[idjeff]

FOXNews.com - Colorado Student Files Lawsuit Over Commencement Speech That Mentioned Jesus - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

They say she won't receive her diploma until she apologizes by saying "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did."

I bet had she mentioned Allah there would be no controversy...

Thoughts?

[pixelbaker]

save religion for the baccalaureate service. it has no place in an educational commencement with such a diverse group of people present.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by idjeff 

I bet had she mentioned Allah there would be no controversy...

Thoughts?

I've had Christians around here get het up about other religions in schools.

[stwain2003]

People have things screwed up in this country.

WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

[goMac]

"Erica Corder was one of 15 valedictorians at Lewis-Palmer High School in 2006. All were invited to speak for 30 seconds at the graduation ceremony. When it was Corder's turn, she encouraged the audience to get to know Jesus Christ."

You know, it would be one thing if she was thanking Jesus or something. But trying to convert the audience is just a tad bit inappropriate.

[shinji]

She changed the speech from what she said in rehearsals. That's the problem here. The story is just being spun to look like an attack on Christianity so more people will read it.

It would be just as inappropriate had she mentioned a prophet from any other religion, and she still shouldn't have tried to circumvent the speech approval beforehand. And there would still be controversy if this happened with another religion's prophet- it would just be from the far left instead of the far right

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stwain2003 

People have things screwed up in this country.

WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

Can you clearly define the difference in a setting where participation is mandatory?

[Atomic Rooster]

I'm getting sick and tired of peoples superstitions and stuffs.

THERE IS NO GOD!!!!

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

I'm getting sick and tired of peoples superstitions and stuffs.

THERE IS NO GOD!!!!

Well...that was clever...

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by shinji 

She changed the speech from what she said in rehearsals. That's the problem here. The story is just being spun to look like an attack on Christianity so more people will read it.

It would be just as inappropriate had she mentioned a prophet from any other religion

I completely disagree with you...sorry....

If someone said "praise Allah" in a speech, the administration would be scared shitless to question it. If they said something, they would be too scared of offending "muslims". Political Correctness run amuck. Funny how no one can see it.

And please don't post links about people being sent off of airplanes for wearing a turban... different topic

[Uncle Skeleton]

But look at the "punishment." She didn't have to retract her comment or anything, she just had to say that the school wouldn't have allowed her to say it if they knew beforehand. It makes sense, the valedictorian speech is kind of like the school endorsing that person as their representative. They can't have their representative establishing a "school sponsored" religion. They just had to cover their butts by making her say that the school did not support what she had said.

[Atheist]

I think the punishment is silly. They should have just reprimanded her and moved on. The school district is making way too big a deal out of this. Although I feel it would have been fine for her to mention her faith (regardless of which one) ... as in "My faith in ****** has helped me become who I am", it was inappropriate for her to try to persuade others to convert to her faith in a commencement ceremony. As Chuckit indicated, this was a captive audience.

Edit: By the way, I think it's truly disingenuous to imply that she is being punished for mentioning Jesus. She didn't just mention him, she tried to convert the audience. Two completely different things.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by idjeff 

If someone said "praise Allah" in a speech, the administration would be scared shitless to question it. If they said something, they would be too scared of offending "muslims". Political Correctness run amuck. Funny how no one can see it.

Probably true. Though, I wonder how the people in the audience from other faiths would have reacted had someone encouraged them to get to know Allah in a speech. I suspect we'd be hearing on radio talk shows about how the Muslims are trying convert us all in an attempt take over Western Society.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Probably true. Though, I wonder how the people in the audience from other faiths would have reacted had someone encouraged them to get to know Allah in a speech. I suspect we'd be hearing on radio talk shows about how the Muslims are trying convert us all in an attempt take over Western Society.

I agree. I also suggest that it would have been fine for someone to say "Praise Allah" in their speech as I don't generally interpret that as a command but more an affirmation of faith.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stwain2003 

People have things screwed up in this country.

WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

I have a tray of assorted donuts here. You're free to take any of them you want. But don't you dare not take any at all! You have freedom of donuts, not freedom from donuts!

[lpkmckenna]

I wasn't aware that being Christian entitled you to be deceptive and conniving, and only had to follow the rules when you felt like it. Wow, where do I sign up?

Originally Posted by goMac 

"When it was Corder's turn, she encouraged the audience to get to know Jesus Christ."

So I guess she's planning to hold a seance or something?

Originally Posted by stwain2003

People have things screwed up in this country. WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

Your caps-lock key is stuck on stupid.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Your caps-lock key is stuck on stupid.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I have a tray of assorted donuts here. You're free to take any of them you want. But don't you dare not take any at all! You have freedom of donuts, not freedom from donuts!

Acrtually, a more precise example would be:

I have a tray of assorted donuts here. You're free to take any of them you want, or take none at all. But don't you dare tell me I can't offer and display my donuts for everyone! You have freedom of donuts, not freedom from donuts!

The outrage is/was bogus. No one who heard her speech was forced to practice any religious rituals or accept any faith based dogmas. She was practicing her free speech. I don't care if she mentioned Allah, Jesus, Satan or the All Knowing Noodley Appendage. People really should get over their need to control the actions of others when it does no real harm. Really.

[Graviton]

Even if a Muslim (in some imagined scenario) did indeed get away with proselytising at a schools secular function, it still wouldn't make it acceptable for her to do so in this case (which actually did happen).

What a bizarre argument.

I don't know if it's actually the case that you cannot proselytise like that in that particular setting (I really have no idea), but I doubt that they picked on her "Cuz dey don't like dem Jezus ppl 111"

Sounds to me like she was just being a bit of an idiot.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by idjeff

If someone said "praise Allah" in a speech, the administration would be scared shitless to question it. If they said something, they would be too scared of offending "muslims". Political Correctness run amuck. Funny how no one can see it.

And please don't post links about people being sent off of airplanes for wearing a turban... different topic

You said controversy, not the administration wouldn't reprimand her. Making her apologize for giving a different speech than the rehearsal one isn't really controversial itself. Controversy would mean she was reprimanded, and the media would make a big deal out of it- they would and so would groups like CAIR and the ACLU. So it would be controversy coming from the far left instead of the far right, which is what I said.

If she changed her speech from a generic, canned graduation speech to anything involving religion, politics, etc. she would still get reprimanded for it because changing it was what the actual issue was.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by shinji 

You said controversy, not the administration wouldn't reprimand her. Making her apologize for giving a different speech than the rehearsal one isn't really controversial itself....

If she changed her speech from a generic, canned graduation speech to anything involving religion, politics, etc. she would still get reprimanded for it because changing it was what the actual issue was.

Kindly explain the lack of controversy here...you know what I'm saying (hopefully, or I'll get bored)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The outrage is/was bogus. No one who heard her speech was forced to practice any religious rituals or accept any faith based dogmas. She was practicing her free speech. I don't care if she mentioned Allah, Jesus, Satan or the All Knowing Noodley Appendage. People really should get over their need to control the actions of others when it does no real harm. Really.

No doubt this is being blown out of proportion, just as it would be if Allah were mentioned.

What I'm curious about is, if there was no harm in what she said, why did she feel the need to deceive the people who approved her original speech?

[besson3c]

I could go for some donuts...

[selowitch]

What's being lost in this whole discussion is the fact that the young lady in question was encouraging others to get to know Jesus. That's arguably an act of proselytizing. She also hid her intention to do it by not including it in her rehearsed remarks, which to me shows she knew what she planned to do was going to be against the rules.

It would have been one thing if she had wanted to say something like, "I'd just like to thank Jesus for bringing me to this day," that would probably have been just fine --- a personal statement of faith. Trouble is, what she did in fact say could be taken as an effort to persuade non-Christians to become Christian, which is inappropriate in a public school because it could offend others or be seen as coercive.

On the other hand, I do think the school overreacted, and threatening to withhold her diploma wasn't fair. It was a simple act of spiritual mischief, and although I do think she deliberately broke the rules, the amount of harm she actually did was pretty minimal.

[Kevin]

If she mentioned her being homosexual, and people were telling her she couldn't, people would be thinking a bit differently about what was going on.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If she mentioned she was christian, and people were telling her she couldn't, people would be thinking a bit differently about what was going on.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Your caps-lock key is stuck on stupid.

You really owe him an apology. Since what he said was correct and all.

I am glad this type of incident would never happen around where I live.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stwain2003 

People have things screwed up in this country.

WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!

They are one in the same. Freedom FROM YOUR religion allows me to freely participate in MINE. FORCING someone to partake in a ceremony where one particular religious belief takes precedence infringes on those who do not share that particular belief.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You really owe him an apology. Since what he said was correct and all.

I am glad this type of incident would never happen around where I live.

The "correctness" is a matter of opinion. What good is freedom OF religion if you are not free of OTHER PEOPLE'S religions? Therefore they are one and the same. And as I stated above, freedom of others' religion is absolutely essential to the free practice of one's own religion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If she mentioned her being homosexual, and people were telling her she couldn't, people would be thinking a bit differently about what was going on.

You mean, if she mentioned her being homosexual and was encouraging everyone else to become homosexual and left that bit out of her approved speech

[Drew]

Had she had mentioned the flying spaghetti monster, All the attendants at the graduation would have been touched by his noodly appendage.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by idjeff 

Thoughts?

Here's one: Stop it with your persecution syndrome Christians, you are making the jews look bad.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And as I stated above, freedom of others' religion is absolutely essential to the free practice of one's own religion.

Depends on what you mean. When your freedom FROM religion tramples over the rights of others freedom of speech, I would say if it bothers you so much she used the word Jesus, to get up and move out of your seat.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You mean, if she mentioned her being homosexual and was encouraging everyone else to become homosexual and left that bit out of her approved speech

No, that would be like encouraging homosexuals to come out of the closet. She isn't trying to make anyone be anything.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Here's one: Stop it with your persecution syndrome Christians, you are making the jews look bad.

What the heck is that supposed to mean erik?

[Graviton]

It would have been awesome if the next kid up on the podium had said:

"I want you all to try to open you heart now to your true ruler and unholy prince of darkness, Satan. Did you know that Satan loves you and that he is your Lord? He is the bringer of light that lead the rebellion of angels against the evil Yahweh, cruel dictator and fascist of the heavens. Let us all join hands whilst I read the book of revelations backwards and we set in motion the second coming of the antichrist ..."

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

What the heck is that supposed to mean erik?

It's supposed to mean: Laugh. It's funny because it's true.

[dcmacdaddy]

How many times do we need to go over this? Sigh!

Mentioning Jesus in her speech would have been fine had she NOT been proselytizing. There is a difference between saying "I would like to thank Jesus for helping me get to this point." and saying "I encourage you to get to know Jesus Christ". (The new article in the OP states that "she encouraged the audience to get to know Jesus Christ".) The former is a constitutionally protected expression of faith; The latter is not Constitutionally protected speech as the courts have decided that freedom of speech does NOT trump freedom of/from religion. (i.e.: A person can't use their freedom of speech to impose a religious idea on others, which is what this speaker did by her act of proselytization. The audience didn't have a choice as to whether or not they would hear the speaker's religious message. So, it was in essence coerced participation in a religious activity/program.)

So, expressing one's religious belief in a public school setting is fine; Using a public school setting as a vehicle for religious proselytization is NOT fine. How hard is this to understand? Here is a generic example to help explain the point that expressions of belief are different from expressions intended as proselytization. If someone spoke and said "I would like to thank my (spiritual guide/prophet/saviour) for helping me get to this point" that would be fine. If someone said ""I encourage you to get to know my (spiritual guide/prophet/saviour)" that would be NOT fine. How hard is this to understand?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Depends on what you mean. When your freedom FROM religion tramples over the rights of others freedom of speech, I would say if it bothers you so much she used the word Jesus, to get up and move out of your seat.

No, you are wrong. In actuality, the Supreme Court has decided that freedom of/from religion often trumps freedom of speech. They have ruled that in public school settings the freedom of speech can be restricted for students WHETHER OR NOT that restriction also impinges on other first amendment rights.

[- - e r i k - -]

Good point. She was proselytizing. Yet the article slants it so that she is a victim for "mentioning" Jesus Christ.

We can always trust on Fox to bring us unbiased news - fair and balanced.

And again: Persecution complex. Get over it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Good point. She was proselytizing. Yet the article slants it so that she is a victim for "mentioning" Jesus Christ.

We can always trust on Fox to bring us unbiased news - fair and balanced.

And again: Persecution complex. Get over it.

This has nothing to do with *who* reported the story. The circumstances of the event would be the same whether it was Fox News portraying the event as a persecution of religiosity or if it was the NY Times portraying the event as an example of religious intolerance.

Regardless of what news body reports the story the circumstances are the same: Namely that a person used an event at a public school as a venue for religious proselytization. The Supreme Court has decided that this type of expression is not protected speech.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

This has nothing to do with *who* reported the story. The circumstances of the event would be the same whether it was Fox News portraying the event as a persecution of religiosity or if it was the NY Times portraying the event as an example of religious intolerance.

The

Except the headline of the article (and abbreviated for this thread) was: Colorado Student Files Lawsuit Over Commencement Speech That Mentioned Jesus.

It was not Colorado Student Sues For Not Being Allowed to Proselytise Religion In Commencement Speech, now was it?

I envy America for having a separated Church and State, but it seems most of you aren't appreciating it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No, that would be like encouraging homosexuals to come out of the closet. She isn't trying to make anyone be anything.

Are you saying she wasn't encouraging people to become Christians when she said "I encourage you to get to know Christ"?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying she wasn't encouraging people to become Christians when she said "I encourage you to get to know Christ"?

She was encouraging those that would be interested in such a thing to go that direction. Because it worked for her.

The slippery slope is, if someone were to say, promote secular humanism and say they promoted it as a way of a world peace. They would be allowed to do so.

It's so transparent it's not even funny. And yet so many are so blind to what is really happening.

When I was in high school, this wasn't even an issue. When the Constitution was made and signed, public schools were teaching kids to read with Bibles.

Yet doing so now is wrong. Because we know better than those that wrote what we defend.

I shouldn't really be surprised. People have been told this was going to happen for a good 2 thousand years or so.

It will only get worse, before it gets better.

One day those of you that want it, will have your secular utopia

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The slippery slope is, if someone were to say, promote secular humanism and say they promoted it as a way of a world peace. They would be allowed to do so.

I keep hearing this, but I never see it happening.

[Kevin]

I don't remember claiming it did happen.

I said it could indeed happen. And they would be allowed to under the current laws.

The first isn't something I was arguing. The latter was.

Having said that. I'd be willing to be a large some of money, that in less than 30 years it will be not far from the norm.

If you were to tell Americans say, in 1950 that what was going on now is going on, they would not believe you. They'd think the communists took over. Not that I am saying the 50s was a Utopia. Man had one but screwed that up. IMHO.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Having said that. I'd be willing to be a large some of money, that in less than 30 years it will be not far from the norm.

I'm not that optimistic at all.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The slippery slope is, if someone were to say, promote secular humanism and say they promoted it as a way of a world peace. They would be allowed to do so.

That is debatable. But then again, secular humanism is not a religion so it is not likely to run afoul of Constitutional measures designed to prevent a religious person from using a public position to advocate for one religion over another.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Mentioning Jesus in her speech would have been fine had she NOT been proselytizing.

Hmmm, the test for a violation of the Establishment clause is whether it amounts to "endorsement" not "proselytizing." Even if a school ceremony did not in effect say "I want you to be a Christian," if it said in effect "this is the religion we like and approve," it would probably fail the test.

[Graviton]

I wonder if Kevin is aware that many religious people are secularists too.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

She was encouraging those that would be interested in such a thing to go that direction. Because it worked for her.

Yes, and that type of speech is NOT protected in the setting in which she was giving it. Proselytization is fully protected speech in houses of worship, private homes, and some public venues. But it is NOT protected in settings that ostensible have the imprimatur of the state authorizing/promoting the act, and a public school falls under that definition.