Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “You continue to misdirect the thread..”

  Simon, Outlaw and AndDontCallMeShirley,

  Would someone please tell my PRECISELY HOW I’m misdirecting this discussion?

  I’m trying hard to stay focused on precisely what Costner did during his graduation speech. This is what was presented to me as part of this thread of discussion.

  I’m answering questions posed to me.

  How is this misdirecting?

  Please explain with something more than “You’re misdirecting”.

  HOW am I misdirecting?

  I’m trying to engage what appears to the subject, and what several have said themselves.

  If the sole subject at issue here is whether Roy Costner lied then that discussion was over a long time ago. Roy lied.

  If there’s nothing else to the subject then just tell me that. Should that be the case I’d disagree. But at least I’d understand WHY I’m accused of derailing something!

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  The full quote"

  "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

  i.e. Keep it at home pal, no need to force it on anyone else.
• 

  Simon

  Marvin: You do not discuss. You have double standards when it comes to evidence. You switch and change what issues are about. You are a poor communicator. You do not appear to comprehend what people say. You ignore questions that seem 'inconvenient'.

  Basically, you debate like a Jehovahs Witness.

  THIS is why people accuse you of derailing topics.
• 

  caliber

  Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”
  G.K. Chesterton
  
  'Freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not.Freedom to believe does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general appicability on the basis that to do so would violate a religious belief.' Giordano
  
  A balancing point between these two quotes must be reached
  
  One should be free to discuss religion in an informal setting ... this is "freedom of expression"
  the" freedom to act" in an formal situation (with a mixed crowd of beliefs) is different because it may violate the religious beliefs of others
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  "Given the notoriety of this event, if Costner’s version of events were false it’s reasonable to thinkby now school officials would have said so. Frankly, the school system’s chief PR guy all but repeated the same thing himself saying his school system would not approve or carve out time for religious expression by students (supposedly at sponsored events like the graduation). "

  ---

  You post foolishness like this and say I am the one "leveraging" the discussion? Geez Louise!

  You post your own speculations, guesses and hopes then expect us to buy it as credible evidence. Unbelievable!
• 

  steve2

  Heaven help any one who believes his or her faith absolutely needs to be expressed for validation in a public service setting (e.g., school, senate, court). When (some) religious people indignantly deplore the secularization of schools, government and/or law courts, I briefly become religious by muttering "Thank God for secularization!"

  And, if it helps reduce a sense of some feeling picked on or persecuted, I am not "just" refering to Christian-based belief systems either. Believers of any religious faith who desire it to be reflected in public service settings are included.
• 

  Shador

  Marvin - you don't happen to go by the name gbaji on another forum do you? He's rather famous for being just as long-winded and thick-headed as you seem to be.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  One should be free to discuss religion in an informal setting ... this is "freedom of expression"
  the" freedom to act" in an formal situation (with a mixed crowd of beliefs) is different because it may violate the religious beliefs of others

  ---

  This is a great point and one Marvin actually acknowledged a few pages back. He said that if he were under orders not to say certain things while addressing a group in a Jewish Synagogue, he would honor the restrictions.

  However, he would feel completely free to say whatever he wanted in a private discussion with a Jewish person.

  That reasonableness was, of course, then quickly eviscerated and nullified by the very same person who said it (Marvin).
• 

  OUTLAW

  Marvin: You do not discuss. You have double standards when it comes to evidence. You switch and change what issues are about. You are a poor communicator. You do not appear to comprehend what people say. You ignore questions that seem 'inconvenient'.

  Basically, you debate like a Jehovahs Witness. THIS is why people accuse you of derailing topics.....Simon

  I`d say that sums it up..And..Without a lot of words..

  Concise..

  ...................... OUTLAW

  
• 

  Simon

  And, if it helps reduce a sense of some feeling picked on or persecuted, I am not "just" refering to Christian-based belief systems either. Believers of any religious faith who desire it to be reflected in public service settings are included.

  Exactly - allowing any one religion means others are discriminated against.

  The only sensible, reasonable and practical solution is to allow none. Most can see the merit and equity in this.

  That he chose to push his own Christian religion was just a shallow and pathetic demonstration of selfishness.

  Those of us who can see beyond the lame excuses see it for what it truly is. Certainly nothing to be applauded.

  I think if someone had stood up and made a speech about the Tea Party or Obama or Evolution it would be equally unwanted, out of place and RUDE. Why should some religious mumbo jumbo be granted a special exception?