Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  “Doesn't the same logic apply to your pet cause too?”

  Logical is always equal. It knows no bias and has no care.

  “As soon as we allow one utterance of religion then religion is all controlling and all must worship and obey.”

  I don’t follow what logical connective you make with that question.

  Typical Marvin non-answer because answering it would be damaging to your already weak argument.

  I believe a government can have and enforce a given rule without that rule needlessly impinging speech of its citizenry.

  Which it did. He was free to express himself, just not turn it into a church service. He failed.

  Essentially my question goes straight to what you allude to with that statement. If we’re going to trust the government with our freedoms where do we draw lines that impinge on our ability of speech.

  We have laws, elected officials and others to act as arbitrators. We have agreed an equitable way to ensure fairness without impinging on anyone's freedoms.

  My comments have not been about religion.

  My comments have been about government.

  This is your problem - the discussion is about RELIGION and GOVERNMENT ... but you are blind to the former.
• 

  talesin

  lol, to sum up.

  School children have the right to say whatever they want, in school. As far as Marvin is concerned, this kid could have said ...

  "F**k you all! This was the worst 4 years of my life. I learned nothing, and the principal is a piece of s**t."

  What? That would be wrong? What about his right to free speech?
  
  
  Yes, that is the level of ridiculous that this so-called 'debate' has reached.

  tal
• 

  *lost*

  Thanks Band for explaining it, I do wonder why the Bible is used, and in court, one has to swear.

  ''Which generation doctirne were you willing to die for ?'' - is this a direct question to me ?

  ps Isn't America a 'christian' country, I do recall Bush's speech ( bit confusing to understand much of it )
• 

  slimboyfat

  You kinda wish Marvin is playing some sort of elaborate joke, but fear it's not the case.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  I think Marvin has gotten so myopic on the word "threat" and so bogged down in minutiae, he fails to see the bigger, and in my opinion, simpler issue:

  The simple fact is the school board was trying to create an atmosphere where everyone could feel comfortable at a graduation speech without having prayers and religion dragged into the event. Their "no prayer, no religion" policy applied to ALL religions, not just Christians. I see nothing unfair or unreasonable in the school board's decision.

  The fact that this kid had so little sensitivity toward other people is truly mind boggling. Much like Marvin, Costner apparently focused only on himself- his beliefs, his wants, his desires- and to hell with everyone in the audience.

  Marvin also still fails to realize he stands virtually alone in his views. Almost all commentors here, Christians and religions people included, have said they disagree with what Costner did. It's not simply a matter of religious "suppression" as Marvin claims. Even people who agree with Costner's religious views disagree with his methods and feel it was highly out of place and inappropriate.

  Maybe in Marvin's thinking he feels a person or group can only be 'threatened' if they're bruised and battered physically. He's so insensitive to other people's feelings that he thinks it quite reasonable that one person hijacks the room while everyone else is forced to listen to his religious mantras.

  Additionally, as already stated so many times, Costner has no honor in that he lied and deceived to get his way. Any pious religious "honor" Costner may claim to have was nullified by his deception.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  *lost* :

  ps Isn't America a 'christian' country, I do recall Bush's speech ( bit confusing to understand much of it )

  No, it is not. This was covered earlier in the thread in some detail.
• 

  Simon

  Marvin. Since you first appeared on this topic it's been clear you do not have an objective viewpoint on the subject. Let's look at what you said:

  It takes a little mind to feel offended, or somehow compromised or put upon, because an individual invited to speak shares whatever is their beliefs.

  Speaking purely for myself, when the smartest person in the room is asked to speak I generally listen respectfully. And, why not? There is no boogieman.

  So, we all have "little minds" (a theme you repeat often) and apparently he's the brightest person in the room and there is no boogieman ... I presume you mean bogey man and not some master of funk. Later, you decide there is in fact a bogey man in the form of "the government" (que scary music ... no, scary, not funky, OK Mr Boogieman, just boogie on along now please).

  When he speaks then we should listen to his opinion but we're not allowed to have any opinion on what he says?

  Since then you have doggedly persued a worthless argument in an attempt to back up your initial statements.

  Insofar as defying science goes, we know so little about the universe we live in. Things we’ve learned as facts of our universe were, in past centuries, spat upon as wrongheaded; as fairytales.

  Yes, but who did the learning of facts and who did the spitting? Religion was busy killing people for daring to say the earth was round and revolved around the sun, for daring to suggest people should be allowed to read. For daring to learn. It's still responsible for deaths throughout the world because of it's superstitions and stubbornness to admit it doesn't have answers.

  There’s a lot of dark matter and dark energy in the known universe. We have no idea what it is. Perhaps the boy who bothers you will grow up continuing to earning his grades, and one day teach the two of us a thing or two about our universe. I hope so. I hope so because I like to learn, and I don’t let my petty notions get in the way of that.

  Once again - we're all 'petty' for having our opinion are we?

  Yes, there is a chance that the boy will grown up and teach us the mysteries of the universe. I won't hold my breath though. Given that it appears he wants to go into politics and has a penchant for Christianity it's more likely we'll be reading his name in relation to some gay-preacher-politician sex-scandal and he'll be able to fall down on his knees and practice his praying for the camera all over again.

  The thing I learned from this boy is that he was brave enough to stand up and express what he wanted to express despite little brained people. Braveness is a part of manhood.

  We're little-brained again ... my my, so many insults. Everyone else is so stupid aren't they? Only you have the 'sense' to look for knowledge anywhere and everywhere. You're so clever.

  This picture you like to paint of yourself as being on some quest for knowledge is just an act IMO. You bring your opinions to the table like anyone else and try and twist the world to fit them.
• 

  *lost*

  Shirley, thanks, all a bit over my head. I thought it was, Bush etc.
• 

  talesin

  Don't feel bad *Lost*

  It's all very confusing - the republic has "In God We Trust" on all their money.

  I just . don't . get it. President praising God, etc. It's weird.

  meh

  tal
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Let us rent out Madison Square Garden. All apostates will be invited. You and I will debate. We can sell tickets and the profits can go to a mutually agreed upon JW charity. You may think your thoughts are valid. This is my profession and my personal interest. Your ideas sound ok on the surface but experience proves them wrong, wrong, wrong.”

  Band on the Run,

  You completely miss the point. Completely.

  I’m not interested in whether I’m right or wrong.

  I’m interested in having the conversation, and having it substantively. If you want to talk about specific ideas I’ve attempted to discuss on this thread then pick one and I’m happy to talk. I’ve asked lots of questions and presented lots of “what ifs” in order to explore the aspect of this discussion that’s important to me. Pick one. Isolated it so I know what the hell you’re talking about. Then we have something to talk about.

  “True conservatives would not argue from such a basis.”

  Fine. I’m not a “true conservative.” So why address that to me as though it matters?

  “The School Board is no more the Government …Than the Garbage Collectors..”

  Outlaw,

  That says a lot, Outlaw. Thanks for sharing.

  “If you believ it is wrong for the elected representatives to prevent it, then it means you think people shouldbe able to lie in order to push their religion on people.

  “Yes or No Marvin, if you're capable of focused thought for a second.”

  Simon,

  I believe it’s never ethical or moral for people should push their religion onto individuals by means of deception.

  I believe it’s ethically and morally justifiable to use deception to defeat governmental intrusion of speech if that intrusion is for some reason other than protecting citizenry from harm.

  As I said before, my concern on this subject is not about religion per se. It’s about speech and what point government should be able to prohibit speech. Questions I’ve asked have attempted to explore on that basis.

  “He was free to express himself, just not turn it into a church service.”

  I expect a Christian church service to suggest to me what to make of something the Bible says. Costner did not do that.

  I expect a Christian church service to suggest whether I should agree with something the Bible says. Costner did not do that.

  I expect a Christian church service to invite me to join in whatever is being said. Costner did not do that, either.

  Costner 1) quoted a historical religious person and 2) made a statement of agreement.

  In your mind it seems (I hate using that word!) the mere act of quoting a historical religious person and stating agreement is an inherently religious act. I have a hard time seeing how that is the case given all the known uses of such speech for reasons other than religiosity. Hence what you appear to advance as a position is narrower than I find justification for.

  “This is your problem - the discussion is about RELIGION and GOVERNMENT ... but you are blind to the former.”

  This discussion certainly includes the subjects of religion and government. I don’t disagree on that.

  My point you respond to was only to say that insofar as I can tell you and I do not disagree about it being wrong for someone to force their religious views onto either of us, so that’s not what I’m talking about because it needs no discussion. We agree on that. Forcing our religious views onto others is patently wrong. But that does not resolve the much trickier question of what government should prohibit because historically there is political speech that’s been made using information with religious history. A man both of us admire (I think we both admire him) named Gandhi made use of such information to make political speech; not religous speech.

  “Marvin also still fails to realize he stands virtually alone in his views.”

  AndDontCallMeShirley,

  Here. Yes. So what?

  Elsewhere? No. I linked to an article yesterday containing a well accomplished and respected news editorialist who sees and offered some of the same things I’ve seen and offered. It should still be there to read if how other think matters to you.

  “You kinda wish Marvin is playing some sort of elaborate joke, but fear it's not the case.”

  slimboyfat,

  If you want to offer commentary then why not answer a question:

  Proposition: The mere act of quoting a historical religious figure and stating agreement with that quote is necessarily a religious act.

  Yes or no?

  How do you answer?

  Marvin Shilmer