Catching up...
“If you mean the 1st amendment, it's actually politican expression that was protected.”
Simon,
I think you mean “political”.
Earlier I mentioned this as a critical aspect of this discussion.
Because Costner has a certain belief system he holds near and dear does not preclude his holding certain political views near and dear, not that you have said otherwise.
In this case two things held near and dear to Costner were related because the political view that government was overreaching by prohibiting prayer at school events overlapped something Costner does, which is pray.
But what Costner apparently does not do is pray according to belief systems other than “Christian,” whatever he holds that to be. Yet in his publicized interview he advocated that persons of any belief system should have the same right under the same circumstance which he found himself.
Presuming Costner was telling the truth in his post-speech interview—not ignoring his previous deception, or his subsequent voluntary advocacy—and because he asserted a position that all citizens regardless of personal belief should have and exercise the same liberty he did in the face of government, then his act was inherently political.
This is why earlier I expressed an opinion that, in the end, I think Costner was making a political statement more than anything else.
Your earlier statement
Earlier in this discussion I believe it was you, Simon, who opined that you’d have had no (or less) problem had Costner stood up and recited some mantra of a non-Christian religion and expressed agreement with it. As I recall, you depicted this as a better way to make his point, if Costner’s point were a political one. I didn’t disagree with your notion then and I don’t disagree with it now.
But here’s the rub: If it would have been political speech for Costner to use non-Christian text for his said purpose then it was perfectly viable to do the same thing with Christian text., though the latter is arguable less effective.
Gandhi speak
When we read Mahatma Gandhi go on and on about Jesus and the things he allegedly said and did, is this necessarily more or less political than Mahatma Gandhi going on and on about Rama and the things he allegedly said and did?
Gandhi used ancient “holy” records to make political statements, whether speaking of the biblical Jesus or the Ramayanaian Rama. Because Gandhi was a practicing Hindu did not undo his political usage of Rama, though among most of the world’s population his political usage of Rama has nowhere near the efficacy of his political usage of Jesus. Gandhi equally made political use of things alleged said and done by both these “holy” men by recounting them and stating agreement with them. So using one was not made non-political simply because he happened to pray to one and not the other.
These days
These days, as in the past, most political speech does not emanate from governmental leaders, whether elected or appointed. Overwhelmingly, most political speech is in the spoken or unspoken acts of citizenry.
When we go down a path of letting government prohibit innocuous utterances of belief-systems at government sponsored events we risk impinging the citizenry’s political speech because belief-systems are an integral part of the citizenry’s political disposition. This presents the inherently dangerous act of letting the fox guard the hen house, and is why overreaching by government is something to be ever vigilant of, openly discuss, and never underestimate or dismiss. The mere fact you and I have this conversation is important, whether we agree or disagree.
World history tells us that governmental overreach has dire consequences to the right of people to live happy lives.
___________________
“I firmly believe in the separation of Church and state…”
LisaRose,
So do I.
But I don’t believe in prohibition of innocuous religious speech by the State because it impinges onto a citizenry’s ability of political expression.
“I believe this young man did not follow Christian principles because he submitted one speech which was approved, but instead read a prayer.”
That’s a religious (moral) reason to disagree with Costner’s action and has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether his act should be protected speech under provisions of the US Constitution.
Arguing this incident on moral grounds turns the whole conversation into a religious discussion rather than a question of Constitutionally protected or unprotected speech.
Though I can understand why a Costner would do what he did for political reasons, from a moral perspective I agree Costner was dishonest, and he admits his deception.
But from a social political perspective I’m glad Costner did what he did because he demonstrated it’s possible to utter aloud a personal belief and no one in the audience is known to have been or expected to be harmed as a result. If a citizenry allows its government to prohibit this sort of harmless statement of personal belief it relinquishes a powerful piece of its political expression, and making political expression is how a citizenry influences its government.
__________________
“My comments were limited to the Christians, like Marvin, who commented on this topic.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
I’d like to know why and how you categorize me among “the Christians”. Please explain.
__________________
“You believe that restriction of religious involvement in schools is bad / dangerous / limiting and a threat to liberties.
I believe that *not* restricting religious involvement in schools is bad / dangerous / lmiting and a threat to liberties.”
Simon,
Thanks for offering this epitome comparing our views as you see them. It’s very helpful.
I want to clarify something you present above about my position.
- I am not against restriction of religious involvement in school (and, just to be clear, we’re talking about publicly funded schools).
- What I resist is something much narrower than “restriction of religious involvement”.
- I’m resistant to restriction of harmless religious speech at school sponsored events.
Because I don’t see harm in any student standing in front of a school sponsored gathering and briefly quoting some “holy” text and stating their personal agreement with that text then I don’t see any harm in Costner quoting the lords prayer and stating his agreement with it.
In Costner’s case he didn’t bother to offer one iota of religious rhetoric about what he or anyone else is supposed to make of the text he cited, and this despite a wide array or meanings that professed “Christians” attribute to the language. Insofar as I can tell, a practicing Hindu could have quoted the same text and stated the same agreement and it would not have been any more or less religious, or any more or less political, than Costner doing it as he did it.
“… but by all means, continue…”
On a lighter note, does that statement from you mean you’re giving back my longtime and hard-earned historical posting/speech privileges here at JWN?
“Why does he need to recite the prayer to inform people that his religion was a compelling force? How does reciting the prayer explain how he feels better than his own words and explanation would?”
The question you ask here, and attempting to answer it for myself, is what led to my much earlier conclusion that Costner was, ultimately, engaging in political speech. I think his point he was trying to demonstrate is that there is no harm caused by the simple act of reciting some “holy” text and stating personal agreement with it; hence it’s a needless governmental intrusion to prohibit that sort of speech.
Otherwise, when we force someone to share their views in a form we approve of rather than the form they prefer we take away the ability of a person to share themselves as they see it, which reduces their freedom of speech and our ability to learn about that person and how and why they act as they do and believe. The most notable “force” we should impose on speech is that it should not be harmful to others. Other than this, we should take a hard, hard look at governmental restrictions on speech.
“If I tell people that they cannot simply copy-and-paste text from elsewhere onto this forum does that mean that you are not allowed to share what you believe or what motivates you? That you can't explain to us your motivations in your own words?”
No, and no.
“If you agree not to copy-and-paste text and then do it as a show of defiance have you:
“1.Violated the agreement not to do this?
2.Shared with us what you believe or what motivates you or simply copied and pasted someone elses words?
3.Somehow defended other people's rights to share their beliefs?
4.Extended the bounds of human knowledge?
“Wouldn't it simply be a lame stunt that benefited no one and accomplished nothing other than broke a rule that was agreed on for good reason. Whatever noble reason you then concoct to make out it was for a good cause, if you posted elsewhere that you were going to do it to promote solely the stuff you were copying and pasting ... wouldn't anyone who swallowed your lies be a complete idiot?”
1. Yes.
2. It could be both, or it could one or the other.
3. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
4. Probably, yes. (Sharing extends)
Of your last primary question, this is where people confuse two relevantly dissimilar concepts.
- Whether Costner broke a rule is one thing. He did.
- Whether what Costner did should or should not be protected speech is another thing. This is the issue.
Because JWN is a private owned forum then the owner rightly has complete say, whether its right, wrong, good, bad, in everyone’s best interest, self-serving or some other reason.
But this discussion is about a publicly sponsored event and whether it’s good or bad for government to prohibit a student from quoting an innocuous statement and stating agreement with it.
If government can rightly impose this onto the citizenry then it can impose a prohibition of me or you quoting Hermann Ebbinghaus and stating agreement with it if that statement happens to be part of my or your personal belief system.
In direct answer to your primary question above, whether doing as you say would make a person “a complete idiot” would depend on what or whether they learned from the episode. Furthermore, a person who swallows lies may or may not be an idiot based on their level of education. But in this discussion whether what Costner did was or was not dishonest is a moral question and it’s not the morality of his act that concerns me. What concerns me is whether the particular utterance he made should or should not be protected speech at publicly sanctioned events.
In my view, whether what Costner actually did should or should not be protected speech boils down to one question: Did his recitation and statement of personal agreement with the thing recited harm anyone?
________________
“This was the only restriction. Also, he agreed to abide by it. Which gets back to the core issue- he lied and deceived to get his way.
“This was the only restriction. Also, he agreed to abide by it. Which gets back to the core issue- he lied and deceived to get his way.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
First, I think Roy Costner would disagree with that. According to LA Times columnist Michael McGough, Costner was told he had been “warned by school officials to refrain from any prayers or religious references in his remarks.”—(At: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-christian-student-valedictorian--20130610,0,2959196.story
That’s much broader than you present above.
Second, if the core issue is as you say above then your chief concern is over Costner’s morality rather than whether what he did should be protected speech.
To me whether Costner acted morally is beside the point. To me the issue is whether what Costner did should or should not be protected speech.
Did Costner deceive his school’s authorities? I think he did.
Should what Costner actually did during his valedictorian address be protected speech? So far I don’t see any harm in what he did and for that reason see no reason why public authorities should prohibit it.
_______________
“I had no idea you were uneducated.”
Band on the Run,
When you draw a circle around something specific I’ve said and then offer substantive reason why that particular assertion suggests a lack of education then what you write above will communicate something more that a personal and subjective opinion.
But you haven’t done that. You stay away from specifics of what I’ve said and, instead, harp like an opinionated columnist.
If it’s not asking too much, can you point out something specific I’ve said that, in your view, suggests a lack of education? And, can you then offer a succinct reason why you think that statement suggests lack of education?
Is that asking too much of you?
_________________
“marvin has proven this point to me. what a waste of time caring. let these imbeciles pray their empty f#&king little heads off.”
fakesmile,
My advocacy is for the purpose of protecting against government overreaching to a point where you and I are prohibited from honestly sharing our personal beliefs at a public event when doing so represents no harm or threat to anyone.
My advocacy is not so imbeciles can pray their heads off. That just happens to be an pesky side-effect of you and I keeping our ability to share rational beliefs at a public event when doing so represents no harm to anyone.
Marvin Shilmer
