No I was not aware of this, but assuming it is true, I'm not the least bit surprised.
2006-06-21 05:15:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Harlan 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Actually it was not the ACLU that put a stop to the speech it was the school itself because the speech amounted to a student proselytizing, the ACLU merely supported the Schools decision. Have you read the speech? I don't have a problem with references to God in a speech but she fundamentally went over the line. A Valedictorians speech should encompass the width and breadth of life and encouragement for a rocky future all graduates must face. It should not be a platform for ANY religious or political beliefs.
2006-06-21 05:33:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by go_to_girl 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This shows that we need a Constitutional Amendment that clearly defines what our forefathers meant by the separation of church and state.
Certainly, I do not believe that they meant that religion and spirituality should banned from public functions. These were spiritual people that wrote our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I believe that they did not want a religious leader to use their religious teaching to brain wash "The people", in order to enslave us. So if we were to elect a religious person, we could prevent him/her from taking actions that would result in the loss of our freedom.
Someone smarter than me would have to devise the amendment.
Here is the current amendment, Article I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I do not see where a person can't speak about religion in public, OR IS THIS JUST ME? This clearly does talk about FREE SPEECH.
The ACLU is not to blame. They are attempting to protect our Liberty. However, some very smart legislators should GET ON THE BALL and clear this thing up.
2006-06-21 05:24:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by expansionsw 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In all honestly, the ACLU was correct.
Foothill High School doesn't sound like a parochial school, and as such, shouldn't have any references to any religion. I'm not saying I agree with it or disagree with it, but being a public school it falls under separation of Church & State.
2006-06-21 05:21:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Aussie Mommy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing. When Ms. McComb decided to include in her speech a lecture about how Christ died for our sins, that was prosletyzing. She is free to stand on a street corner or in any other public place and talk about Christ as much as she wants to, but not in an event sponsored by another institution.
2006-06-21 05:20:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
because of the fact they seem to be a private team that works to safeguard the form. And as long because of the fact the form exists, they are allowed to proceed performing to safeguard it. as quickly as the form is finally buried, then the ACLU will stop to exist. And if the ACLU ceases to exist, it particularly is basically a count of time earlier the form is not greater.
2016-12-08 23:36:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is an easy solution -- send your kids to a Parochial/Private school! It is amazing the responses and participation we get at our Lutheran High School at sporting events, etc., when we have a pre-game prayer. We play against a lot of public schools, and they absolutely love that we can openly do this at our school. We have NEVER received any complaints, and have received a LOT of positive comments, from kids, parents, etc.
In general, the kids at public schools want to participate. It's only when some asshole parent decides they don't like it, and then the whole school has to suffer because of one person's ignorance!
2006-06-21 05:20:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
so the speech was censored BEFORE it was "handed over" to the aclu. the aclu didn't censor anything. now, if you have a problem with the adminisrators, i would agree with you - but no organization in the US fights for free speech harder than the aclu, religious speech and otherwise... so to get on their case here is unfair.
2006-06-21 05:18:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Matthew C 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Get over it. The school is a public school that is non-religious. They don't want to get in trouble legally by some tight-a$$ parent saying that Christianity was being forced on them and their child. It isn't like the school districts are filled with extra cash and can afford a multi-million dollar payout on a lawsuit.
2006-06-21 05:15:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know what you mean. My own daughter was asked to remove all references to our main gods from her speech. They wouldn't even let her use the initials of Zeus & Hera.
I believe another young lady whose parents are from New Delhi was prohibited from uttering votive phrases to Vishnu.
If this keeps up it will be difficult for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Taoists, Animists, Pagans, Wiccams and run of the mill Satanists to preach in school. I think this is part of that evil plot to saparate the state and religion.We wouldn't want that, would we?
2006-06-21 07:07:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by JAT 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
She should be able to say what she wants. It's amazing that a simple reference to God can be perceived so badly, and this is coming from an Atheist. She did the work. She's the Valedictorian. I would love to hear what she wanted to say.
2006-06-21 05:17:18
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋