an audience and a proselytizing speech given to an audience. A prayer offered before an audience generally purports to express the audience's beliefs, while a proselytizing speech is given to persuade or convert the audience to the speaker's beliefs.

But that distinction does not dispel the appearance of a school district's support for a graduation speech as well as for a graduation prayer. And that distinction does not remove the element of coercion of dissenting members of the audience who fear that their polite (and perhaps anxious) silence during a prayer or speech -- even if the school district issues a disclaimer about the district's stance -- wrongly but inevitably signals their support."

See: http://www.asbj.com/2003/08/0803schoollaw.html

Sorry, but I'm Christian, and I'll attend my Jewish friend's Bar Mitzvah, and let the rest think what they want. And silence? I'll go them two better and express wonder and joy. And never mind notions of any purported coercion, feeble as such are in the described and similar circumstances.

Sorry, one more, and this goes back to what I said in my last re asking the students to put on a false face, and this shows the absolute intellectual and moral bankrupcty of the position in Cole, at least on the stated grounds [since as I've said, I've another objection and reason why we don't allow the proselytizing]:

"With respect to sponsorship, Graber identified several factors to show that the school district's control of the ceremony would stamp student speeches with its apparent approval. Among them: The district financed the ceremony and rented the site; the selection of student speakers based on their class rank showed that the district endorsed them as "representative examples of the success of the school's own educational mission"; and Principal Coupe reviewed and approved the speeches."

That's the problem. If the kid is the "representative example," then the state perpetrates a fraud when it does not report to us just who and what the kid represents. And the rather insidious nature of the fraud is simply that it not only denies who the student claims to be, it also falsely takes credit for the sudent's success, since the secular state cannot explain or endorse the self-professed importance of faith in God which the student credits for the success that the student is claimed to represent. So either the court was wrong in its analysis of just what it means to "endorse" and "coerce", or else we have a problem, since a failure to endorse and fraud are not synonomous. And we can add her damage to reputation caused by being painted in a false light, i.e., for the fitting irony here, someone might think that her mandated omission means that she isn't who and what she claims to be. And please note that the matter of being painted in a false light seems to only be of concern in relation to the reasonable dissenter in this instance, and not the speaker. Why is that?

One more item, so no omission on my part. In addition to the wonder and joy, add that I was also wearing a yarmulkah. And proudly so. But I was then and still am Christian. So just what did I endorse again?

The one stated rationale is very nearly ridiculous, since on the stated premise, why go and listen to the local Marxists pontificate? I mean, unless I actively dissent, then won't some think that I endorse? Yeah, they might. But those souls lack common sense and so why worry about them, since I could be there for any number of reasons, like I have to be there, that captive audience, or as that song goes, maybe I just wanted to get my fair share of the views and you otherwise know what they say, if you've only time to hear one speaker, better the opposition's, since you are already more familiar with what you and yours have to say. Now let me ask a question: what views are you afraid to be associated with? Hitler's Nazism? The racism of the Order or Stormfront? Is that what Judge Graber and the 9th Circuit believe that Christianity equates to? I mean, I can see not sitting there in silence OR AT ALL if someone is speaking in terms of an irrational hate, but is that what God, the Lord, and Jesus represent? Sorry to say, but that's how I view the subtext here. If one wishes to speak of not violating conscience by requiring someone to attend a function wherein someone is indeed asked to violate conscience, that's one thing, but this nonsense about my presence equates to my endorsement, and that I need fear the coercive effect of the same, well, such only works if we're talking about my presence at the local Stormfront meeting, and not my presence at the Temple Beth-El for my friend's Bar Mitzvah.

And for more irony, simply recall the report in that New Testament work called Acts of the Apostles wherein those pagan Greeks, who had leisure for nothing else other than to say and to hear new things, took a walk to Mars Hill where they listened to Paul speak. Were they endorsing Paul and his Jesus crucified? According to the 9th Circuit, those pagan Greeks were participating in Paul's proselytizing and were apparently giving him a ringing endorsement by their very presence, and so they, being reasonable souls, need have feared the same. Somehow, I think that such would be news to most of them.

And if the stated rationale is correct, then I expect the school district to notify me whenever they teach or pontificate on global warming, since I will remove my child for that time lest I appear to endorse the theory of global warming, and for me and mine, this a matter of conscience. And my child is otherwise going to need a waiver, since my kid goes to Woodrow Wilson High School, and Woodrow was a racist who reversed the federal desegregation policy instituted by Lincoln, and I don't want my child's attendance at the school to be mistaken for endorsement of Wilson's racist views. A good Republican family cannot otherwise have it any other way.

So maybe the 9th Circuit need rethink what it means to endorse and just what the reasonable dissenter need fear by way of coercive effect. Unless, of course, the court wants to exempt my child and otherwise order the waiver. And, again, funny how there's no concern over endorsement of the racist Wilson, but our gal in Nevada and her Jesus, boy, watch out for them, their dangerous...As I said, that's how I see the subtext here. And so it isn't our gal in Nevada but the 9th Circuit and some others that I need fear.

'Bout as far as I got before I gave up. Have explained to Kivrot, in private, the reason for my lack of response to his post.

entspeak:

Maybe not. Here is what she said:

"…His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.

This is why Christ died. John 10:10 says He died so we no longer have to reach in vain for the magnificence of the stars and find we always fall short, so we can have life -- and life to the fullest. I now desire not my own will, but the will of God for my life -- however crazy and extravagant, or seemingly mundane and uneventful that might be. Strangely enough, surrendering my own will for the will of God, giving up control, gave me peace, gave me a calm I can't even begin to express with words…"

Is that mere proselytizing? Remember, she's in high school, and the above just may be how she expresses herself re that matter of who she is. And so still the same problem. If that's how she sees herself, then who are they to say that she cannot state the matter in those terms?

As I said in my last, which I drafted prior to your initial response to me, this is about distate for Christians. Sorry, but it's not our fault that us being us is perceived by you and some others as missionary work. Believe it or not, we say such things even among ourselves, and we are not trying to convert each other. It also sounds to me like she was reaffirming her own sense of self.

The soul at http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/mccomb.html thinks that her above words are a ringing commercial for Christianity. Yeah, just like Bill Gates could give his own speech on the beliefs that have ensured his own success, and such would serve as a ringing commercial for the same. Again, sorry, but it's not our fault that nothing sells like success.

I don't otherwise hear anyone crying about Christians or some other religious adherents getting a bad name from the lack of success of some of their own. Wait, I have. That's right, we are not at war with Islam, we have nothing to fear from Islam, and we must be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. As I said, I know what the subtext here is, since no one is saying that about Christianity and Christians. The perpetrators may not be consciously aware of the reality, but it still is what it is.

And here's the other problem:

"In 2003 the Clark County School Board, which governs McComb’s high school, amended regulations regarding religious speech, the Review-Journal reported, prohibiting district officials from organizing prayer at graduation or selecting speakers in a manner that favors religious speech.

But if students or speakers are selected “on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria,” then their speech “may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content.” The school “may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored,” the guidelines say."

Was her selection neutral? Was her speech restricted because of its religious content? So the State of Nevada violated its own law?

Lastly, simply consider, her own words, and as I said, it was a matter of conscience:

"I am not a rebel. I have never been a rebel. I have always been one to uphold the standards of the school, to respect my elders, to respect authority. But when you tell me I can't be who I am, that's when I have to take a stand."

Sorry, one more, about someone from the other party who sees the same problem that I do, which is indeed about some others not wanting us to be who we are:

"A FEW WEEKS AGO, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama gave a speech to a group of liberal Christians in which he called on his fellow Democrats to tear down the party’s self-imposed wall between religious faith and politics.

He criticized liberals who dismiss religion as “inherently irrational or intolerant,” and he called the idea that Americans should refrain from injecting their personal morality into the political debate a “practical absurdity.” Most important, however, he focused attention on the “prejudices” and “bias” that lie at the center of the alleged split between religious and nonreligious Americans."

And it's not the racists who came over, but the God-fearing:

"....Some scholars point to the Democratic National Convention of 1972 as not only the moment Democrats edged toward secularism but the event that created the religious rift in American politics. Before 1972, both major parties were essentially indistinguishable in their approach to religion. The activist cores of both were dominated by members of mainstream religious groups: the GOP by mainline Protestants and the Democratic Party by Catholics and Jews.

But the Democratic delegation that nominated South Dakota Sen. George McGovern for president at the '72 convention represented a profound shift from what had been the cultural consensus in American politics. Whereas only 5% of Americans could be considered secular in 1972, fully 24% of first-time Democratic delegates that year were self-identified agnostics, atheists or people who rarely, if ever, set foot in a house of worship. This new activist base encouraged a growing number of Democratic politicians to tone down their appeal to religious voters and to seek a higher wall separating church and state. With little regard for the traditionalist sensitivities of religious people within or outside of the party, the Democrats also embraced progressive stances on feminism and homosexuality that the public had never openly debated.

Meanwhile, the Republican delegation — and by extension the party platform — remained unchanged, and the GOP essentially became the party of tradition and religion by default. "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972," writes University of Maryland political scientist Geoffrey Layman, "were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."

Speaking of things tolerant, I found the Democrat secularists in question quite intolerant and so decided to bail on the party. And I myself, like Obama, have noted the practical absurdity of the proposition that I must not allow my faith to influence my politics. You might as well ask us to stop being who we are, since that's what it would take.

Sorry, the article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...nion-columnists


Sorry, one more, some of Obama words in this regard:

"For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough."

See that word "hunger"? Well, read up on our gal in Nevada. The message of her speech was also that she had always been an achiever, but never felt truly happy or satisfied. And then she gave her life to Jesus, as she relates above. Now, a question, would it have been proper for Obama to speak the same message, to the same audience? Or does Obama the elected Democrat get a pass from the left? And what would that say about the matter of integrity [or the lack thereof]?

Again, sorry, the link for Obama:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call...ress/index.html

Our gal in Nevada didn't say anything that Obama didn't. But I hear no great call to censor him. And for a last word on that practical absurdity that some here at AD have insisted on:

"More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice."

As I said, you might as well ask us to stop being who we are...

Edited to add:

Sorry, to have to make you cringe, but Obama said it best:

"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Kivrot,

Again, sorry... I just quickly scanned your post and didn't read it completely... but one thing did pop out at me and that is that you are ignoring a very relevant portion of the school regulation. In addition to the "neutral even-handed" portion of the regulation there is the part that refers to "primary control" over the content. She did not retain primary control over the content because the school pre-reviews all valedictorian speeches and has the final authority as to the content.

If you said anything more in your post that might have been relevant, I didn't catch it in my scan.

The same thing applies to the talent show in New Jersey. And it's not an answer to say that the school reviewed the graduation speech beforehand. They could have reviewed the speech, found it G-rated, and then the student could have inserted some choice French words while at the podium. If she continued that blue streak and the school didn't shut off the microphone, then all the same legal principles apply.

Actually I call myself agnostic

That’s the issue though. It does not matter per say on how you would feel, but the case in point is every students thoughts have to be taken into account. Personally if I was in the audience I would be like what the heck, am I at church or at school, those would be my exact thoughts I am sure.

The point I am trying o make overall is it does not matter past what event it is save the event is a product of the school involving the student body. So in that case if we say its a go, that means such is acceptable behavior then in school based events, like a class, by members of the student body, which I would bet without a doubt would start to lead to negative events taking place, parents being mad at pta meetings and so forth and so on. Also, what does it mean in regards to what a teacher can do then? It does by extension apply to them.

Public schools seem to be a new battleground for such events. People trying to get evolution labeled a religion so they can get it tossed out of public education. Now personally I think if a student is so enveloped in beliefs that learning about evolution would damage that persons psyche I would have no problem in them being able to take an alternative class, the problem exists when if you take evolution out of the mix biology makes no sense as a field anymore as its the backbone of biology in regards to understanding, being its a scientific field it really would have to be a science wide conspiracy to perpetuate such a large lie if it were for so long in regards to the study of natural phenomena such as life. Still I would not or ever object to heavy religious students being able to take an alternative class. This is the problem though, you have private schools that are based on one particular take on religion, I think one would be hard pressed to find a school that can actually cohesively contain large amounts of religious diversity without it bring along friction in that vacuum, then pretty soon I think one might have a big bang of legal issues to deal with.

I don’t want my child subject to religion in school. I don’t want my child to do the same to other kids, I am sure you would not like your child to be subject to overbearing tones of Muslim thought or some other alien religion on a day to day basis, as I am sure overall simply allowing religion in public schools would lead to. Again I do not feel what the student did was wrong, save on the base that society in America currently has a standard in place that I feel is there for no other purpose really save to protect public education from being turned into an ideological war zone overall, thus really is my belief for the reason of the establishment clause in the first place simply because the FF's got to live in the time when such really did lead to barbarous acts and such problems.

The fact is, they didn't pre-review the acts in the talent show and only singled out the religious one for review of content based solely on those grounds. The school district did pre-review McComb's speech as they would any valedictorian and was told not to give the proselytizing speech, did so and had her microphone cut off. What's your point?

McComb's speech was not singled out for review solely because of the religious content. All speeches are reviewed. The courts and the Legislature have established guidelines for how schools can remain neutral in matters of religious expression. Pre-reviewing a speech that is proselytizing and allowing it does not, in the eyes of the courts or the Legislature, keep the school neutral. Nor does censoring all religious references from a speech keep a school neutral.

My point? The comment of yours I was answering was this:


Are you still pursuing that line of argument? My point related to that, not to what you were talking about in your latest post.


The only court you've shown to have stated this is the 9th Circuit, which I've been explicitly taking issue with. The Supreme Court has not, nor has Congress. (whatever relevance an act of Congress has on a First Amendment matter anyway)

Blackstone,

And how could the school sanction or punish a graduating student? She's already graduated. She is no longer a student. There is an example where a student gave an acceptance speech at an assembly when he was voted class president, I believe, and used some profane language. He got in trouble with the school, but he was still a student.

If the school reviews a student's valedictorian speech and the student says some very misogynistic things about women, should the school allow the student to do the speech? Should they censor it? I mean, according to you, it is the student's opinion and is in no way attributable to the school. The student isn't using profane language, he's just expressing his opinion, right? Should the school approve that speech? If the student gives that speech is the school also responsible, having reviewed it and approved it for that content?

If the school recognized that McComb was giving the proselytizing speech, should they have allowed her to continue despite the warning that those student's who deviated from their speech would have their mic cut? Or are you saying that the school should have reviewed and approved McComb's speech despite the proselytizing language?



The Supreme Court has never stated that schools need to remain neutral in matters of religion? I seem to recall that the Supreme Court stated very specifically that a possible violation of the Establishment Clause merited the censoring of student speech.

Congress didn't pass the NCLB Act? That deals very specifically with "primary control" of content – which the school would have if they pre-reviewed and had final authority over the content of a student's speech.



Congress can certainly make a law that clarifies how the government will deal with the Establishment Clause. Schools are still answerable to the law. To argue that a Congressional act that establishes guidelines for following the Establishment Clause is somehow irrelevant, is absurd. It is very relevant.

What do they do when they pre-review a speech and the student goes off-script? It's the same thing in either case.


A simple examination of the above quote I replied to shows that that's not what I said.


Whatever would violate the Establishment Clause without an act of Congress, would violate it with the act of Congress. Whatever would not violate it, would not violate it in either instance. And Congress no power to tell the courts how to determine whether or not a violation has occurred.

It's a largely moot point anyway, since neither Congress nor the courts have yet defined what they mean by "primary control". Seems to me that the power to edit is more of a secondary form of control. Primary control (on the school's part) I think would be more like a student reading the afternoon school announcements over the PA system. There, the student truly would just be the mouthpiece for the administration.

As I explained to Amlord earlier, primary control does not necessarily mean that you are the primary creator of the content. Many musicians and writers can certainly attest to this concept of primary control. Primary control over the content would be the person who retains... well, has the last word on the content. As regards a valedictorian speech in Clark County, the school retains primary control over the content – they have the final word on what words are used in the speech. If the school does not approve the content of your speech, you do not give the speech. That is an exertion of primary control over the content. If the school had secondary control, then it could only suggest changes and the student could then decide to make those changes or not. In this case, McComb attempted to retain primary control over the content when she didn't have it.

Hmm, I'd think that would fall into the category of "no control". By the way, have the courts or any other authority graced us with a definition of what exactly they mean by "primary control"?

Well, I don't know of a case where the Guidance of the NCLB is specifically implicated, so the courts don't have a definition of the exact phrase, "primary control". There is no definition within the Guidance of the NCLB for the phrase. What is, or should be, clear is that a student does not have primary control over the content if the school can tell them what to include or not include in a speech and require an alteration of that content.

I have contacted the Department of Education and the specialist's "best guess" interpretation of the NCLB appears to coincide with this. They did refer me to the Office of General Counsel for the DOE for clarification because of the "legalese" and I have yet to hear back from that office.

I'm looking over again your cite of the NCLB Act:


If your interpretation of primary control is correct, then it looks to me like it's saying that when a student's speech is not restricted, it may not be restricted. Did I misread you?

That is a gross oversimplification and ignores the context of the guideline.

If a student's speech is not subject to restriction by the school anyway, the speech may not be restricted for religious content. A good example of this is the New Jersey case where the students knew the guidelines for choosing an act and knew that, apart from those very specific guidelines, they were free to choose what ever act they wanted to perform without further restriction beyond that initial guideline. The school, in that case, may not then choose to restrict one act because it contains religious content. The school, in that case, was very specific about what would and wouldn't be allowed in terms of choice. The restriction of religious content violates the NCLB Guidance clause because it went beyond the established and well known criteria for review and restricted religious expression. Now, this is just one aspect of that case... the issues regarding the nature of the forum also figure into it.

In McComb's case, all student speeches are subject to restriction by the school district, McComb knew this. Heck anyone who read a local paper knew it.

Clark County School District is allowed to have student speeches that proselytize if it gives up the right to all prior review of student speeches.

I think it's your reading of the situation that doesn't jibe with the context. If the school didn't review the graduation speech beforehand, how would it even be able to restrict it based on its religious or anti-religious content, or based on anything else, for that matter? By the interpretation you're giving, it would be nearly impossible for the school to violate the law anyway, so why bother even enacting it?


Don't misrepresent the law. There is nothing in there that restricts school districts from allowing students to proselytize.

Because there may be schools that elect not to review student speeches and the event is still sponsored by the school and the audience is still a captive one. If a school elected not to review student speeches and pulled the plug on a student for proselytizing at graduation, that would be a no-no. If the same school happened to discover that a student would be giving a proselytizing speech at graduation, they couldn't go to the student and tell them that they couldn't give that speech. The Secretary's Guidelines explain how and when student's have the right to religious expression without it violating the Establishment Clause.



I am not misrepresenting the law, I am referring to the Clark County School District's policy and their interpretation of the law.



Section 9254 of the NCLB Act:



Now, school district is supposed to inform the government that their policies adhere to that guidance... if the policies do not, the school district does not receive federal money. The Clark County School District, as far as I know, still receives federal money. So, I am going to make the assumption that their policy falls in line with the government's interpretation of "primary control."

This answers the point you raised earler, when you said, "If a student swears or uses racial slurs in a speech at a public school event and the school pre-reviewed the speech, is the speech attributable to the school? They allowed it. Could the school be held responsible for the content of the speech? Yes, they could."

As I explained, they're just as responsible regardless of whether or not they pre-reviewed it. Your reply was that if they didn't pre-review it, they'd be powerless to do anything about it if it stepped over the line. But you're now acknowledging that they would not be.


There is no possible interpretation of the law that says that the law restricts proselytizing. It's just not in there. It may allow schools to restrict it under certain circumstances, but it in no way mandates it.


This is interesting in light of my first debate question. Now it makes even less sense that the ACLU took the side of the child performer in New Jersey.


Well, either that or the DOE isn't gearing up for a fight with the 9th Circuit at this time. Regardless, though, this NCLB business is largely beside the point anyway, as I've explained above. The law does not mandate restriction of proselytization, and in either event, does not subsitute for the First Amendment. My debate question has to do with the First Amendment, not the NCLB Act. And no Supreme Court decision has ever yet gotten into this business of "primary control".

So what this still comes down to is whether a student's graduation speech is attributable to the school. I said above that the prior review was there only to set bounds of propriety. Your answer was that "The school just might be setting those boundaries of propriety because the speech is attributable to the school." But if that's the case, then the speech is attributable to the school even if it didn't review it beforehand. Is this the notion your argument is resting on?

Blackstone,

There is more to each case than simply the argument of pre-review. There is more to each case than simply the argument of district control. There is more to each case than simply the argument regarding the nature of the forum as voluntary in terms of attending. Yet you argue each of these in turn as if the others don't exist. You ignore the fact that the Guidance for the NCLB was intended to inform schools as to how they can go about allowing religious expression without violating the Establishment Clause. This is why it is worded the way that it is. There is also the question of whether a Guidance – worded in a way that explicitly imposes a restriction on religious expression – would be unconstitutional. The positive wording of the NCLB keeps it clear of constitutional challenge while supporting the restrictions placed on the governent by the 1st Amendment. So, no, the NCLB does not explicitly restrict proselytizing at graduation – the 1st Amendment does that. The law dictates when such expression is constitutionally protected such that the Establishment Clause does not apply.

And you ignore the fact that even if Congress's opinion is authoritative here, it does not imply that not being within NCLB's guidelines means the speech is unconstitutional. As you say, "the 1st Amendment does that." So you claim. But that's what this discussion is about.


I don't know what exactly your objection is. I asked you if you thought a graduation speech could be attributed to the school if it didn't prereview it. Can it or can it not? If your answer is that it can, how would that jibe with your statement that "If a school elected not to review student speeches and pulled the plug on a student for proselytizing at graduation, that would be a no-no"? If your answer is that it can not, how would that jibe with your statement that "The school just might be setting those boundaries of propriety because the speech is attributable to the school"?

I've been thinking (dangerous I know) that the best way to respect the 1st Amendment is to include a disclaimer in the beginning of the speech that indicates that this to be personal opinion. The truth is that a student is not an employee of the school and therefore does not represent the state at all. If everyone understood the 1st Amenment, we wouldn't need all this broohaha, because it would go without saying.

The public school districts are required (in order to continue to receive federal funding) to comply with the Guidelines of the NCLB in this regard.

To ignore your oversimplification of the issue, if the speech is religious expression like that found in McComb's, and the school elects not to pre-review all valedictorian speeches, then according to the government's interpretation of the 1st Amendment (which has not been challenged in the courts), the religious speech is not attributable to the school and pulling the plug would be wrong. There is nothing in the law that states pulling the plug for, say, racist or misogynistic language in that situation would be wrong. Such language would still be attributable to the school because they sponsored and had control over the event, they picked the speaker. You see, Blackstone, the schools are required to give more leeway for religious speech than other speech in order to achieve some sort of neutrality when it comes to religion. The NCLB Guidance is the governments way of trying to maintain a balance between the Establishment Clause and Freedom of Religious Expression... a way of saying, "this is the way our public schools will agree to view the Establishment Clause in terms of student speech and allowing Freedom of Religious Expression... if the school does not retain primary control over the student's or guest speaker's speech, it isn't attributable to the school despite the nature of the forum." This view has not been successfully challenged in the Courts. This is not to say it is right or wrong, but it is why the ACLU sided one way in New Jersey and another way in Nevada.

OK, so when you said, "If a school elected not to review student speeches and pulled the plug on a student for proselytizing at graduation, that would be a no-no," you meant it would be a no-no merely under NCLB, not under the First Amendment? So just so I'm clear on your position, if it wasn't for NCLB, would a school be required under the Establishment Clause to silence the mike of a proselytizing valedictorian, even if it hadn't pre-reviewed the speech?

As I stated previously, Blackstone, the NCLB Guidance regarding this issue is meant to be the government's interpretation of the Establishment Clause. So, no, not merely under the NCLB, but under the Establishment Clause as interpreted by the citizens of this country through their elected representatives in the government. This interpretation has not been challenged yet in the Courts.

So in that case I'll ask you again: when you said, "The school just might be setting those boundaries of propriety because the speech is attributable to the school," do you really think that's a realistic assumption? That a graduation speech could be attributable to the school if it hadn't pre-reviewed the speech? If not, then what would be the school's purpose in reviewing the speech?

By the way, I think you're making quite an assumption when you say that the NCLB Act represents the government's interpretation of the First Amendment. You'd think it would have mentioned that Amendment if that was the case.

I sorry, I didn't realize this had become a private discussion. You might also consider that this issue has probably been debated here longer than it had when it was originally conceived. Frankly, I think that most people realize that the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment has little resemblence to that of the Founders. I think the vast majority of debate on this issue is conducted for the sake of debate, and not in the pursuit of truth. Those that worship the Separation of Church and State usually think that the Christian Right controls this country (and is bringing it to hell) when it seems more likely that the Christian Right is atheist in comparison to people during the Revolutionary period. Furthermore, the two clauses never collide, the only things that collide around here are our illogic with the logic of the Founders. Now I will leave you with one last thought.....

Gee, umm... let me think really hard. To prevent disruptions and possible lawsuits. If they pre-review speeches, they limit the number of disruptions to graduation ceremonies by cutting them off at the pass. This is by no means a guarantee, but it does aid in prevention.



By the way, you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Section 9524 of the No Child Left Behind Act.



How about you actually do some homework, Blackstone. Or do you somehow believe that they are referring to some other Constitution?

Absolutely ridiculous.

So would that be a Yes or a No to my first question?


How about you actually read yours? Where's the interpretation of the Constution in that section? Mere mention of the Constitution doesn't mean it's interpreting it.

By the way, maybe this was my fault, but it looks like I got a misleading impression from you earlier, when you posted the NCLB quote about "primary control" and "even-handed criteria" and all that. The impression I got was that that was from the statute. I was wrong, it was from the administration's guidelines. And as can be seen from the footnotes, they do not represent an independent attempt by the administration to interpret the First Amendment. It's just a general compilation of what the courts have decided so far. I highly doubt any court would consider it authoritative of that Amendment.


What's absolutely ridiculous is this notion that because the guideline says that schools may not prohibit religious speech if X condition is met, it's therefore saying that schools must prohibit religious speech if X condition is not met.

Well, Blackstone, the Guidance was meant to reflect the current state of law concerning the 1st Amendment. The language in the Guidance is an interpretation based on the current state of law – hence, the guidelines... that are based on the current state of law, which are based on interpretations of the 1st Amendment. The Department of Justice signs off on it. It is, in essence, the government's interpretation of when prayer (or other religious expresssion) is constitutionally protected despite the Establishment Clause.

When the guidance says that in a particular situation, religious speech is not attributable to the school and is, therefore, constitutionally protected and can't be restricted, you are saying that isn't an interpretation of the 1st Amendment?



And the Guidance has not been challenged in a court and until that time, how a court would consider it is irrelevant because a court can't consider it until there is a challenge.



Well, the portion of the Guidance that is authorized by the statute and which is approved by the Department of Justice, is intended to inform schools of when speech is not attributable to the school. It is reasonable to conclude that religious speech that does not meet the criteria that is recognized as not being attributable to the school – and, therefore, would not violate the Establishment Clause – is, in fact attributable to the school. Otherwise, there is no guidance given by the Guidance.

At most, it's an interpretation of the Supreme Court's interpretation. It certainly isn't anywhere near at the same level as judicial interpretation, because when a court interprets a piece of law, it does so in the context of an actual case or controversy, after hearing arguments from both interested sides. All these guidelines are are a distillation of such decisions.


Then it's also irrelevant to this discussion.


Or, that it may be attributable to the school. The purpose of the Guidance, as stated in Section 9524, is to focus on protecting prayer, that is to say, upholding the Free Exercise Clause. Upholding the Establishment Clause, for whatever reason, doesn't appear to be part of the Department's mandate. Therefore, it would have had no reason to specifically comment on when the Establishment Clause would be violated.

To put it another way, I don't think the Supreme Court has fully and completely zeroed in on the exact dividing line between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. There still is a zone (however small) of uncertainty, at least going by their decisions, and room for further resolution. The purpose of the guidelines, therefore, seems to be (let's picture the E Clause on the left and the FEx Clause on the right in this example) to identify the absolute rightmost boundary of this zone of uncertainty.

The Guidance is irrelevant to this discussion simply because it hasn't been challenged in Court?



You should actually read the NCLB Guidance, Blackstone. Actually read it. You are making this stuff up.



That doesn't specifically comment on when an Establishment Clause violation occurs?

Do your homework, Blackstone.

Because it hasn't been addressed by the Court. I explained how it's nothing at all like a court ruling.


OK, but for the record, that's not in the section on graduation events. That section reads, in its entirety:


There's no mention of "substantial control" by the school there, and the only reason I can think of is that when students aren't preselected with a particular purpose in mind, it's presumed that they're the ones primarily in control of what they say. The problem remains that these words like "primary" and "substantial" are still undefined and still leave a lot of wiggle room. That's because the Supreme Court has yet to isolate the exact dividing line, and all that this Guidance can do is report on what the Supreme Court has determined. The confusion is further added to when the Guidance says: "Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals". So it seems to me that the basic question is whether or not the student actually initiated the religious speech, without pressure, prompting, or guidance of any kind - subtle or overt - by the school. In Brittany McComb's case, I don't think there was ever any question at all.

So, because a branch of government has not addressed it and will never address it unless someone brings it to them and they decide to address it, it is irrelevant to this discussion? The Guideline accepted and approved of by the government for public schools and how they are to deal with religious freedom of expression and the Establishment Clause is irrelevant to this discussion because the Court hasn't addressed it? Until the Court addresses it, it's the way that schools are supposed to deal with this, Blackstone. The Court is not a pro-active branch, it is reactive – it can't address it and will never address it until someone brings it before the court. Someone tried and it wasn't put on the schedule. Just because the Court hasn't addressed it, doesn't mean its irrelevant.



Yes, but the contrast has already been established. Where the school determines or has substantial control over the content of student expression, obviously (following the rhetoric of the Guideline), the student does not retain primary control. The absence of this mention in the next paragraph does not eliminate this concept established in the preceding paragraph. There's no need to mention it again, to do so would simply be redundant. The other repeats of language are necessary because of the change in situation... extra-curricular activity and student assemblies as opposed to graduation. The nature of the expression remains the same in both paragraphs... student expression is student expression.



No, the NCLB actually requires that public schools adhere to the guidelines when creating policies. They are supposed to adhere to the Guideline or they do not receive federal funds. And, again, the Supreme Court can't just decide it's going to isolate the exactc dividing line. A case comes before it and it is only allowed to deal with the issues at hand. It can't say, "okay... now we're going to isolate the exact dividing line where the Establishment Clause supercedes Freedom of Religious Expression and vice versa." That's not the way that branch of government is set up.

It has already stated explicitly that upholding the Establishment Clause is important enough to violate the Freedom of Religious Expression. The Supreme Court has stated that very clearly. And I believe that case has been quoted already in this thread.

Does a school, in its pre-review and final authority regarding a valedictorian speech, exert substantial control over the content? Yes, it does, in my opinion – the school has the final word as to content, that is substantial according to the common meaning of the term. In absence of a legal definition of a term, the common usage is used.

Put it this way - it's about as relevant as any opinions that you or I express on the subject. In other words, it's just an opinion. It may be highly relevant to a discussion of the NCLB Act. It's not so relevant to a discussion of the First Amendment.


The entire Guidance shows very little shyness about repeating the same phrase over and over. I agree that the principles are the same in all cases. The fact that they declined to mention the "substantive control" aspect in the graduation paragraph, however, suggests that they didn't think such a situation was very likely to arise in those events.


You're not telling me anything I don't already know, or anything that conflicts with what I've said. The fact remains, the exact dividing line has not been isolated, so therefore the Guidance can't just make one up. The Guidance is also "reactive", in that it can only report on what's already been decided.


Does it exert "substantial control" over the content when it doesn't exercise pre-review? You said earlier that a school could be held liable if racial slurs are used at a graduation speech, and it does nothing to stop it. That would be the case regardless of whether or not it pre-reviewed the speech. The Guidance in fact very much implies that, for non-religious expression at least, the school can censor the speech even though the student retains "primary control" over it. So I think I'll go with my earlier analysis instead, whereby student-"initiated" religious expression, as acknowledged by the Guidance, is protected, and therefore it becomes a question of whether or not the expression was truly initiated by the student.

This discussion is not just about the First Amendment. You also asked why the ACLU sided one way in one case and another way in another. The Guidance – a reflection of Constitutional law on the subject and, therefore, the government's interpretation of the 1st Amendment – illustrates why the ACLU would do so.

Also, you asked:

2. Which side in each case do you think is favored by the First Amendment?
I think that the New Jersey case is favored by the 1st Amendment because:

a: the school did not exert substantial control over student expression for the talent show

b: attendance to the talent show was entirely voluntary and in no way complusory.

The same can't be said in McComb's case.

3. If someone has an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that brings it up against the Free Exercise Clause, is that a sign that his interpretation has gone too far?

Let's let the Supreme Court answer this one:

CAPITOL SQ. REVIEW BD. v. PINETTE, 1995:




So, if there is a conflict between the two clauses in terms of religious speech, the need to uphold the Establishment Clause outweighs the need to uphold Free Exercise.

Since this particular question you're answering pertains to the First Amendment, and not to the NCLB Guidance, talk of "substantial control" doesn't really illuminate anything. The only Supreme Court ruling to get into t