same time
Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead
by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
fakesmile
i defy anyone of you who were really brainwashed to have not done the same. some would have been more elegant than others but most of us would have repped the big j under the circumstances.
-
Band on the Run
Lawyers are socialized in college and law school to defend civl rights with our lives. In fact, I had to raise my hand and swear that I would defend the U.S. Const'n and the Const'n of the State of NY with my life. I don't believe anyone being sworn-in had ever glanced at the NYS Const'n. Sometimes practice makes you forget your ideals.
Regular Americans need to know their rights and to be ever ready to defend them in hard times. Lawyers don't live in real life. Power comes from the people. The last thing we need is an elite class of lawyers determining what is right for America. Yet, what do we have. We need Paul Revere and citizen soldiers.
James Madison was the Founder most dedicated to religious rights. He had an extraordinary education. Yet James Madison alone could never deliver the First Amendment. Farmers, pharmacists, witches, printers, valets, maids, etc. demanded the express text of the Bill of Rights. Madison was so cerebral he thought we needed no express rights. Technically, we did not. Most of these men were British common lawyers and drew their principles from the unwritten British const'n. Well, the states were supreme. The people in their state ratifying conventions demanded written guarantees.
I can't define rights. All I can do is explain. Americans in every walk of life must be informed. Justice Scalia is wrong. We need to constantly debate how much freedom we should have in our present society. A consensus is not necessary but the discussion is. Many laws exist on the books but are not enforced at all.
There are particular dangers when professionals such as lawyers and doctors take over a society with their expertise. You don't need an advanced education to know what is right and what is wrong. We are a democracy, not a professional ocracy.
Lawyers and other professional should impose their views on a very narrow part of the public. We are highly dangerous defining what a society should do.
-
OUTLAW
Hey Tal!..
Thanks..I saw that earlier..
It`s a good reminder of what may be going on..
I`m not a Big Fan of Other Groups messing with Our Forum..
.....................
... OUTLAW -
Dagney
When JW's mention prayer to me, (usually more of a judgement as in "i dont think they pray as much"), I always whip out Matt 6:5.
In this instance, this young man should have a little look see to Jesus' words as well.
That was not the place. Period.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“I make money advocating. You are not advocating. Rather, you are arguing to argue. You think you know First Amendment principles.”
Band on the Run,
I appreciate you sharing your opinion of me. But I do not think I know first amendment principles as, for instance, a legal expert should. The only advocacy I’ve spoken of in this discussion is what I’ve asserted within the confines of this discussion. This is what I’ve spoken of in terms of my advocacy.
“OMG, Simon is a total idiot. He misspelled "political" in "political expression." Therefore, all Simon has every contributed in this world is negated.”
What? You presume a great deal, and you do it by assuming the worst of me rather than asking. So be it.
If you’d bothered to read my remarks in this discussion you'd know precisely why my statment at issue was expressed to Simon. What you assert is not something I’ve said or remotely suggested. Simon thought I was nitpicking a spelling error of his. Nothing is further from the truth. When he expressed his impression of what I said I pointed out why my statement of “I think you mean “political”. See my post number 2769 on page 17 of this discussion. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/253748/17/Valedictorian-Rips-Up-Preapproved-Speech-Recites-Prayer-Instead
“Before the takeover of the Supreme Court by right wing conservatives, the student and principal may have faced serious consequences. Any Jew, Moslem, or atheist present could sue. Now the area is muddy. Life will bring the consequences to the student. I am not so angry with the student. People do goofy things as kids. Older people recall their younger selves and excuse much. Let him do this in a business place. Perhaps he will have clients that he is entertaining and taking a nice tax deduction for the meal. Let him pray and see if he ever has clients again.”
I don’t understand why what Costner did is something he could ever have been sued over when high ranking government officials regularly pray and invoke God during government sponsored events. Perhaps with your experience and training you can explain why what this student did is somehow contrary to principles of the US Constitution when high government authorities regularly pray and invoke God in sanctioned government events.
“Your actions are completely irrational.”
Then answer the questions I’ve posed in this post and elsewhere in what you allege is irrational. You say I’m irrational, but you don’t circle an instance of it and show one.
“Are we competing now to see who has the last post?”
Please. I’m here to have substantive discussion.
“You harmed your internet presence with this argument.”
Please show this by circling an instance of my alleged irrational thought in this discussion. Please.
“I want to respect your views.”
I’m not here to earn or maintain respect of my views. More to the point, it does not matter to me if anyone here respects my views. I’m not here to gain anyone’s respect. I’m here to have substantive discussion on topics raised of interest to me.
What I write either stands or falls on its own merit. If you want to respect my views then challenge what I write with something other than nebulous complaints. Put some meat on the table in the form of something I’ve actually said that you think irrational. Then we have something to talk about that can be shown as either irrational or rational.
“That is a revelation late in the coming, Marvin. The prostituting of religion as a springboard to the launching a political "career" is crusty, old-hat - even from barely-out-of-diapers graduates prone to rote religiosity.
“As soon as I heard this young man recite the Lord's Prayer, I saw political maneouvre written all over his smarmy complexion. Put it this way, if he had made a fierce "defence" of athiesm in his speech, his advisors would have told him, "Go home, son, your career's over before it's even started".
“Expressing (Christian) sentiments is one of the most assuredly cheap ways of getting your political career off the ground, second only to kissing babies.
“Contrary to some of the earliest posts in this thread, I would expect, "genuine" Christians to abhor the public parade of religiosity out of the high reality-based likelihood that they witnessing, not a young man's faith so much as the launch of a political career.”
steve2,
I’m not sure what that is supposed to add to this discussion. It looks like you agree with me that Costner was attempting political speech. If you mean something else then please explain.
“Amen to steve2”
Band on the Run,
Effectively, that statement by you is an equivalent to what Costner did during his graduation speech. Do you consider that of yours as religious speech?
Watch the video if you don’t understand what I say above. Costner’s actual act was to quote a piece of text and say “Amen”. Is that enough to constitute religious speech? When historical political and humanitarian heroes like Gandhi stated agreement with things Jesus said, was it religious speech? Are we prepared to let government shut down persons who choose to state agreement with something Jesus allegedly said because we choose to read religion into that speech? If it’s good for the goose then it’s good for the gander!
“First of all,Roy was not granted liberty to recite the lords prayer..”
Outlaw,
My comment you respond to with that statement does not say Roy was granted liberty to recite the lord’s prayer.
My comment says 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.
Your reply is non-responsive. In fact you’ve done nothing but throw bait in this discussion at the expense of trying to offer constructive response when questions are asked. I stand accused of avoiding inconvenient questions. Yet my questions are left unanswered left and right, and some of them by you. Presumably because to YOU the questions asked are irrelevant.
When you offer something on-topic I’m happy to reply. Otherwise I won’t waste time.
“Power comes from the people.”
Band on the Run,
That’s a good way to express why this subject is important to me. Because power comes from the people anything that needlessly impinges on the people’s ability to voice their views weaken the people’s ability to exert what power they have.
In this case, insofar as I can tell it appears needless that governmental authorities should be able to prohibit a person from expressing a tenet or set of tenets they agree with and say they agree with it, and to do so without the slightest attempt to ask or invite anyone to follow them or even agree with what they just said.
“Americans in every walk of life must be informed.”
Another reason why having discussions like this one is important. If nothing else, it helps make people think, which should leave them better informed.
Band on the Run,
With those last two statements of yours I quote above, I think you summarize a good bit of why this whole subject is important to me.
Marvin Shilmer
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Marvin-
I looked at the link you provided. The assertions/speculations you made contradict what was stated in the article. Here's what you said:
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."
Here's what the article actually said:
"I said, 'Look, if you're doing this for political reasons, don't. But if you're doing it because you feel led to do it and you feel this is a part of your speech, then I want you to do it and I'll stand by you,' " Roy Costner III said.
So, your speculations were polar opposite of what the article said.
I really don't care if Costner's motivations were political or religious, it still doesn't change the fact that it was unbelievably bad form and he lied to promote a personal agenda-all in defiance of a policy he deceptively agreed to abide by.
Furthermore, another comment in the article supports fully what myself, Simon, Outlaw and most others have been saying all along:
"If Costner went to a Christian school, there would be no discussion, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But in public schools, even in a place where there may be a religious majority, prayers such as his are clearly unconstitutional, she said. What’s more, she added, what he did shows contempt for school district policy and a lack of sensitivity for his audience."
"It’s aggressive. It’s supremely rude," she said. "This student is old enough to know that not everyone in the audience is Christian."
But I suppose we are expected to ignore that, because Costner apparently speaks to god and receives personal messages from him:
"I wanted to stand up for God," he explained Wednesday. "This is what God wanted me to do."
-
Giordano
As this continues I wanted to express my appreciation.
I would like to take a moment to thank Marvin, Simon, Shirley and others for leading us on a merry chase of intellectual, bombastic, overblown and delicate evaluations of just a few facts coupled with a guess at intentions and much speculation or perhaps ‘truth seeking’ to understand what transpired in this great thread “Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead”. This thread has been featured on Google on their first page, re the title of this subject, so your reasoning, opinions working with few facts to build a case has lite up the internet! Everything else has been from, in general, the same source. JW.Net has set a new standard for freedom of speech and freedom to dig deeply. The courtesies extended to Marvin by Simon have been noted... that this is a level playing field for intelligent debate even if we differ. Thanks to that son of a mountain man who started this thread.....Sam Whiskey........ who had the foresight to flee the scene after he kicked over the hornets nest............ leaving the rest of us to swat and dance while under attack. Kudos Sam! In my two and a half years this might have been my favorite thread. No scriptures or hardly any were quoted....... no blame for the far right or left, just ex witnesses’ demonstrating they have the ability to use critical reasoning and are ready to defend their principles in an open forum. Marvin you had to use two swords and tricky foot work to keep from getting gutted. Bravo! Even if I think you were wrong...... with all due respect ( which is a polite way to say...... Marvin WTF). I still love your blog. Simon it was great to see you so engaged on your own forum. Shirley great job as well. Thank you one and all...... I am very happy I can add my two cents on occasion. Gio
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Marvin: Your reply is non-responsive. In fact you’ve done nothing but throw bait in this discussion at the expense of trying to offer constructive response when questions are asked. I stand accused of avoiding inconvenient questions. Yet my questions are left unanswered left and right, and some of them by you. Presumably because to YOU the questions asked are irrelevant.
---
You make this accusation against Outlaw but he has been remaining on topic and has addressed the core issues.
Presumably because to YOU the questions asked are irrelevant.
This, in reality, is your tactic, Marvin, not Outlaw's.
You've been dismissive on this entire issue from the beginning based almost exclusively on the idea that YOU see no problem with what Costner did, therefore everyone else should suck it up.
The law, school policies and simple respect for other people have had no bearing on your repeated bullying of anyone that does not share your sentiments.
Your questions have not been left "unanswered". The real problem is you don't like the answers given and choose to ignore them as if unanswered. Your questions have been answered over and over again, but you refuse to acknowledge them.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Cool comments, Giordano.
I noted the following point as well earlier in the thread and got a laugh that you commented on it too:
Thanks to that son of a mountain man who started this thread.....Sam Whiskey........ who had the foresight to flee the scene after he kicked over the hornets nest
... OUTLAW