Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

Marvin Shilmer

-
“He probably isn't that concerned with the specific inuendo of individual words and sylables as you seem to be.”
Simon,
Words used in language is how we communicate. I try hard to avoid reading things into what people say. I do this by speaking to what words they actually string together. More than that, I make very effort to find corroborating information to make sure I’m not taking what someone says out of context. I want to understand what people are trying to communicate. I'm not trying to read what I want into what someone else says.
It’s unfair to think my attempt to avoid transposing my view onto what people say is something petty as though a mere concern of innuendo and syllables. I'm interested in what they say, not what I say they said.
“What happened and why is blindingly obvious to everyone apart from you Marvin.”
I can see what Costner did on the original video. That is what I’m trying to discuss.
“You seem to have a double-standard in what you accept as 'evidence' and proof.”
How so?
“It's also to protect against having an official, state run religion.”
Yes, and I agree a state-run religion is something to avoid.
“We know Christians would have that forced upon us so we need to protect against it.”
Men who called themselves “Christian” composed the very law you cite imposing a separation of church and state.
Since that time many (perhaps most) US governmental authorities charged with supporting and maintaining that law have professed Christianity, yet these have worked hard to make sure a majority “Christian” state did not emerge.
Accordingly I think the sweeping statement you make above is unsound. If “Christian” citizens of the United States had wanted a Christian state run religion they could have done it many times along the way. But they refrained.
“"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
“i.e. SEPARATE - not intermixed.”
How is granting liberty to a valedictorian to recite the Lord’s Prayer and state agreement with it during his speech amount to a mixing of religion with state in the absence of any religious meaning at all attached to it?
If I stood up in the middle of a crowd and quoted one of Rama’s eloquent presentations and said “Amen” what religion does that make me, if any? What religious thing have I said, if any?
If quoting a person’s statement and agreeing to it is a religious act then we’re all guilty of it every time we quote someone and agree to it.
Was Gandhi promoting a state run religion when he publicly agreed with things Jesus taught?
“It's a slippery slope that will begin with "let's just allow Christians to say prayers in their speeches"
“No thank you.”
The precarious balance between infringing personal right to exercise speech and religion and a slippery slope to state run religion is part of what makes this subject intriguing to me. It’s why having the discussion is worthwhile.
Marvin Shilmer
AndDontCallMeShirley

For all Marvin's "soap boxing" about religious freedom, religious suppression, and the like, he has the audacity to make this statement on p.18:
Marvin: Frankly, based strictly on what Costner did during his speech I’d not be surprised were it to come out that he had help to craft his form precisely for that very reason, and in order to make a more pure political statement rather than a religious one.
So, it's not about religious freedom after all? This kid's apparently going into politics (according to Marvin) and this was a shrewd political move.
Great way to undermine everything you've said up to this point, Marvin!
Marvin Shilmer

-
“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'.”
Simon,
I appreciate your candor.
Can you give me a succinct example of a double standard of mine regarding evidence? I want to see what you’re talking about.
Can you give me a succinct example of me switching and changing what the issue is so I can understand what you’re talking about on this point?
Can you give me an example of an inconvenient question I’ve ignored so I can understand this?
Can you give me an example of something I’ve failed to comprehend?
Seriously, Simon, I’m not asking these questions to absorb your time. JWN is a place I value, and I don’t want to be the cause of problems here. I want to understand what I’m doing that’s causing frustration.
On the matter of switching and changing, I’ve noted you have raised this a few times. There are many facets to this subject and my impression is that you take my address of one facet and then another facet as a switching of issues when these are only different facets of the same subject. In this discussion I’ve raised the specter of 1) the value of hearing people express their religious views, 2) protecting against needless intrusion of government in the absence of threat to the citizenry, 3) beneficial aspects of religion (at your request), 4) when and/or whether failure to keep a promise is justifiable, and much more. But in each case the center of discussion is the event of what Roy Costner did during his graduation speech.
Whatever you can offer to help me better understand the complaints you offer above will be most appreciated.
Again, it’s not my wish to frustrate discussion.
Marvin Shilmer
jgnat

Costner is not the first eighteen year old to undertake a rash act. He openly admits it was in defiance to new rules at his High School.
"Let me first say that every person, regardless of their religious affiliation – whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or any other belief – should be allowed to say what they want because of the First Amendment. I felt that my free speech was being encroached upon, because I wasn't allowed to say what I wanted to say or acknowledge who I wanted to acknowledge." - Interview Costner
Simon

Yes, and I agree a state-run religion is something to avoid
Finally, we're making some progress.
It doesn't mean the state actually operates it - giving preference to a single religion makes it 'state run' ... preference such as allowing it's prayers at public events.
Men who called themselves “Christian” composed the very law you cite imposing a separation of church and state.
Not the same Christians as the ones today. Only the name is the same. The level of intelligence, wisdom, honesty and respect is vastly different.
yet these have worked hard to make sure a majority “Christian” state did not emerge.
And people like you would allow their hard work to be undone in an instant by pandering to those who seek to undermine the rules.
If “Christian” citizens of the United States had wanted a Christian state run religion they could have done it many times along the way. But they refrained.
As I said, different Christians. The wise ones could see the dangers and what happens when religion has too much power and influence. Salem for instance. They didn't want the previous religious intollerances suffered to happen again in future.
How is granting liberty to a valedictorian to recite the Lord’s Prayer and state agreement with it during his speech amount to a mixing of religion with state in the absence of any religious meaning at all attached to it?
Because it gives preferential treatment to a single religion and of course there is religious meaning attached to a prayer. To claim otherwise is simply retarded.
As we've already seen - granting preferential treatment becomes a form of state-run religion which you agree is something to be avoided. Therefore you should object to it.
If I stood up in the middle of a crowd and quoted one of Rama’s eloquent presentations and said “Amen” what religion does that make me, if any? What religious thing have I said, if any?
If quoting a person’s statement and agreeing to it is a religious act then we’re all guilty of it every time we quote someone and agree to it.
Was Gandhi promoting a state run religion when he publicly agreed with things Jesus taught?
These are irrelevant to the discussion and of no interest to me.
AndDontCallMeShirley

Can you give me a succinct example of a double standard of mine regarding evidence? I want to see what you’re talking about.
Can you give me a succinct example of me switching and changing what the issue is so I can understand what you’re talking about on this point?
Can you give me an example of an inconvenient question I’ve ignored so I can understand this?
Can you give me an example of something I’ve failed to comprehend?
---
This would require a re-posting of the entire thread.
Why not just re-read it, Marvin?
Not that it will make one bit of difference to you in the end.
Marvin Shilmer

-
“You post foolishness like this and say I am the one "leveraging" the discussion?”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
Perhaps this is an instance of me being a poor communicator.
I did not assert that you were leveraging this discussion.
I asserted that you had leveraged a premise you’ve raised during this discussion.
Otherwise, how is citing what has been said by the Pickens County school system’s chief PR person on the matter of that system’s policy about not approving religious expression foolish when the question is raised of whether that school system had/has a policy not to approve religious expression?
I don’t understand why you think it foolish of me to cite a school authority when that’s what I was asked to offer evidence of.
Costner said he was told not to make a religious expression. The school system’s chief PR person said the school does not approve religious expressions for school sanctioned events.
Isn’t this specific claim by Costner something you questioned the veracity of when I raised it?
Marvin Shilmer
________________
PS: Shador, I absolutely do not post anywhere as gbaji and do not post anywhere online using any moniker other than Marvin Shilmer.
breakfast of champions

In the end, I don't think this has much to do with religion. It has to do with an implicit social contract.
If you're the valedictorian of a class and are asked to give a speech, just give the damn speech.
It's not the time to pray, fart into the microphone, or do a Rodney Dangerfield impression.
AndDontCallMeShirley

Marvin: Otherwise, how is citing what has been said by the Pickens County school system’s chief PR person on the matter of that system’s policy about not approving religious expression foolish
--
The quote I posted was what YOU said, not what the school officials said.
You posted an entire sentence or two containing nothing but your own speculations, about things that are not proven, may never be proven, and that there's not a shred of evidence to support, then presented it as facts in evidence to prop up your position.
That is what's foolish.
And, the fact that you questioned me on it, as if I didn't see it for what it is, is even more foolish.
Marvin Shilmer

-
“It doesn't mean the state actually operates it - giving preference to a single religion makes it 'state run' ... preference such as allowing it's prayers at public events.”
Simon,
I have not advocated that government authorities should give a preference to a single religion. So I don’t understand why you say the above as though I need convincing of that. I don’t.
“Not the same Christians as the ones today. Only the name is the same. The level of intelligence, wisdom, honesty and respect is vastly different.”
That’s a highly subjective and very sweeping generalization, and I very much disagree with it.
I’m a prolific reader of American history. When I read details of American history one thing stands out about it’s political leadership: not much has change on the hill since the American Revolution.
“And people like you would allow their hard work to be undone in an instant by pandering to those who seek to undermine the rules.”
I don’t seek to undermine anything that’s good. My whole reason for engaging this discussion is for the good intention of learning myself and having the discussion for sake of everyone’s learning.
I think you and I should have liberty at a publicly sponsored event to quote a text we agree with and say we agree with it. Call it religion. Call it research. Call it whatever you want. But when we start prohibiting one another from citing something we agree with and saying we agree with it we’ve reached a dangerous place.
I don’t see where Roy Costner did more than this. If he did, how did he do more than this?
“Because it gives preferential treatment to a single religion and of course there is religious meaning attached to a prayer. To claim otherwise is simply retarded.”
I don’t see how granting liberty to a valedictorian to recite the Lord’s Prayer and state agreement with it during his speech gives preferential treatment to a single religion when the valedictorian could be of any religion. Please explain how this occurs.
“Why not just re-read it, Marvin?”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
If I knew what Simon was talking about I could re-read the discussion and figure out what he’s talking about.
But I do not understand things Simon has cited. For instance, I don’t know of a single question I’ve avoided answering. Good grief! Just look at the plethora of questions I’ve taken time to isolate and give answer to! I’m trying to answer questions. I'm not trying to avoid answering questions. I don’t know of any I’ve avoided.
I’m trying to communicate. When someone is a poor communicator—as is alleged of me—it is only more important to ask questions and give answers, which is what I’ve done. By the way, have you noticed the questions I’ve asked of you that you’ve left sitting in the dust?
Frankly, just above Simon refrained from answering questions I asked to him because he considers answering those question irrelevant to the discussion. What would be your or his reaction if that was my response to your questions of me? My guess is I’d be accused of ignoring inconvenient questions.
Do you know why I try not to avoid answering a question someone has in discussion with me? Because they may spot a relevancy that I haven’t considered. Earlier in this discussion there was, I think, an instance where I suggested a question asked me was irrelevant. As I recall the participant repeated their question because they saw need for an answer. I answered it. That’s how productive discussion should work.
Marvin Shilmer

Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

Share this