Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  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.

  ---

  Actually you have, that's your basis for every post you've made on this topic. Your self-contradiction is truly astounding.

  So, since you said "No", he cannot talk about whatever he wants to with impunity, then any racist or hateful thug could use any Marvin-ese" argument made here and use it as stubbornly against you as you've done against us- all under the guise of "marvin is suppressing us", and "Marvin is taking away our right to spew hate speech".
• 

  Simon

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

  No it doesn't, what utter clap-trap. It's exactly the opposite - if left unchecked the religious would take over and oppress others and removed their liiberty. We've seen periods of history when religion was in charge. They are not known as "the happy ages". The founding fathers were very astute to ensure separation between church and state and the religious Christians have been baulking at it ever since.

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

  No, there was a proper debate and discussion and research and when the answer didn't suit his personal belief he decided to protest. He was not doing this for any greater good but to promote his own brand of Christianity.

  I notice you still haven't answered how you reconcile what they say before and after - which statement is a pack of lies? Any normal personl with half a brain can see it's the latter once they have some publicity but the former, to their supporters is what they really believe.

  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.

  Really Marvin? You genuinely believe that and are not going to immediately backtrack? You really think that Muslims and Atheists want nothing more than to hear Christians recite their mantra (especially the bit about how they will get wiped out soon)?

  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.

  How ancient does it have to be? Will any drivel on any old rag do it does it have to match a certain belief system? This claim makes absolutely no sense at all and is meaningless - basically it breaks down to:

  "You can't say anything but you can say something someone else said and then agree with it"

  Wow, true words of depth and wisdom there ...
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  My understanding is that Costner felt the school system had over-reached proper governmental boundary

  What I feel is needless repression

  This explains the lack of logic in your arguments and the idiocy of this kids actions: feelings rule your rants, not evidence, consideration for others or common sense.

  As long as YOU feel good about some personal view, everyone else can just suck it up, right?

  I guess your valedictorian hero whiz kid never had time to read the Constitution or Bill of Rights while he was in school.

  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.

  Wow! and you accuse us of pre-supposition?

  Astonishing.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

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

  Simon,

  I condemn hate speech.

  Why do you keep on about what I “seem to be doing” or suggesting?

  Why don’t you just ask questions of my views if a particular one is of interest? It’s far more civil and far less caustic?

  “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.”

  AndDontCallMeShirley,

  This particular discussion is of speech at a high school graduation ceremony. I do not expect school authorities to allow hate speech at such a ceremony. This is the social propriety side of me.

  On a broader scale I hold a view that if I’m invited to hear a speaker tell his audience what makes him tick that he should have complete freedom to do just that, and no matter what might leap out of his or her mouth. This is the pure academic side of me.

  Do you recall when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak to Columbia University faculty, students and invitees? That hate-monger spewed all sorts of nonsensical idiocy, not to mention hate! But it is important to understand why people like him think like they do. It’s important to know what compels people holding views such as his. Learning of this and knowing it is vital to social advancement.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  This particular discussion is of speech at a high school graduation ceremony. I do not expect school authorities to allow hate speech at such a ceremony. This is the social propriety side of me

  ---

  Okay, so hate speech at a college graduation would be acceptable? How about hate speech at a high school football game? Your silly statements are not only illogical, they show a propensity to get bogged down in minutiae while deflecting anymeaningful information.

  I'm not sure why you miss the purpose of every illustration I offer. I was not advocating hate nor arguing it should be acceptable at ANY event.

  The illustration was to get you to realize that, if you argue THIS valedictorian should have free rein to say whatever religious thing he wants to, then, by extension, you have no right to "suppress" an individual who speaks hateful words.

  Freedom of religion and speech goes both ways. If you demand carte blanche freedom for Christians, then everyone else is also entitled to it- no matter how absurd it gets.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am afraid I am compelled to diagnose an extreme case of malignant obscurantism associated with a pathological deficit in common sense.
• 

  mrsjones5

  *snicker*
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “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?”

  Simon,

  Do you think it an unalienable right to be able to honestly share whatever belief system you abide by so long as doing so does not harm or otherwise threaten anyone else?

  My defense is not of any particular demographic, whether it’s found as a majority or minority. My defense is of liberty to honestly share a belief system so long as doing so does not harm or otherwise threaten anyone else.

  I don’t see how freedom to honestly share a belief (aside from causing harm or otherwise threatening someone) is a trampling of anyone’s right.

  I see how prohibiting the honest sharing of belief (aside from causing harm or otherwise threatening someone) is a trampling of an liberty everyone should have.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  Do you recall when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak to Columbia University faculty, students and invitees? That hate-monger spewed all sorts of nonsensical idiocy, not to mention hate! But it is important to understand why people like him think like they do. It’s important to know what compels people holding views such as his. Learning of this and knowing it is vital to social advancement.

  The sort of idiotic reasoning that would hand the microphone to Hitler "to see why he thinks the way he does"

  You pontificate a lot Marvin and I think it's so you can skip a lot of questions you'd rather not touch so I'll repeat it AGAIN.

  How do you reconcile the contradictory statements they made before and after the speech? Which one was a complete pile of lies 'so they look good on camera' and which was what they really believe?

  I know you will try not to answer this because to do so it completely undermines your arguments: they are not interested in standing up for anyones rights, not doing anything noble and just imposing their religion on others.

  But you think that somehow "enlightens us" ...

  It's actually proof positive why the rules were right in the first place and why they are necessary.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I saw nothing in any article I read that indicated that sharing of RELIGIOUS views was prohibited.

  The only thing that was prohibited was saying a public prayer at high school graduations.

  In my estimation, that is more than reasonable and can hardly be labelled "supression".

  Unless, of course, you're a hyper-sensitive, self-absorbed religious zealot who will throw tantrums like a two-year old when told "no".