Should students not be allowed to talk about their faith at graduation speeches?

Question

Isn't it discrimination to let an athiest talk about who they are and what defines them, but Christians and other people of faith may not?
Isn't it closed minded to have a whole science book propogating the secular humanist religion:

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm


yet at they will not even give one single paragraph to the possiblity of intellegent design?

FYI- One student recently DID have his microphone yanked at the first mention of Christ. This is common practice, and the separation clause is always cited (because it is a school sponsored event)

Answer 1

The answer is they should be allowed to talk about their faith.
The word of caution is that the speech should be about personal experiences and how faith has helped the person talking.
The reason religion is sometimes banned from speeches is that it inevitably leads to some sort of weird comparisons to people with other faiths (or no religious affiliation) in a negative connotation.
I have no problem when someone says something like: "I am so happy to be here, and I thank God for helping me through the tough times and guiding me."
But not something that sounds: "I am a better person because I have my God on my side, and you don't"

Answer 2

Well, for starters, I did not see anything in your link about a student being prevented from talking about faith at a graduation. It did cover a teacher trying to teach creationism (Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist) at a public school. The problem with that is, it is telling kids that god(s) made the planet and all the life on it. There is no proof of that. That is not how science works. Evolution has been studied and studied and studied. Scientists have been researching it for over a century now. Every day, more and more evidence comes in confirming it. It comes from genetic research, fossil resesearch, geology research, zoological research and many other fields. The evidence is completely overwhelming. Therefore evolution should be taught in science class and creationism or intelligent design needs to be taught in sunday school.

Discussing a scientific theory is fine at a school as long as it is a true scientific theory. Too many people want to bump creationism and/or ID to the status of theory without presenting any evidence of it.

Now, the article discussed humanism discussions at schools, however it did not present what types of discusions these were. If they were along the lines of "There is no god" then that is not acceptable discussion for a school. If they were along the lines of "The evolution of dinosaurs from the Jurassic to the Cretacious can be seen in development of the brain cavity". This is appropriate discussion for a school. It involves science. Real science, that is backed by research and peer approval.

The article also discused that teachers could not discuss religion with students, even during lunch breaks. Once again, I wonder what types of discussions are we talking about. Is it under the guise of a student club having a teacher join in on discussions or is it along the lines of teachers walking among the students trying to provoke discussions. The difference is in who originates the discussion. The school employee is a person in power while working at a school, whether teaching or not. They cannot be given permission to go an convert the student population. Even a teacher bringing up the subject is considered probing the student's beliefs. The world will be a much better place if religion stays out of public schools. There is too much controversy behind it.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not mean that you have permission to force others to hear what you say or practice what you do.

Ok, you added a note about a student having his or her microphone snatched away. Do you have an article or something that we can double check on? You could easily make that up. It might be true, I don't know. However, I do like to see evidence.

Answer 3

I would suspect that the same school willing to restrict the freedom of speech to Christians would do the same for atheists. Athiests are allowed to give a speech, but as long as they don't make a case for the non-existence of god in it, there's no problem. Why would anyone do that anyway?

Face it, science IS secular humanism (I won't give you the religion) if you base even one iota of a scientific theory on faith the entire structure falls apart

When was the last time you heard a scientest say "I hope this is true?" The whole point of science is to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt (or present the most logical theory if absolute proof is unattainable)

Answer 4

Students should absolutely be allowed to talk about their faith in graduation speeches, granted one thing - the school itself does not formulate or go out of its way to allow the student to speak about religion - in other words the school should be allowed to admit they had no hand whatsoever in the speech. If a student says something about a Supreme Being, you cannot say that is government sponsored religion anymore than you can claim someone praying in a public park is government sponsored religion. Simply put, so long as the school does not organize any of the speeches, then it should all be okay. The school only needs deniability - the ability to deny involvement.

Answer 5

Last part first. Secular humanism isn't taught in textbooks, but rather SCIENCE. Intelligent design is not a valid or accepted scientific viewpoint. It is a means to try to introduce a god into science, when there is no justification for it. The fact that some marvel at our complexity doesn't prove that there is an intellilgent designer.

As for your first part, I think that students ought to be able to talk about their faith in God, as long as it doesn't become an attempt to proslytize. When a person goes from thanking their god, and comes to calling non-believers to believe, that's crossed the line from a speech to recruitment. That's where it becomes state sponsorship of religion.

So, mention god, yes. preach, no. And, as was mentioned before, censor none because of their beliefs if you intend to allow any.

Answer 6

Hum, our Pastor is a High School Science teacher and he believes in God.
You might want to read a book by Josh McDowell called Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Also do a web search on a few things like prophecy and the Bible, science and the Bible, history and the Bible.

Answer 7

The fundy kids ALWAYS get in stuff about Jesus in their graduation speech. No worries! I haven't been to a graduation yet that hasn't had 1: those fundy graudates sneaking in a drive-by preach and 2: the majority of the audience rolling their eyes at said speakers superiority complex.

Answer 8

Christians should talk about their faith anyway. They shouldn't be ashamed of God or His message. I say if they can get through high school and college with all the atheistic propaganda nonsense that is thrown in their face, they can throw a little back at graduation. Who cares what the p.c. world thinks? I don't and they shouldn't either. The first amendment applies to all people, provided they aren't Christian of course.

Answer 9

You question is opposite your further comments. I can't figure out if you are for or against Students talking about their faith. If they are not allowed to, isn't that a violation of Free Speech?

Answer 10

loose speech isn't completely loose. It nonetheless has to operate interior the barriers regularly taking place through regulation and the structure. If even one student or target audience member is non-religious, or of a diverse faith than that of the prayer being suggested, then this style of prayer would violate their constitutional rights. obligatory prayer in public college is illegitimate no count number who leads it. scholars are better than welcome to divvy up into religious diverse sorts and carry a prayer of their picking no matter if earlier or after commencement ceremonies, yet they could't rigidity all the different scholars to wish alongside with them or to take heed to them pray for the period of a ceremony it fairly is meant to be all inclusive. edit: no, my pricey, it is you who would not comprehend the structure. that thoroughly unconstitutional commencement prayer to *your particular deity* would have looked magnificent to you, yet for different youthful children who did not follow your faith i will guarantee is replaced into not so magnificent. it is not about loose speech. loose speech would not conceal forcing different persons to wish on your deity any better than it covers plagiarism, verbal abuse, libel or mendacity less than oath.