Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  When I sit and listen to a Ron Costner talk about how he was motivated by a Judeo-Christian God to be the man he is, should this make me feel threatened? Should I even be expected to think he’ll still agree with this view after he’s pursued more education? Should I read into his statement that he’s some kind of fundamentalist wacko with extreme views?

  You've simply been conditioned to accept Judeo-Christian insanity as being 'normal'.

  What you should perhaps do is sit there and think "how come these guys are the only ones that ever get a turn at the miciophone?"

  Maybe you'd learn something if you stopped listening to the same people all the time and we could actually advance.
• 

  Simon

  When I sit and listen to a speaker who’s invited to tell me and everyone else what motivated him to whatever success is at hand, should I expect that speaker to have the freedom to tell me what his motivation is in his own terms so long as it's not hate speech or somehow inherently dangerous?

  Wait, are we back now to it being all about motivation for achievment? I thought it was political / civil liberties ...

  I can only assume from all your jinking back and forth that you must have been shooting with Dick Cheney some time.

  And now, an important announcement:

  Please everyone, this is important - we need to defend the liberty of the majority ... please, give sycophanic speaches now that they can applaud !!!

  We're fighting for justice and freedom for all ... initially only the majority will get to speak but trust us, we're fighting for you - just keep quiet in the meantime.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I do defend the idea that civil disobedience is sometimes useful when engaged for the purpose of everyone’s liberty and not just a chosen few

  I defend the idea that people should not be repressed by governmental authority by prohibiting honest and unthreatening statements of their personal belief

  ---

  Who's liberties are being threatened?

  How was he being repressed?

  He was asked to refrain from doing one thing: invocations (offering prayers) at a school graduation.

  For crying out loud!! Are Christains so fragile that if they are asked to follow one simple rule so everyone in the room could be comfortable and simply enjoy a high school graduation, they have to claim "religious suppression" to get their way and bulldoze the audience with Christian "rights"?

  ADCMS: The reality is, if this young man had said anything but Christian rhetoric, Marvin would have a problem with it."

  Marvin: more presupposing. You have no idea just how wrong you are. Worse, you make these assertions without bothering to ask. I don't understand this.

  It's not that I'm not "bothering to ask", I have asked. You are not bothering to answer!

  I don't really think I'm "pre-supposing" anything, Marvin, because you still have avoided answering this question:

  If this valedictorian had included in his speech "god hates fags", anti-semitic slurs, Neo-Nazi propoganda, or any other kind of bigoted hate speech, would you still defend his right to say whatever he wanted to say at this graduation?

  The answer is very simple: it's either "yes" or "no".

  If you are man enough to stand behind your arguments, you should have no problem making a firm commitment to a clear, honest answer.

  I await your reply, Marvin.
• 

  Simon

  I neither defend nor advocate hate speech. Any questions about that?

  I think most people happily condemn it. All you seem to be doing is "I'm not saying it's a good thing".

  Trouble is, it's a subtle but fundamental part of most religions including Christianity.

  "Your will be done (kill all the non-believers) on earth as it is in heaven (where there are no non-Christians)"

  That poor majority, my heart bleeds when I think of how much they have been suppressed and how much they've suffered. Oh wait, they haven't at all have they? They just want to continue doing it to others ...
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Yes, then why did you deny, defend and excuse the telling of lies?”

  Simon,

  I have not defended the telling of lies. I explained why there are instances when keeping our word is less important than a larger issue; hence in cases like this, in my view, it’s not immoral to fail at keeping our word.

  “Yes, then why did you deny, defend and excuse the dishonest behavior?”

  I have not defended dishonest behavior. I explained why there are instances when keeping our word is less important than a larger issue; hence in cases like this, in my view, it’s not immoral to fail at keeping our word.

  “Yes, you have only demonstrated that you defend civil disobedience when it suits certain groups and in fact when it isn't necessary to defend the rights and liberties as it's representing the majority who's liberties at not at threat.”

  Then you read over and disregard things I’ve asserted and embraced as my own in this very discussion. Only you can fix that.

  “You don't seem to care about the views of the minorities at all or that the rest of us have to listen to religious and political statements that are nothing at all of interest to anyone other than the people who believe the same tripe.”

  Advocating for freedom to share personal belief is advocacy for minority views. Otherwise the majority would simply bully their way to a virtual monocracy.

  “Are you a Christian?”

  I can’t answer that with a simple yes or no because what it means to be Christian varies widely.

  I have a form of worship and this is it:

  - I believe in treating folks as I want to and expect to be treated myself.

  - I earnestly search for whatever I can learn and validate as sound based on widely known and accepted conventions of logical construction and refutation.

  This is how I live my life. How I live my life is my worship.

  If that sounds like “Christian” to you then I’m Christian to you.

  If that does not sound like “Christian” to you then I’m not Christian to you.

  Need any clarification?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I neither defend nor advocate hate speech. Any questions about that?

  Marvin, you've stated repeatedly ad nauseum that this "academic" should be allowed to talk about whatever motivates him without fear of "suppression" from any authorities.

  What if racism and hate ARE what motivated him to achieve what he did?

  Would you still defend his right to say ANTYHING he wanted to say about hate and racism?

  That is the argument you've maintained through this whole thread.

  Quit dancing, answer the question! Yes or No?
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I have not defended the telling of lies. I explained why there are instances when keeping our word is less important than a larger issue

  ---

  Oh boy.

  That's a doozy.

  Again, situational honesty (a.k.a. "theocratic war strategy").

  I'm still trying to figure out what real issue existed and if it was actually so important to justify lying for?
• 

  Simon

  "I have not defended the telling of lies [then reason why lies are OK]"

  "I have not defended dishonest behavior [then reason why dishonest behavior is OK]"

  The problem is Marvin: the reasons you give are not valid. Defending the rights of the majority from what? Nasty people who want to stop THEM being able to trample on OTHER people's rights?

  Advocating for freedom to share personal belief is advocacy for minority views. Otherwise the majority would simply bully their way to a virtual monocracy.

  Exactly why some of us object when we see the majority using bogus arguments and inappropriate moments to do just that.

  But your grand words like his are meaningless because they are not actually being used to defend minorities, just to reinforce the viewpoint of the Christian majority of the small minded of which you may or may not be a member (it's hard to ever know what you actually stand for other than the opposite of what you just said).
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Who's liberties are being threatened?”

  AndDontCallMeShirley,

  When government acts to prohibit sharing of religious view when doing so does not interfere or otherwise threaten society, it threatens everyone’s liberty.

  “How was he being repressed?”

  My understanding is that Costner felt the school system had over-reached proper governmental boundary by prohibiting prayer at a school sponsored event.

  What I feel is needless repression is governmental authority prohibiting honest and unthreatening statements of their personal belief. I fail to see anything threatening by quoting and agreeing with a quite innocuous ancient text. And, speaking for the Muslim kid in the audience, he was probably agreeing with the recitation of Jesus words himself. Or, if he was an Orthodox Muslim he was.

  “If this valedictorian had included in his speech "god hates fags", anti-semitic slurs, Neo-Nazi propoganda, or any other kind of bigoted hate speech, would you still defend his right to say whatever he wanted to say at this graduation?

  “The answer is very simple: it's either "yes" or "no".”

  No.

  I have not and never have defended a person being able to say whatever he or she wants to say at a school sponsored event. The context of my comments have been of an innocuous sharing of an ancient religious text, and stating an agreement with it.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Otherwise the majority would simply bully their way to a virtual monocracy.

  Ironically, the majority in this case ARE Christians!! All 73% of them.

  Yet they have the audacity to cry "foul" and do the very thing they claim is their fear from others- "bully" behavior!

  Christians: POT

  everyone else: kettle