Diest and Bangalore have a mutual (dis)interest in declaring this to be a non-issue. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing length of this thread instead of following usual responses to non-issues or ados over nothing such as not following a thread and/or not commenting on it.
Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead
by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
steve2-
I like your posts here, you've always got a unique perspective and a fascinating way of expressing it.
--
Diest and Bangalore:
My guess? You didn't read any of this thread. You simply jumped to page 21, made an uneducated assumption as to the content of the thread, dropped your shallow one-liners and moved on to something else.
I've found this to be one of the most interesting threads I've followed, and the issues discussed go far beyond Christians applauding the Lord's Prayer and atheists disagreeing with it. Way beyond.
If you two actually read this topic you may come to a similar conclusion.
-
Band on the Run
Marvin,
Something happened during the recent dispute. You are not yourself. Take a break. I will no longer argue to argue. Note that I am far from the only highly triggered by your defense of a lame kid. I respect Tyndale and others in England who were burned at the stake or beheaded if they were noble. People may be furious with the kid but he will not see prison. My JW uncles sat in prison. Also, my JW great aunts and great uncles sat in jail in test cases during Russell's time. While I do not share their views, I respect them. Others here post about how they sat in prison during the Viet Nam War. I want to cry b/c I did draft counseling. They did not have to do so if they had a good lawyer. When Thomas More is executed in all the Henry VIII wives' novels that I read, I weep. Of course, I later read that he tortured and executed any slight hint of Protestanism. Women were executed the most. Yet he believed in a principle and against all expectations, stood his ground.
Gandhi is another example. He started as a London common law trained lawyer. Gandhi worshipped all the colonial structure. He was an Uncle Tom. When he changed his mind, he played with the British mindset. Gandhi always acknowledged his tactics would never work on a nonBritish colony. English judges, colonial bigwigs, sentenced him to prison many times. They would stand up and bow to him out of respect. It is in the film, Gandhi with Ben Kingsley. These true free speech advocates were not kids at graduation acting out adolescent notions. Also, maybe his parents made him do it. I knocked on doors and attended meetings long after I decided it was junk. Kids cannot exercise free will.
Perhaps I don't see your point. Outrageous is hard for me to comprehend. Yet you fail to see not only my points but all the points of others. You are overengaged. This is about the split in the forum and not Free Speech. Argue until the cows come home, you are wrong and not yourself. Even if you are correct, by an act of God, this is not you. I will not take down this forum arguing with you. Maybe I am wrong but I apply different rules to people I respect. You are held to a higher standard. We have many dim wits. You were never one. What is going on?
-
*lost*
Band On the Run.
Hi, can you answer my question.
you said you had to swear... as above, thanks.
lost
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
BotR:
You [Marvin] harmed your internet presence with this argument. How can we ever read your blog in the same way? I want to respect your views. Someday in the near future I will be reading your blog with rapt attention and the back of mind will trigger memories of this thread.
--
I've made mention of this to Marvin both publicly and privately. He seems undeterred. Each post he makes undermines his credibility as he defends self-contradictory nonsense and untenable claims with absurdities.
I'm not sure if I'll ever read Marvin's blog again for the same reason I no longer read WT literature: When the source has become so completely untrustworthy, the effort to dissect the information in order to verify the veracity of the material becomes too time-consuming.
-
mrsjones5
Marvin has a blog?
-
zed is dead
mrsj,
Yes, he does. It is mostly rehash of things already established, and not worth the time to read it. It is much like his posts on this thread.
zed
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“So, your speculations were polar opposite of what the article said.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
I did not cite the article in question to support a view that Costner’s act was a political one.
I cited the article in question to corroborate what school officials said about their policy and whether it was about prayer only or the broader question of religious speech.
Costner’s claim he was warned against religious speech, which is more than only being warned against prayer. Your claim that the school system only prohibited prayer is false.
I communicated that clearly. You read over it. See my post 2783 on page 20 of this discussion. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/253748/20/Valedictorian-Rips-Up-Preapproved-Speech-Recites-Prayer-Instead
“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.”
I do care about motivations of people like Costner when they do the sort of thing he did, and particularly if those motivations are political. My reason for this care particularly for political speech is because the moment government can prohibit individual liberty of political speech is the moment we head toward our own version of Ingsoc. Then government will be running the people instead of the people running the government.
My broader concern is not for Costner or his stunt, though it have to respect the nerve it took for an 18-year-old to put himself out there like he did.
My broader concern is for future leadership. I’ve spoken of Gandhi several times in this discussion. (And, before anyone asks: NO, I do not think Costner is a Gandhi.) But a concern is that if what Costner actually did in the video I watched of his graduation speech is something government can suppress then were a Gandhi to walk into the room tomorrow we might lose the opportunity to get to know it because he’d be prohibited from quoting Jesus and stating agreement. If there is the potential to have a Gandhi-like person in the room with me I want to know it, including at publicly sanctioned events. I have less opportunity to know this if a person is prohibited from using speech of historical religious figures and stating agreement with it in order to better communicate with folks around him who this will resonate and build understanding with.
"I wanted to stand up for God," he explained Wednesday. "This is what God wanted me to do."
I don’t deny that Costner has a religious disposition and that he expresses a need to stand up for “God,” whatever he means by that. My point is of what Costner actually did during his speech. Take a look at that speech again and look at it anatomically rather than psychologically.
Here is the mechanics of what Costner did: He 1) quoted a historical religious figure and 2) he said “Amen”.
Here are things Costner did not do: He 1) did not use the term “pray” as though leading the audience into something or to make sure everyone would understand he was of necessity talking to God, 2) he did not invite his audience to join or agree with him, 3) he did not tell anyone what the words he quoted meant to him or was supposed to mean to anyone else, 4) he did not tell anyone what they should do with or about those words.
Here is something else Costner did: He left everyone in the room to decide for themselves what those words were supposed to mean, if anything.
If that is prohibited speech then, in my view, the citizenry’s in danger.
“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.”
It’s wrong to think I don’t see problems with what Costner did.
For one, he lied. That’s a moral problem, and sometimes it could even be a criminal problem.
For another, I agree with Simon that if Costner was attempting to make a political statement he’d have done better to quote some religious figure outside his own religion and stated agreement with that. In mechanical terms, this would have been the same exact thing he did by quoting Jesus, but in my opinion it would have been a more efficient way to make a political statement.
It’s also wrong to think of me as dismissive in this discussion.
I’ve stated agreement with views expressed by you and others in this discussion where I saw it. This is not dismissive.
I’ve corrected misunderstandings of my views expressed by you and others in this discussion where I saw them. This is not dismissive.
I’ve tried to drill down into core issues raised by everyone here. This is not dismissive.
Because I’ve put myself so completely into this discussion, probably more than anyone other participant I’ve had question after question posed to me, and to the best of my knowledge I’ve taken time to answer each one. This is not dismissive.
When ideas or assertions have been presented to me in this discussion and I disagreed, in each case I have tried to explain why. I’ve done this to a point where once you practically blanked by browser with some weirdly formatted accusation of word-wall-building. When a person bothers to share disagreement and is willing to tell you why and answer questions asked of their stated reasons, that is not being dismissive.
As things stand, this discussion is virtually littered with questions of mine posed to you, Simon, Outlaw and many others that have been dismissed with non-answers. To the best of my reckoning, these have been left unanswered because the individuals asked felt the questions were irrelevant. This is presumptive because it precludes the notion that the one asking the question sees relevance where others have so far failed to see it.
It’s discouraging to see my work in this discussion characterized as dismissive. On the other hand, there is something to learn by each one sharing their impressions and conclusions of the discussion, and I appreciate you sharing yours.
“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.”
Bullying? To borrow a phrase, “Jesus Christ!”
“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.”
I believe that’s false.
I’ll select some recent questions I’ve asked, and you can show me specifically where these questions are definitively answered:
- If I were to stand before an audience, quote verbatim the Lord’s Prayer, then say “Amen” and stop, what religion does that make me?
- If I were to stand before an audience, quote verbatim the Lord’s Prayer, then say “Amen” and stop, have I made a political statement or a religious statement?
- If I were to stand before an audience, quote verbatim the Lord’s Prayer, then say “Amen” and stop, what have I done that the government needs to protect you from?
- If I were to stand before an audience, quote verbatim the Lord’s Prayer, then say “Amen” what if anything have I necessarily said of my religious belief?
I believe their is relevance in each of those questions. If you disagree you're free to say so and refrain from answering, but that disagreement is not evidence the questions are irrelevant or that they deserve no answer. It could be the case that there is relevance that you don't see and that I do. Conversely, they might not be relevant after all. But whether answering questions like that is relevant to our subject will be harder to resolve unless those questions are answered and subsequently explored.
“Your posts are Rife with "WHAT "IF`s..”
Outlaw,
That’s because I’m exploring ideas.
We cannot explore ideas without asking and answering what-if questions.
In this case the ideas I’m exploring have to do with when and/or whether quoting a historical religious figure and stating agreement with it is, in a publicly sanctioned event, speech that should be prohibited by government authority.
That is what Costner did in his graduation speech, and what Costner did during his speech is core to this discussion.
“The lad said the lords prayer, hardly original so it wasn't his own words. That surely isn't in despute. If the lad fell to his knees and said," Allahu Akbur, Allahu Akbur, Ashadu anna Muhammadan rasoolullah" (excuse if I got that wrong) which in my view is in no way different to a christian saying the so called lords prayer, can there be any disputing the fact that there would have been an outcry? honestly?
“Would that have been viewed by the American public at large as harmless religious speech? I can only speak for myself and say no, I think that would have caused a problem or two. Just my opinion.”
iCeltic,
My view is that if the American public would somehow think it inappropriate for any person to quote a historical figure (religious or otherwise) and state agreement with it then the American public has lost its zeal for free political speech.
My further view is that if the American public would allow its government to prohibit at publicly sponsored events any speech that is innocuous then the American public has asked for Ingsoc to take over.
Speech is anything we do to communicate with the society around us.
When we look beyond the morality of Costner’s deception, in my view Costner’s act of briefly quoting Jesus and stating agreement with it is no different than what happened on January 4, 2007 when Keith Ellison sealed his oath of office to the US Congress with his hand upon a Quran. Both these actions were speech. I don’t see how Americans are imperiled by either of these acts of speech. In Ellison’s case, though, some very savvy thinking led to his using a Quran once owned by a founding member of the US government, Thomas Jefferson.
“For if the calculated recital had espoused any Muslim, Hindu or other "heterodox" beliefs, the audience would have been loud still in response, but they would not have applauded but booed their offended disapproval.”
steve2,
I’m not as sure of that as you are.
It’s true there have been plenty of conservative extremists (simple jerks in my book) who have reacted precisely as you say, and I’m sure the audience included a quantity of these.
But it’s also true there are plenty of Americans who’d have seen it different and reacted respectfully, if not appreciatively of a student exercising speech but without hurting anyone.
I think this is where Costner lost his Gandhi-like opportunity. Had he stood there and said:
“Praise be to God, the cherisher and sustainer of the worlds; the compassionate, the most merciful; master of the day of judgment. Thee (alone) we worship; thee (alone) we ask for help. Show us the straight path, the path of those whom thou hast favored; not the (path) of those who earn thine anger nor of those who go astray. Amen.”
Had Costner stood there and said that, my opinion is he would have brought the world of his audience to full-stop. Then, when they realized the power of what he’d just done with his speech they’d have risen in near worshipful ovation. He’d have propelled himself into a Gandhi-in-the-making. But, of course, he didn’t do this. Instead he quoted Jesus, said “Amen” and here we are today having this discussion.
“Some kid said the lord prayer… This is a non-contraversy.”
Diest,
I completely disagree with that. The mere fact of this discussion, and others similar to it in other media demonstrates controversy. Moreover, I think it’s a good and healthy thing to discuss what makes this controversial.
“This is about the split in the forum and not Free Speech.”
Band on the Run,
I appreciate your views, and everyone else's too. But this idea of “the split in the forum” is something I don’t get. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there appears a sentiment exists that by engaging this subject as I have it somehow poses a danger to this forum, as though engaging issues I’ve raised will “take down this forum.” Please correct me if this impression is false.
Earlier in this discussion I saw other comments hinting my engagement of discussion at JWN of late has had some purpose of trying to undermine JWN, going so far as speculating that I’m some kind of AAWA agent.
None of this is true. I love this place. I’ve never held back here or anywhere else from sharing when I agree or disagree with things said. Ever. One of the very last things I’d want is to hinder JWN’s future! This has been a fantastic place for a long time. My hope is that it continues for a lot longer.
In my view something that’s critical to a discussion forum like this is open and honest discussion between participants, whether they agree or disagree. I’m not here to convince anyone of something they’d prefer to think otherwise. I’m not here to be convinced of anything. I’m here to learn. I’m here to share. If in that process either myself or someone else finds themselves convinced of something they previously rejected, fine. But whether that occurs or not is a sideshow to why we are all here, which is to learn what we can and share what we can. What makes this forum thrive is willingness to engage discussion, and to do so substantively when there is substance to talk about.
“What is going on?”
Honestly, that’s my question too. Neither my style nor approach to participation here is any different now than it was 5 or 10 years ago. I’ve always put myself out there, and I’ve always been willing to ask and answer hard questions. That’s how I learn. But these days it seems like folks around here practically think me a criminal! I don’t understand this at all.
“I've made mention of this to Marvin both publicly and privately. He seems undeterred. Each post he makes undermines his credibility as he defends self-contradictory nonsense and untenable claims with absurdities.”
AndDontCallMeShirley,
I’m undeterred in my engagement of this subject because fleshing out important details of this subject is important to me.
I have no concern about my credibility because whatever I say here or elsewhere stands entirely on whatever merit the information contains. Neither here nor elsewhere do I assert myself as an authority that should be accepted based on whatever credentials I have earned. I do this precisely because I want evidence to speak for itself rather than me speaking for evidence. In the end no one will care and it will not matter who or what I am or am not. But what will matter is the veracity of information presented, whether by me or anyone else.
The whole idea that I should be remotely concerned about my credibility within a discussion is absurd to me. Why do I need to have such concern when my only motivation is to learn whatever I can myself and then share it as best I can?
Marvin Shilmer
-
Band on the Run
We had a Bible on the table in front of twenty of us. I was admitted in a small group. Part of me was freaking out. I do believe if you have religious objections they make alternate arrangements, esp. in NY. Normally, I would call it church/state foul but, unlike this teen, I just wanted to mark the day without dispute. It looked like a full Bible iwth NT, too. No Jewish person made a fuss. It was hard to focus for the JW questions in my brain.
Had I not left, would I ever be standing to be admitted? Some women do become Bethelites and then lawyers. Basically, it was exactly as in a courtroom, only we had to swear special stuff. Do I want to die for the NY Const'n when no one knows what it is? But regular people have no clue as to how law itself supports the status quo, the government and large businesses. Remember Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees..." Scribes' duties included law. This may be nasty. My gut feeling is that Bethel doesn't care if the soon to be lawyers swear an oath to the government. In fact, just by practicing law you are serving entrenched interests. William Kunstler would do research in our library. I so much wanted to ask him about this aspect and his view. He was very focused on his work, though.
One of the most interesting things I studied was when the highest court in Rhodesia, all common law lawyers with strong allegiance to the Queen, must face the reality of a coup d'etat. Do they become part of a racist South African government? They swore to defend the British Const'n and the Queen. Well, they wrote very movingly about freedom and British traditions. The short story is that they said they had duties to the regular people on the ground. It was now impossible to administer British justice in any form. If they resign in protest, even worse judges with no common law training, will take their places. They decide to become flunkies of the apartheid regime until British law returns. No one was holding their breaths or selling all their assets to meet British soldiers coming to the rescue.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
Marvin,
You are so interested in arguing you cannot even agree with yourself, or are simply interested only in re-writing your statements once their absurdity is exposed.
On page 18 you said:
"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. "
Now, on this page as a "rebuttal to me pointing out your self-contradiction, you said:
I did not cite the article in question to support a view that Costner’s act was a political one.
Your circular arguments and trifles over semantics are exhausting.
You post long-winded explanations, but your rhetoric has not changed one iota in this entire discussion.
You claim you are open to learn from others on this topic while simultaneously blasting everyone who offers a view different from the one you're firmly entrenched in.
Marvin:
I have no concern about my credibility
That much is obvious, Marvin.