Discussions
Shut Off Microphone Case Goes to Supreme Court
Posted by TheBigRuski • 3/25/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: education, fairness, Faith, first amendment, school, speech, tolerance
Rutherford Institute to Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of High School Valedictorian Censored, Silenced for Referencing Christ
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — (The Rutherford Institute) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the First Amendment case of a high school valedictorian whose microphone was turned off after she began speaking about the importance of religion in her life during her graduation speech.
In issuing an unpublished decision in the case, the Court ruled that school officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of Brittany McComb when they cut off her microphone. McComb, who is currently studying at Oxford University, plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court with the help of The Rutherford Institute...
"If government officials can extinguish speech by turning off microphones at public assemblies, then none of us will have any rights." - John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute
YouTube video of speech and cut mic moment found at:
thescroogereport.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/to-brittany-mccomb-we-are-your-mi...
User Comments
-
I'm not really sure what stance I would take on this, but this really wasn't a good place to preach.-
Sorry.
However, I disagree. Why is "preach" a four letter word?
How about she was trying to encourage people with her own personal story? -
He's talking about her speech, not your thread
And I agree with him. They had removed religious references from her speech, but she chose to read the original one, knowing what might happen. Whoops! -
exactly, there is a reason why speeches are approved in advance. A valedictorian's speech is not the place to proselytize.
-
Or tell your own story of triumph apparently.
-
Definitely not "tell your own story of triumph" if it's not relevant to everyone present. A graduation speech is meant to be applicable to the whole graduating class, not just a segment that happens to share one's beliefs. -
What could be more relevant and applicable than sharing what helped her?
If you want to put one's faith in a separate box and not say that it is a huge part of your life...then that would be selfish.
What do you want her to say? ...that she "studied hard" and "applied herself" and "hard work paid off" and she "just wanted to succeed"....
...and all that seemed "to do the trick." -
You know, she could have said all of that - and thanked her parents, and mentioned her faith - and left it at that, and this wouldn't be an issue.
But she decided to preach. -
...in your opinion.
Sorry, for being repetitious, but in my opinion and countless others, that speech was the furthest thing from preaching imagined.
It was her personal story. -
It stopped being her personal story when she started in with "God sent his only son down for us" and "God's love is the greatest gift to man", and turned into a sermon.
Her original speech included bible passages, according to her legal representation.
That's a sermon. -
I'm curious about how someone's "personal story" is appropriate material for a graduation speech, anyway. If she'd been talking about recovering from leukemia or overcoming drug addiction or some such, it would have been equally misplaced.
-
@MX...
...in your opinion. In fact, probably the majority of the best graduation speeches include a personal side, a personal story, a personal testimony if you will.
And before you that are aghast over the word "testimony"...it can mean non-"religious" personal story as well. -
Really, Ruski? On what do you base this "majority" conclusion? And would you say that that "majority" of speeches focus on the personal experience to the exclusion of anything that is of broad relevance to the graduating class, or that they use that story as a springboard to something that applies to everyone graduating?
-
-
-
I don't know how that school operates, but even my Catholic high school had to approve the speeches before they went on stage - and if the student opted to change the speech without permission - they would be cut off.
Now, I'm thinking that the school either didn't bother to check the speech before hand - which would be their fault - or she changed the content of the speech and opted to give a sermon about Jesus in a public school.
I'm thinking it was the latter of the two.
Valedictorian speeches are not supposed to be sermons. Even at a private, religious graduation the valedictorian speech was not a sermon.
From the reaction of the teachers - I would say that they were caught off guard by unapproved content that was inappropriate for a public school graduation.-
@Anok...
...in your opinion. -
No, not in my opinion. Not even in my religious school was the valedictorian speech a sermon. Why? Because even my Catholic school administration didn't feel it was appropriate for a student to preach during a valedictorian speech.
That's at a private, religious school.
In a public school - you are not allowed to proselytize to the students during school hours, or school functions - the school stage is not opened up for witnessing and evangelizing to the student body.
It is a federally funded institution that cannot promote religions.
And I would say the same thing if the speaker started on about Buddha, Paganism, Witchcraft, Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster.
Not appropriate.
-
-
-
I doubt she was censored FOR Christ. I'm sure she would have been censored if she had have started talking about Allah, Buddah, or the divine shrubbery
-
Exactly how outraged would you be if the valedictorian was censored for Allah?
How outraged would you be if the valedictorian was censored for porn?
How outraged would you be if the valedictorian used that time on stage to talk about legalizing gay marriage?
Or proselytizing Thor? -
Well, if they were going to allow her to put her religion in the spotlight, why not have everyone of each religion say a few words about it? I mean, it's only fair.
But ... would the audience have reacted the same way if she had been a Muslim? Or a Wiccan? Or a Pastafarian?
Probably not, so it would've been best to leave that out of the speech and tell her "story of triumph" in a way that can apply to anyone of any belief system, atheists and agnostics.
(I'm such a slow typist, two replies before mine!) -
I would not be outraged, but the ACLU would be defending those other "faith" remarks...not so for the Christian.
-
Woo, Pastafarian! I'm doing my part to stop global warming. I'm being a pirate! -
No, they wouldn't.
Know why? Because the Pagan/Buddhist/Muslim/Pastafarians wouldn't use the time for a valedictorian speech to evangelize their religion!!! -
Oh, Anok. You know I would not think twice before talking about His Noodly Goodness and how His Noodly Appendage helped me become the valedictorian.
-
OK, but as long as you don't get into how you've been touched by his noodly appendage, because that's just crossing lines that ought not be crossed...
-
All right, all right. I'll have to change some things ...
*hides the unedited speech in the back pocket* -
Friday13, please show us on the doll where the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched you.
-
Oh, no. It's therapy all over again!
-
So would you say she lied for Christ as well? Rejected legitimate earthly authority for Christ? Is it possible, truly, to sin for Christ?
-
"September 2008: Agreement reached with the California Department of Parks and Recreation allowing members of Welcome INN, a religious group, to serve meals to the homeless at Doheny State Park. In February, state park rangers threatened to cite and arrest group members for violating state code. State officials have agreed not to enforce the regulation against anyone for three years, when the state code is expected to be revised."--Source: OCRegister
www.ocregister.com/articles/aclu-city-orange-2228595-county-case
-
-
How convenient to not read the whole story...
However, school officials neither encouraged nor forbade the students to include or exclude religious content from their speeches. In her speech, Brittany reflected on past experiences and lessons learned at school and wrote about the emptiness she experienced from accomplishments, achievements, and failures in her early high school years. She then mentioned the fulfillment and satisfaction she later came to experience in something greater than herself, namely, in God’s love, and Christ.-
Let's see, they neither encouraged nor forbade...meaning they didn't bring it up.
And why would they? Why would they say "OK, now if you wanna have a sermon, go right on a ahead" or "Now don't go talking about God dear..."
What they'd tell the valedictorian is "Your speech should be inspirational and address the past struggles and future potential of high school graduates...."
and then she would provide the school with a first draft, which they would approve or reject, then a finalized copy, which they would approve or reject, and finally a speech that the school approves.
It's highly unlikely that they approved her sermon, then decided to cut off the mic.
-
-
She deviated away from the pre-approved speech. So they shut her mic off as she expected they would. You break the rules, there are consequences. Any god fearing man should know that. Now she should ask the lord to be forgiven. -
In reality...
1. The speech was not a sermon.
2. It is part of the great commission to share the word of God.
3. She did not expect the mic to be cut off.
4. She shared in an unobtrusive manner...not preachy...not Bible thumping...and made it personal to herself.
5. The speech was inspirational and addressed her past struggles.
6. There were many in the audience that wanted to hear her speech in its entirety.
7. This is a First Amendment issue and she is being defended by a legal team that believes so, too.-
I watched the speech.
It was all about how God's love can do this and that and how he was all powerful and etc and so forth.
It was a sermon.
And if she brought a speech in, where the content was changed, complete with a sermon (which had probably been rejected prior to the graduation) and didn't expect to have the mic cut off - then she isn't a very smart valedictorian. -
You seemed to forget about the part where she was trying to fill herself with good grades, drinking, partying, placing high marks, etc. How you can dis a transformational story is a bit sad.
-
Yes, she stated that in the first 60-90 seconds of the speech.
Then launched into a sermon.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that she had submitted the speech, had the original rejected, and instead of seeking counsel then, just decided to recite the original anyway - full well knowing that it had been rejected and not approved by the school.
If the "censored" parts had been off topic, about parties, about drugs, about witchcraft - no one would care. You wouldn't care. In fact, many would actually be relieved, and happy about the decision. But because they asked her not to have a sermon - complete with bible passages - it's a first amendment outrage! -
It is easy to defend the 1st amendment when you agree with the speaker. It takes real courage to defend the 1st amendment for someone you disagree with. -
I watched the speech too, yea she definitely started to preach and proselytize. Too bad she couldn't keep to the approved speech like all the other students. Apparently she thought she deserves some extra privileges.
Anok said, "If the "censored" parts had been off topic, about parties, about drugs, about witchcraft - no one would care. You wouldn't care. In fact, many would actually be relieved, and happy about the decision. But because they asked her not to have a sermon - complete with bible passages - it's a first amendment outrage!"
Exactly! -
Did she attempt to write a second speach that still referenced god as the magical being related to her life without starting a church revival?
-
[1. The speech was not a sermon.
2. It is part of the great commission to share the word of God.]
Do you have no sense of irony?! -
Seriously. Do you?
-
In this case, 'the word of God' coming in the form of a personal story (testimony), if you will.
Sorry, I know that words like "preach," "testimony," "sermon," and "bible" are not only misconscrued, but seen as dirty words.
If one is not allowed to give their personal story as part of a grad speech...then they might as well pipe in some video with a pre-approved message. Perhaps a leader just chanting "Yes we can!" or something of that sorts.
-
-
Is there anything you aren't outraged about, Ruski?
-
The $1 double-cheeseburgers at McDonalds.
-
how ironic...something that everyone should be outraged about!
-
-
www.rutherford.org/KeyCases/McComb.asp
After composing her remarks, she submitted them to school administrators according to standard district policy. School administrators, with the advice of their district legal counsel, censored her speech, deleting all three Bible references, several references to “the Lord” and the only mention of the word “Christ.”
On Thursday, June 15, 2006, McComb delivered her commencement address to over 400 fellow students, families and staff. However, believing that the district’s censorship of her speech amounted to a violation of her right to free speech, she attempted to deliver the original version of her remarks in which she shares her personal beliefs about the role that her Christian beliefs played in her success.
When school officials found her to be straying from the approved text, they unplugged her microphone, thus ending the address. Despite extensive jeers from the audience over the school officials’ actions, McComb was not permitted to finish giving her valedictory speech.-
I have all that in my post. And your point? I agree with her and her lawyers.
-
Free speach means that you can say what you want. Free speach doesn't mean that you can say what you want on someone else's microphone.
-
Of course you agree with them.
To hell with school policy and common sense.
Forget the fact that she had been told that her original speech was inappropriate - was asked to do a rewrite, and submitted to and accepted the new version of the speech - let's forget that part.
Lets forget that she willfully ignored school policy - a student who is supposed to set an example for other students - in order to launch a sermon, which she knew would be unplugged or stopped in some way - making her a martyr for the cause...
Yeah, OK. -
spot on xmarks!
-
Itsn't it a lie to submit a speach for approval (the second), tell the admin. that that is your speach and then give a different speach entirely? God should sit that girl down and have a chat about honesty.
-
Oh no, she's religiously justified because that lie turned her into a martyr. Which furthers the cause - to push religion down people's throats.
-
-
I just watched it. The first bit of "I found god instead of drinking, etc." That was ok. Then she started in with god's only son. Ok, here we go again. Looneys come on out.
-
Couldn't we just mud-wrestle and get this over with?
-
I'll get the camera!!
-
Wouldn't work. The christians would part the mud.
-
nah, that's a Jewish trick...The Christians ignore the old testament.
...oh wait, sorry, missed the small print: "except when it suits them" -
Oh noes she didn't! *stares with wide eyes*
-
woops...forgot I was at someone else's house...should have saved that for the ultimate religion thread...
-
Your right. The jews have all the good mud wrestling tricks, parting the mud, turning people into salt pillars, massive floods. What do the christians have . . . . making all kinds of fish and bread? Walking on water would be useful defensive move in mud wrestling I guess.
-
Just get them drunk on the wine first than they will mud wrestle.
-
-
What Anok and xmarks said..-
I can't help but wonder just how many valedictorians could have gone to the supreme court over the censoring - or rejection of their first, second, and third drafts of their graduation speeches?
Thousands? Millions? -
What happens when this kid tries to get a job or write an article and gets rejected? Off to court we go????
-
I guess so. What a waste of tax payer money.
-
-
Brittany McComb is a self-centered liar. She agreed to go with the edited speech and then used her original speech. She ruined what should have been a momentous occasion for the other graduates and especially the other honor students who were scheduled to speak. She has also cost the school district a lot of money in court costs that could have gone to educational purposes.
These religious nuts have to realize that the world doesn't revolve around them and that other people have rights, also.-
But they were teaching math and science with those funds. She couldn't allow that.
-
OH!
-
Yeah! Who needs math and science when you have the bible. Everything you need to know is in that one book.
Anybody know what her major was?
-
-
Bottom line, the entire audience apparently wanted to hear the speech. The people spoke.-
The cameras were on her. There is no basis for "entire". Some people wanted to hear it. I'm sure some didn't.
-
-
Is it just me or did anyone else notice that sudden change in her expression when she started preaching.. it was like she was daring the authorities.. "I am going to break your rules.. do what you can"
-
Umm the case doesn't go to the Supreme Court untill it's actually been appealed to them and then they accept to hear the case. They are not required to do so and very well maynot, so your title is misleading.
-
Isn't drama more important than facts??????
-
-
I happen to be a Christian.
And I think she was wrong!
Not because she was proselytizing or preaching, but because she broke the rules that was agreed upon by the leaders of the school.
If she didn't agree with them, she could have laid down the valedictorian honor, and just stepped down and walked away rather then make a big scene and demand she be heard. -
I'd like to know where in the bible it says it's ok to shove the testaments down everyone's throat whenever possible.
At least she wasn't saying that Tom Cruise was her hero... -
I don't mean to be rude --- BUT WHAT IF SHE HAD BEEN A SATANIC WORSHIPPER?
WHAT IF SHE HAD BEEN A BUDDHIST?
or some OTHER religion than Christian?
Would that have caused such an uproar?
It's not cool to "preach" at public speeches made to embrace EVERY FAITH - every family there - who may NOT have believed in what she was discussing?
The school gave her a decision - she chose to go against the decision.
In the forum that she was speaking in - she broke the rules that were placed upon her speech - from the institution that was permitting her to speak.
They revoked her right to speak at their function - not at a FREE SPEECH FUNCTION.
Big difference.
I could care less either way - if she had spoken - if I had been there to observe it.
BUT there are those who are NOT Christian - that it was not fair to them that they had to listen to this.
And the school made rules for everyone - she chose not to follow them.
WW-
Do you know how many times I would rather not listen to a speech because I disagreed with the speaker? Do I ask the host to turn off the mic? Nope.
-
-
I would have thought that a rough draft of the speech had to be approved by the school first. But I ain't no valedictorian! LOL! -
Can anyone recall an instance in which Jesus chose to preach to a captive audience?
-
Come to think of it...not really.
Unless you want to include his anger at the temple. Which isn't really preaching, nor was the audience captive, but it's the only time I can think of when non followers were present for a religious conversation they didn't initiate.
-
-
I can see that the "hypocrisy radars" are turned on at full blast!
How does anyone know that the girl may have intended to give the pre-approved, censored speech and felt led to go off the cuff when she stepped up to the microphone?
Where does it say, "thou shall not veer off the administration's version of the speech?" Where's common sense? Unless the girl went off on a lunatic binge laced with inappropriateness, why should the mic go off?-
Er, when you agree to do a speech, and it's reviewed and edited, you either do the approved speech, or you decide that speaking at this time in this situation is not right for you.
And if you toss that "In your opinion" thing at me, Ruski, that you've been bandying about lately like a badminton-- I will lose any shred of respect I might have had for you. -
Here, I'll break it down for you TBR. She was aware of the rules set in place before hand, she knowingly broke the rules. There are consequences for breaking the rules. Savy?
-
When people are stating their opinion as fact...once in awhile, I'd like to point out that there is an opposing opinion...and that opposing opinion might just be factual.
-
Is that a fact or an opinion, TBR?
-
"Is that a fact or an opinion, TBR?"
The ol' 2nd-grade "I know you are, but so am I!" argument. -
What the heck are you talking about TBR, that isn't even an accurate anology. You are the one saying "...in your opinion" to people. I am using your words, and now you say it is second grade behavior? You have just called yourself out! LOL.
-
You do realize she was at a JEWISH SCHOOL - right?
(ROFLMAO _ JUST KIDDING)
-
-
"Here, I'll break it down for you TBR. She was aware of the rules set in place before hand, she knowingly broke the rules. There are consequences for breaking the rules. Savy?"
@morgantj...
Sorry, didn't know you were such the moral authority....all of a sudden. People with law degrees and professions are willing to defend her. Kapeesh?-
"Sorry, didn't know you were such the moral authority....all of a sudden."
ad hominem -
"People with law degrees and professions are willing to defend her"
Relevance?
Seriously. -
sorry MX...
don't have time to answer to rhetoric. -
In other words, you just threw that out there and actually can't think of any reason it might be relevant to the discussion?
-
@MX....
To ask that question would be like saying let's talk about apples and have someone say, "but, why talk about apple trees?"
I thought it was a very unnecessary question...that's all.
(it has all the relevance in the world)
Oh, I get it, your mission is to get me off this discussion! -
Ruski, some attorneys are hired guns. Some attorneys are on missions to promote their own points of view, regardless of the actual state of the law. Some attorneys seek out high profile cases, regardless of the moral circumstances of the case (serial killers, for instance, virtually always obtain the free or dramatically reduced services of high-profile attorneys). It is beyond me how you think the fact that attorneys are willing to represent this woman says anything about the validity of her claim.
-
TBR said, "don't have time to answer to rhetoric."
You are spending more time attempting to justify why you are avoiding answering the question then you would have spent on just answering it.
-
-
Anyhoo seeing as this post has a link to your blog it should be in the shameless blog promotion thread.
Cut off his microphone.-
Exactly! A case study right before our eyes!
-
Okay, so in summary then--
people who don't follow the rules of the organization to which they belong should still expect to enjoy doing whatever they wish to do, and have no right to be questioned about it because they know in their hearts they're right?
Oh- and anyone who questions their position is oppressing them?
Yes, that's very moral. -
Who said "whatever they want to do"? It could be interpreted that she simply enhanced her pre-approved speech with mention of Jesus.
She was not "questioned," SHE HAD HER MICROPHONE TURNED OFF. -
Okay-- I'm out of this. There's no possibility for a real discussion when it's pretty clear the intent is to only martyr and create real or feigned outrage.
-
Exactly, If you don't follow the rules, you are punished accordingly, regardless of whatever you are whittering on about.
That's not directed at TSR.
-
-
This comment from Digg member...
"The nation needs to rethink its stance on tolerance when the only time the Name of God is allowed to be publicaly spoken is when it is used as a swear word. By prohibiting this young lady's testimony to the place of God in her life, the school denied both God and the importance of the first amendment."
(Sometimes, I have to visit another site for refreshment.)-
Looking for someone to agree with you eh.
-
-
TBR - honestly -
WHEN WILL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE GET IT THROUGH THEIR THICK HEADS:
There is a time and a place for RELIGION?
If they want to discuss religion - they need to do it within their own homes and churches - and with people who agree with the same philosophy.
Just like people who like guns...
Just like people who like doing drugs...
Just like people who collect things - have hobbies - etc.
The subject matter should be held within it's own circle.
I don't go outside the door screaming that I'm a Satanic Worshipper - or a Witch - or a Taoist - or a Christian Science Monitor...
WHY SHOULD EVERYONE WHO IS CHRISTIAN think it's ok to use PUBLIC FORUMS, PUBLIC SPEECHES to FORCE their BELIEF onto me?
Your Christianity or Your Religion is of NO INTEREST to me - why should I be forced - in a public place - to listen to someone else's RHETORIC?
If it were someone who started saying:
"As I stood there, I realized that the Goddess Athena held me aloft in her hands, and the RAPTURE of Zeus filled me as I had sex with myself - that my life was complete. I tell you all unbelievers as the Stars lined up to magically fulfill my wishes...."
What do you think would have happened?
The same speech - by a Christian - should not be deemed ANY MORE IMPORTANT than a speech by a druid or by a Taoist - or a Terrorist.
It's all about stuffing your belief's down someone else' throat.
Especially after you were specifically told not to.
WW-
Congratulations, Ruski. Once again, you've helped to spread hatred of Christianity and negative reactions to Christ's message in the world. You're a very effective messenger for the other side.
-
It's not even a question of only discussing religion among people with whom you agree. It's appropriate to have religious debate and discussion where the parties present have agreed to it or are free to leave rather than engage in it. I've had some rousing religious arguments at bars, coffee houses, and the homes of friends. But co-opting a public function in order to preach your faith is not only, in this case, immoral because you are breaking your word to honor the agreement you made with the school but also unethical because the hundreds or thousands of people there can leave but not without missing the very event that they came to witness.
I graduated from high school on a military base, and the base chaplain offered a prayer at the beginning of the service, but one which was general enough not to exclude anyone of a different faith. I graduated from a private, religious college. Again, the chaplain offered a prayer and religion was mentioned repeatedly during the ceremonies. But in neither of those situations would I have expected someone to attempt to foist their beliefs and experiences off on the graduating class and their friends and family as the "right" way to live. That would be condescending and offensive to people who hold different beliefs and had no opportunity to respond.
-
-
Thank you for re-posting this thread, which was not only closed, but deleted for a few days.
-
I just watched the video...expecting to see her "preaching" as everyone insisted she did. I go to church and know what preaching actually is, and I wouldn't say she was doing that. She spoke of her own life...not anyone else's. She only spoke about what God did for her. The crowd seemed pretty upset that she was cut off...and I think the school administration actually made more people think about what she said because of what they did. Case and point...we are discussing it here. I have to say that the school administrator looked pretty sour...lol-
Brittany knew it might happen. When school officials reviewed her speech before the ceremony, they crossed out biblical references with these explanations: "IDENTIFIES A PARTICULAR RELIGION"; "DEITY"; and "PROSELYTIZING." She ignored the edits and started reading her original speech.
There were rules. She agreed to the rules. She lied and spammed for Christ instead of following the rules that she had agreed to.
She selfishly turned a public event, paid for by the tax dollars of everyone, into a presentation of her own testimony. Such arrogance and selfishness doesn't reflect well on the Christian faith.
The title of this thread is misleading. The Court has not yet ruled whether or not they will hear an appeal.
-
-
From the Rutherford Institute:
In issuing an unpublished decision in the case, the Court ruled that school officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of Brittany McComb when they cut off her microphone. McComb, who is currently studying at Oxford University, plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court with the help of The Rutherford Institute.
"This is a very important free speech case that will affect the rights of all persons across America," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "If government officials can extinguish speech by turning off microphones at public assemblies, then none of us will have any rights." -
We don't actually know what rules she agreed to...unless someone has first hand knowledge of the situation?
But even if she did break the rules, sometimes people breaks rules for a higher purpose. For example, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white man even though the "rules" said she had to do it. She didn't think it was right that African Americans had to give up their seats to Caucasians (rightly so), therefore she disobeyed those rules. I said in a different thread that everyone has the right to stand up for their convictions, as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences of their decision. The consequence in this case is that the microphone was turned off. She may not win this fight...but her message was still heard and her reward is in heaven.
This situation reminds me of Peter and John in the bible. They shared the gospel and were told by the authorities to keep quiet. They stated, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard."(Acts 4:19,20)-
Right on, sister!
-
What about the rights of the other graduates and their families who wanted the graduation to be a momentous occasion about education -- not a platform for someone who wanted to preach about god.
It seems to me, she was not being self-centered and egotistical. And to compare her to Rosa Parks is asinine. -
Hehe satijournal, I saw your comments before you edited them...lol
As long as people have voices and can talk....and have fingers that can type (such as on BC)...there will always be differing opinions that you or I don't want to hear or read. When I was in school I heard opinions voiced all the time that I didn't agree with, but that didn't mean I could cover my ears. That is the way of the world...we don't all think alike. As I said earlier, there are consequences when we act on what we believe...she received her consequence...she was shut down. I commend her for having the courage to give God the glory. -
Again, right on, sister!
-
That's crap. There was nothing noble about what she did. She ruined the graduation for the other graduates because of her self-righteous, self-centered, and selfish actions. Religious people need to understand that sometimes being considerate of others is the right thing to do.
-
^ tolerance?
-
-
"I just watched the video...expecting to see her "preaching" as everyone insisted she did. I go to church and know what preaching actually is, and I wouldn't say she was doing that. She spoke of her own life...not anyone else's. She only spoke about what God did for her. The crowd seemed pretty upset that she was cut off...and I think the school administration actually made more people think about what she said because of what they did. Case and point...we are discussing it here. I have to say that the school administrator looked pretty sour...lol"
jflower36...
Thanks for the accurate summary! -
satijournal, I've sat at graduations and heard people talk on and on and on and on about their ethnic background, hobbies, or escapades in college, or things that I wasn't particularly interested in at the time, but I figured that the person giving the speech "earned" their right to talk, since they were on the platform and had put in the time and work to get the diploma. In the video, she had hardly spoken a few MINUTES about God. I could understand if it went a lot longer.... but a few minutes?
You said:
"she ruined the graduation for the other graduates because of her self-righteous, self-centered, and selfish actions."
Are you sure you want to say that? Do you know her heart? Do you know what her intentions were? The graduation was ruined because of the drama created around it, not because of what she said. If you watched the video you saw that those in the audience clearly supported her right to share what she did. There were a lot of boos when they cut her off. Your last statement sounded a little inflammatory...-
moved
-
-
-
Timethief I'm sorry your comments were removed. I still love you! I'm not offended and I hope to still talk more with you on any subject
-
-
Timethief do you have a list of the school rules? How do you know she broke them?
But as I said earlier, even if she did break the rules (which we need more info to confirm), I commend her for standing up for what she believes in...-
People have already answered that.
-
-
Timethief...what was her lie? I didn't hear any lies spoken.
"What part of my thinking allows rationalizations on behalf of Jesus"
The part that reads Philippians 3:7,8 "But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ". The other part of my thinking remembers that Jesus asked us to take up our cross and follow Him.
If she had spoken about Mohamed, Buddha, the Great Goddess, The Great Sporit, Zoraster, etc she probably wouldn't have been cut off because those topics are not politically incorrect. However, I would support anyone's right to voice their faith on any of the above as well.-
Students are not allowed to proselytize. No matter what religion. And the school administrators felt that she was proselytizing, so they edited her speech. Comprende?
-
^ in your opinion.
-
-
If you watched the video you saw that those in the audience clearly supported her right to share what she did. There were a lot of boos when they cut her off.
There were a few boos from an audience of about 400 (if I remember correctly). There's no way of knowing without interviewing them, but I'd bet most of the audience members thought school administrators did the right thing by cutting her off.
Brittany was trying to sell religion to the audience. Should schools allow students to be sponsored by, say Nike, and allow them to offer a sales pitch for the company? After all -- it's freedom of speech.-
All accounts I've read say the MAJORITY of the audience was jeering the administration.
-
-
Satijournal, let me clarify where I'm coming from. I do believe the school has the right to turn the microphone off. But I also commend Brittany for what she did. She spoke from her heart. She shared what she believed to be powerful in her life. She dealt with the consequences. The supreme court will probably uphold the school...which is fine. But there is a higher court--God--who will one day reward her for her obedience to Him.
-
Either that or she's going to go to hell for being inconsiderate.
-
Going to hell for being inconsiderate....lol
Well, you are right in that the bible does say that if you break the law in one area you are guilty of all. That's why we needed Christ's sacrifice.
-
-
Full text of her speech.. via www.therebelution.com/2006/06/full-text-of-brittany-mccombs-speech_24.html
============================================================
On June 15, 2006 the Clark County School District halted the graduation speech of Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb. District officials said Brittany's references to Christianity amounted to proselytizing.Court rulings have held that graduations are school-sponsored events, and that student commentary on faith can be perceived as a school's unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Below is the full-text of Ms. McComb's speech.
=================================================================
Do you remember those blocks? The ones that fit into cut-outs and teach you all the different shapes? The ones you played with before kindergarten, during the good old, no-grades, no-pressure preschool days? I find it funny how easily amused we are as children. Many of us would have sat on the story rug for hours with those blocks, trying to fit the circle into the square cut-out. Thank the Lord for patient teachers.
As one of the valedictorians for our senior class, many might assume I caught on to which blocks fit into which cut-outs quickly. But, to be honest, it took me awhile. Up until my freshman year in high school, I continually filled certain voids with shapes that proved often peculiar and always too small.
The main shape I wrestled with over the years remains my accomplishments. They defined my self-worth at a young age. I swam competitively throughout junior high and high school. If I took third in a competition rather than first, I found I missed the mark; I failed.
But strangely enough, if I took first, I belittled my success, and even first place left me feeling empty. Either way, the shape entitled "accomplishments" proved too small to fill the void, constantly reminding me living means something more. Something more than me and what I do with my life, something more than my friends and what they do with their own lives.
The summer after my freshman year, I quit swimming. I quit trying to fill the huge void in my soul with the meager accomplishments I obtained there. After quitting, this amazing sense of peace rushed over me and I noticed, after 15 years of sitting on the story-time rug, this teacher standing above me, trying to help me: God. I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul.
This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting [audience cheering and applause]. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up . . . [Microphone goes dead here.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, the school officials knew what was coming next when they cut Brittany's mike -- they had read her speech beforehand and edited out references to God, to Christ, and the Bible. Brittany determined to deliver her speech unedited as an expression of her freedom of speech, but was prevented from doing so.
Below is the rest of the speech Brittany planned to give. School officials called it proselytizing. Brittany says she was just attributing her success in school to Christ and introducing her classmates to the Person who had made the biggest difference in her life.
----------------------------------------------------------
[His only son up . . .] to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.
This is why Christ died. John 10:10 says He died so we no longer have to reach in vain for the magnificence of the stars and find we always fall short, so we can have life -- and life to the fullest. I now desire not my own will, but the will of God for my life -- however crazy and extravagant, or seemingly mundane and uneventful that might be. Strangely enough, surrendering my own will for the will of God, giving up control, gave me peace, gave me a calm I can't even begin to express with words.
Four years ago, recognition as one of the valedictorians for our senior class would have been just another attempt to fit the circle into the square cut-out. But because my heart is so full of God's love, the honor of speaking today is just that: an honor. Without it, I would feel just as full and purposeful as I do at this moment.
And I can guarantee, 100 percent, no doubt in my mind, that as I choose to fill myself with God's love rather than with the things society tells me will satisfy me, I will find success, I will always retain a sense of self-worth. I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's.
Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. That something is God's plan. And God's plan for each of our lives may not leave us with an impressive and extensive resume, but if we pursue His plan, He promises to fill us. Jeremiah 29:11 says, " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.' "
Trust me, this block fits.-
If that's not proselytizing, nothing is.
-
^ in your opinion.
-
And in the opinion of the school administrators
-
No, not in opinion, Ruskie.
When you start quoting bible passages, and talking about God (not your faith's role in helping you, but talking about the tenants of your faith in great detail with the passages to back it up...you're preaching.
-
-
Thanks for doing the research DS! Wow...so it was even less than a few minutes...
-
She packed quite a punch in that little time.. didn't she..
She didn't need more time. She very well knew her small speech would create a controversy for a long time
-
-
via www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html
=================================================================
She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.
But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.
Advertisement
The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."
In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.
In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.
The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.
Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.
"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."
District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.
"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."
McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions.
"It's what I believe."-
I am with the school here..
-
dsr, you shouldn't post entire articles or even large portions. It violates copyright law, as was discussed in another thread. Just post the essential part along with a link to the source.
-
yeah.. my mistake..
too late to edit though
-
-
god did help her and clods the mic to prevent her from ridiculing herself -
It's a public school, so it's unlikely that all (100%) of the attendees were Christian, including parents and everyone. Standard high school valedictorian procedure requires the speech be approved. The student deviated from the approved speech and her microphone was cut.
Where's the issue? She caused this herself. It's not like she was censored only because she started talking about her religion, but rather because she deviated from the approved speech. It's her fault the graduation ceremony was ruined.
On another note, her right to speak was not infringed upon at all, but she has no power to control the sound data traveling from the microphone to the speakers. She had every right to continue spewing her unwarranted deviation into a dead mic.
Furthermore, if less than 100% of the audience was Christian, then she was probably being an annoying bugger to them. Not illegal or anything; I'm just adding this as a sidenote.-
Did she have the right to continue speaking or did they quiet her. I think I would have gone up on stage, said nothing and held a sign which said, "My Free Speech has Been Censored".
I simply do not understand why even an athiest could not have gone up there and said a small part about their views if it pertained to them getting to be valedictorian. Why can't people just let everyone have their own views? Isn't it okay to talk about being a Muslim, Christian, Athiest whatever? Are people scared of other's views? -
Non sequitur. All speeches must be approved. She deviated from the approved speech.
-
"I simply do not understand why even an athiest could not have gone up there and said a small part about their views if it pertained to them getting to be valedictorian"
Hmmm. I am trying to think of an example... like, "Me not believing in the theistic claim that a god exist really was a great contributor to me becoming a valedictorian because I didn't have the restraints that believers do in that my time was not wasted with believing in a fairy tale and I did not waste time 'praying' to a god to be a valedictorian, I actually was able to use that time to study and work hard, etc..."
Nah, I don't think so. -
I know that I would certainly have been uncomfortable if I had to listen to that speech.
Good thing my (Catholic) high school graduation wasn't overly religious. Would've sucked to end it with such an awkward moment.
-
-
Good points VK. I don't think she ruined the graduation though. People love drama...just look at us here at BC....everyone thrives on it.
-
I think some of her former classmates might disagree.
-
@voodookobra
IMO it's important for you to consider this possibility. It's possible that she's baiting you. You see, I was raised and educated to do exactly what she is doing and to do it in exactly the same way she is doing it. -
@timethief
ROFLMAO
-
-
VK...there will always be someone to disagree.
-
VK is way to smart to be baited. But I can honestly say that wasn't what I was doing. I just responded with the next thought that came to mind.
-
Timethief...how did I do it again Please tell...lol
-
Anok I don't recall her quoting versus or talking about the tenants of her faith. dsriharsha posted the transcript of what she actually said.
-
The original speech including between 2-3 bible quotes, and speaking about the religion itself (including the bit about God giving his only begotten son...).
She was not able to continue speaking because she opted to read the original speech, and not the one that she had agreed to read.
-
-
I'm boycotting this thread (except for this post).
-
-
I posted some of this above...but wanted to make it easy on those frantically scrolling:
I referred to part of the great commission for Christians is to 'spread the word of God.' This statement was taken as an irony, because I also said that I don't feel the speech was a sermon, or was preaching, or was bible-thumping. Her acting on the great commission was coming in the form of a personal story (testimony), if you will. Not offensive in the least to many.
However, I know that words like "preach," "testimony," "sermon," and "bible" are not only misconscrued, but seen as dirty words by many people.
My feeling is that if one is not allowed to give their personal story as part of a grad speech...then they might as well pipe in some video with a pre-approved message. Perhaps a leader just chanting "Yes we can!" or something of that sorts.
That's irony!-
[1. The speech was not a sermon.
2. It is part of the great commission to share the word of God.]
No, irony is that you can't see the huge contradiction between these two sequential list items. -
Quoting the bible and talking about the story of Jesus is not telling a personal story, unless she wrote the bible or happened to know Jesus personally.
She was preaching. Here, let me help you out with why we all keep saying that:
Preach–verb
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
sermon
noun
1. an address of a religious nature (usually delivered during a church service)
2. a moralistic rebuke; "your preaching is wasted on him"
Witnessing
v. intr.
1. To furnish or serve as evidence; testify.
2. To testify to one's religious beliefs.
valedictory
adjective
1. of or relating to an occasion or expression of farewell; "a valedictory address"; "valedictory praise for his uniformly manly course"; "a suitable valedictory gesture"
2. of a speech expressing leave-taking; "a valedictory address"
noun
1. a farewell oration (especially one delivered during graduation exercises by an outstanding member of a graduating class) [syn: valediction]
Now how is quoting the bible and talking about what Jesus did and what God sacrificed a "validictory speech"? How is that saying "Farewell, class!" and how is it NOT "preaching"?
-
-
hmmmm...maybe she intended to preach but that isn't what actually happened. No verses were actually quoted, to my knowledge (please point them out if I am wrong and I will happily acquiesce). Yes, she did testify to her religious beliefs..no argument there, but is that enough to turn her off? Had she quoted Shakespeare or a philosopher she wouldn't have had the microphone turned off. One person's opinion is that what she said is annoying. But what else is new in the world of public speeches? Another person's opinion is that turning the microphone off is annoying.
People mention things in graduation speeches all the time that don't necessarily have to do with graduating. In my college graduation Barbara Boxer (important government official) talked about mentoring children. What did that have to do with graduating? Absolutely nothing...but it was a nice thought.
As I said earlier, I don't think her free speech rights were violated (to my knowledge, but I don't know enough about free speech law to make an informed decision). I do however commend her for standing up for her convictions. Usually standing up for one's convictions will result in consequences. Her message was heard twice as loudly because of what happened. In fact, cutting her off broadcasted her message to the world. Mission accomplished?-
When she began reading her original speech (the one that was rejected by the school, and the one she agreed not to read) they knew that she was going to...well...read it - and the school knew exactly what was in it, because they already had it, and knew the contents.
They shut her down - in the same way they would shut down any student who tried to read a speech the school rejected.
-
-
Yes, true Anok...that's what happened.
-
Her message was heard twice as loudly because of what happened. In fact, cutting her off broadcasted her message to the world. Mission accomplished?
Damn it - I had a whole response typed out.
I think that the calculating aspect of this mess makes her and Christians simply look bad. She chose to break the rules that she agreed to follow, and then made a big fuss as some sort of publicity stunt to what? FOr what purpose?
To proselytize. And that - from a non Christian perspective - seems manipulative.
And her "battle" flies in the face and marginalizes real first amendment violations.
-
-
ah ! hurts ~ people got money and ways to spend it ! -
To those who don't like what Christians stand for...they will always look bad regardless..unless they embrace another message. If sharing one's beliefs is proselytizing...I guess a lot of atheists do that as well. I've had many an atheist "evangelize" and try to convert me. Most people share their beliefs, unless they fear conflict.
As far as her battle flying in the face and marginalizing real first ammendment rights...I don't see that. Everyone has a right to take their case to court. The court can turn them down. As far as other people being aware of the cases that are taken to court...that usually happens as a result of what the media decides to highlight (and who can control the media?)
I'm not saying that if I had been in her place I would have done the same thing...to be honest I would not have. But I do believe God allows everything to happen for a purpose. Some people may be marginalized while others rethink where their lives are going.-
To those who don't like what Christians stand for...they will always look bad regardless..unless they embrace another message.
It has nothing to do with "not liking what Christians stand for" - it has to do with not wanting to hear a sermon about a religion you aren't apart of, at an inappropriate time.
If sharing one's beliefs is proselytizing...I guess a lot of atheists do that as well. I've had many an atheist "evangelize" and try to convert me. Most people share their beliefs, unless they fear conflict.
It's perfectly OK to share one's beliefs when it's appropriate. On your blog, in your home, in conversations with friends if beliefs are the topic in your church, religious group, message boards and debates where beliefs are the topic or whathave you.
But unless an atheist gets on the microphone at a valedictory speech, and rants on about how God doesn't exist, or if they knock on your door with pamphlets about atheism, or approach you on the street to tell you a bout the good news of evolution - then they are not proselytizing. They are not preaching.
As far as her battle flying in the face and marginalizing real first ammendment rights...I don't see that. Everyone has a right to take their case to court.
When you intentionally break a school rule - you have designed and manipulated the entire situation so that you can "have your day in court". That marginalizes real first amendment issues - whereby citizens have had their rights thwarted in a real way - not because they set the whole thing up and made it happen.
The court can turn them down.
The court has turned them down.
As far as other people being aware of the cases that are taken to court...that usually happens as a result of what the media decides to highlight (and who can control the media?)
Money controls the media.
But I do believe God allows everything to happen for a purpose. Some people may be marginalized while others rethink where their lives are going.
And so the purpose was to "get people thinking about where their lives are going" with regards to religion, in the hopes of converting them. That's the end result of witnessing, preaching and giving public speeches about religion to a captive audience. It's to get people to convert - and only one religion does that.
That's why it's not appropriate to do this at a school function. The school is not a recruiting ground for religious conversions. Just like when I personally took our local schools to task for allowing military recruiters in the school during school hours - schools are not for recruitment.
-
-
School isn't a place to share your personal beliefs? Really? I've gone to two universities for undergraduate and graduate degrees and this is news to me. In fact, I can think of numerous classes where professors slipped in their lack of belief in God so as to indoctrinate students. I think this is a case of political correctness.
You said:
"it has to do with not wanting to hear a sermon about a religion you aren't apart of, at an inappropriate time."
I can see your point here. This isn't a hill I'd want to die on and I won't repeat where I stand on this issue for fear of sounding like a broken record, if I don't sound like one already! But I will give in to you Anok on this one...at least partially
You said:
"That's the end result of witnessing, preaching and giving public speeches about religion to a captive audience. It's to get people to convert - and only one religion does that."
uh...NO...multiple religions try to convert people..I can think of 3 or even 4 different religions that have come to my door on different occasions.-
School isn't a place to share your personal beliefs? Really?
Not in any school sponsored form, unless the school specializes in that particular belief, has called for a debate on beliefs, etc...
I've gone to two universities for undergraduate and graduate degrees and this is news to me. In fact, I can think of numerous classes where professors slipped in their lack of belief in God so as to indoctrinate students. I think this is a case of political correctness.
Luckily for me I've never encountered anything like that in universities. However - if the teacher mentioned a lack of belief in God - I would put that on par with a teacher mentioning they are X religion. If, however, the discussion went any further than a simple mention, or it was mentioned completely out of context, then it should not have happened. The same goes for mentioning that you are, married, politically aligned with X group, having sex, not having sex, a recovering alcoholic etc and so forth. Personal stuff shouldn't find it's way into a classroom.
I can see your point here. This isn't a hill I'd want to die on and I won't repeat where I stand on this issue for fear of sounding like a broken record, if I don't sound like one already! But I will give in to you Anok on this one...at least partially
Hey, even my Catholic highschool valedictorian didn't preach during the speech. Just sayin'
uh...NO...multiple religions try to convert people..I can think of 3 or even 4 different religions that have come to my door on different occasions.
Religions - not different sects of Christianity.
Jews don't witness, (American) Muslims don't witness, Pagans don't witness, Heathens don't witness, Bah'ai don't witness, Buddhists don't witness - Scientologists might, but I don't classify them as a religion, (they are a cult) - I can't think of any religion that tries to witness, evangelize, or proselytize other than Christianity.
-
-
JHFC! Will this thread die already!
-
I refuse to comment in this thread.
-
Mormons, jehovah witnesses, hari chrishna (sp?)...just to name a few
Saty...we know you love us and can't stay away.-
Mormons and JW's are Christians.
Hare Krishnas are...in a world unto themselves....Although I find them more prominent in airports rather than giving speeches at schools, handing out pamphlets at supermarkets, Blockbusters, or going door to door. -
"Mormons and JW's are Christians"
False. Both groups took a detour away from the Bible. In earthly terms, many groups are identified as Christians, however, if the definition includes having a born-again experience and coming under God's grace through Jesus...these groups do not qualify in that way either. -
Wrong Ruskie - no matter how many time syou say it, it won't become true.
The JW's use the bible and ONLY the bible, the Mormons use the bible, and a book in addition to the bible.
Both groups recognize God as God, and Jesus as their savior.
That makes them Christians whether you want them to be or not. -
@Anok...
"There are many important differences in doctrine between the Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelical Christianity, most important of which is the person and nature of Jesus Christ...."
full description at www.allaboutcults.org/jehovah-witness.htm
"The Mormon church sees God as the Supreme Being of the universe. However, He gradually acquired that position over a long period of time by living a perfect and righteous life. God the Father has a body (flesh and bones). The Christian church proclaims God as eternally and infinitely supreme. He is the same today as always. He is a spirit Being..."
full description at www.allaboutcults.org/what-do-mormons-believe.htm -
There are also huge differences between Protestants and Catholics.
You're point?
Just because they don't believe the way you think they should believe doesn't mean they aren't Christian. They fulfill the basic needs of being a Christian:
Belief in God
Belief in Jesus as savior (God's only son whose life was sacrificed to save mankind)
How they go about it is a matter of opinion, and opinion only.
-
-
LOL...what supermarkets and Blockbusters do you shop at? I never see any people sharing the gospel there. Of course I live in CA...could be different than other parts of the country. Mormons aren't followers of Christ. JW's also don't believe Jesus is God. I'm sure I could dig up some more religions that share their beliefs...but does it really matter?
-
Mormons and JW's are most certainly Christians who believe that Christ was God's only son who was sacrificed to save mankind. (No where in the bible does it say that Jesus IS God)
I have studied with both (currently study with JW's) and their beliefs are most certainly, 100% Christian.
We have various sects that proselytize everywhere here. You can't get into a dollar store without running into one sect or another. But, yes, it does matter - because I would like people to recognize that Christians are the only religion that requires, and aggressively pursues conversions by witnessing, pamphleting and evangelizing to people in public, particularly to captive audiences and at inappropriate times and places.
Until people realize that only one religion does this, maybe they will understand why the rest of the people are fed up with it. -
Who are "the rest of the people are fed up with it?"
There are actually millions of people that at one time may have been "fed up with it," or scared, or rebellious, or happy with themselves, or looking for answers, that have not only accepted the message, but been transformed. -
They are fed up with the people who take it upon themselves to proselytize at inappropriate times.
And, for the record, Christianity numbers in the US are declining, so I'm not sure who you are converting in such great numbers? -
@Anok...
Well, just last Sunday (in one day)...2,400 people attended a church membership class, and 800 baptisms (baptism: public profession of faith in Christ) took place on that same day.
source: townhall.com/news/religion/2009/03/30/saddleback_church_baptizes_800_in_one... -
And how many were Christians who were simply changing churches/denominations?
-
A baptism would imply that at least a good majority had not established a relationship with Jesus first. So, out of 2,400 people attending, 800 baptized that's a good chunk...for a day!
-
Evangelical churches require new members to be baptized if they didn't belong to what the church considers to be a "proper" Christian faith, which is like, all of the other denominations out there. Or of they have transferred over from a denomination that doesn't do baptisms.
Unless they accept Catholic baptisms, which I doubt. -
Am I the only one that thinks the saddleback church sounds like it was named after a gay sex position?
-
-
maybe we can pull the plug on this thread...
-
Wait, you can't rightfully call yourself "agit8r" if you aren't agit8ing people!!!
-
I thought I added my two cents to this thread already.
If not, public schools were supposed to be secular...
*digging up semi-relevant Thomas Jefferson quote* -
Secular as in having the right to tell your personal story? (as Brittany did)
-
Brittany didn't tell her personal story.
She told Jesus' story. -
^ in your opinion.
She told her personal story, which included coming to Jesus. -
No, not in my opinion.
She told Jesus's story, because that is what she was reciting the story of Jesus. -
Ruski:
^ In your delusion. -
"reciting the story of Jesus"
Funny, I did not hear words like Bethlehem, crucifixion, resurrection, Mary, Joseph, Pontious Pilate.
Reciting? Which parts of the Bible was she "reciting?"
Yes, she did tell part of the story of how her life was empty and void no matter what she tried to fill it with. Then, through accepting Jesus, her life changed. A great graduation story! -
@BigRuski..
you keep missing the point..
How is jesus Christ being God's only son, her story??
"God helped me with this.. god helped me with that.. bla bla "
------ Personal story
"God sent his only son to die.. Bla Bla"
------ Not a personal story -
@dsriharsha...
I guess you would have been right there at the switch then.
BTW She mentioned God and Jesus...did she get into definitions? If she did, I would have appreciated it. I like to know what someone is talking about, don't you? -
@Ruski..
"BTW She mentioned God and Jesus...did she get into definitions? If she did, I would have appreciated it. I like to know what someone is talking about, don't you?"
Ok... I see what you are doing.
You have run out of sensible arguments and are now just trying your best just to have the last word so you can gloat that you were right.
Are you O'Reilly? -
@dsriharsha...
You implied that Brittany said, "God sent his only son to die..."
I don't recall hearing that. And again, even if she did, it's part of her story. That's what makes God so great...He's part of our own personal stories as well as history. Not preaching...just know it to be the case. -
Did you even read the transcripts? And her original unedited speech?
I am convinced.. you are O'Reilly. you might prove me wrong but that is my truth..
---------------------------------------------------
God's love is so great that he gave His only son up . . . [Microphone goes dead here.]
[His only son up . . .] to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.
------------------------------------------------ -
Awesome words! I did not realize she got that far! I'm glad she not only explained what Jesus did for her, but what He can do for all of us...including graduates!
What is it with you and O'Reilly. Is that like another dirty word for you? -
Well seeing as you refuse to admit the existence of bible quotes in the original speech that she was attempting to read, and how you willfully ignore the part where she outlines Jesus' crucifixion in the speech just as the mic was turned off...
I mean really, Ruskie - Jesus' crucifixion story is part of her personal story? Was she there?
Let me help you:
Personal story: I had lost my way in life, and through my faith/religion/Jesus I was able to work wonderful miracles right here on Earth. He gave me strength - and now here I am, talking to all of you. (From her speech)I noticed, after 15 years of sitting on the story-time rug, this teacher standing above me, trying to help me: God. I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul. That's personal story.
Preaching:
But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting [audience cheering and applause]. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.
This is why Christ died. John 10:10 says He died so we no longer have to reach in vain for the magnificence of the stars and find we always fall short, so we can have life -- and life to the fullest. Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. That something is God's plan. And God's plan for each of our lives may not leave us with an impressive and extensive resume, but if we pursue His plan, He promises to fill us. Jeremiah 29:11 says, " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.' "
See the difference? The first one is about her, the second one is how her religion applies to others, and how their lives would be if only they were Christian like her.
-
-
Agit8r if you don't like this thread start a new one....or join another one....
Or you could just add to the discussion....but apparently we aren't done yet. -
"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425
-
"Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
No power over the freedom of religion . . . is delegated to the United States by the Constitution. - Kentucky Resolution, 1798
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. - Second Inaugural Address, 1805
Our excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. - Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. - Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808"
source: www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123 -
Ruski, her rights were not violated. She had every right to continue speaking into a dead microphone.
I posted the following above:
It's a public school, so it's unlikely that all (100%) of the attendees were Christian, including parents and everyone. Standard high school valedictorian procedure requires the speech be approved. The student deviated from the approved speech and her microphone was cut.
Where's the issue? She caused this herself. It's not like she was censored only because she started talking about her religion, but rather because she deviated from the approved speech. It's her fault the graduation ceremony was ruined.
On another note, her right to speak was not infringed upon at all, but she has no power to control the sound data traveling from the microphone to the speakers. She had every right to continue spewing her unwarranted deviation into a dead mic.
Furthermore, if less than 100% of the audience was Christian, then she was probably being an annoying bugger to them. Not illegal or anything; I'm just adding this as a sidenote. -
"She had every right to continue speaking into a dead microphone."
@VK...
How old did you say you were?
Also, can you take off the "bold"...it hurts my eyes. -
VK....you said:
"On another note, her right to speak was not infringed upon at all, but she has no power to control the sound data traveling from the microphone to the speakers. She had every right to continue spewing her unwarranted deviation into a dead mic."
I'm past giving my input on this topic (I already said all I want to say) but on another note...you are hilarious! Leave it to a 19 year old to point out the obvious.
Just don't get too cocky...expand your thinking..it will be o.k. By expanding I mean open yourself up to the possibility of other ideas. Don't rule them out before giving them thought.
-
-
Anok, that's just not true that Christians are the only group who share their faith. Try walking down Venice Beach or Santa Monica 3rd street promenade...or even Hollywood Blvd. and you will see a host of different religions and gurus sharing their faith. I suspect this is true for many places around the U.S. Other countries also have different belief systems. Maybe the area you live in is mostly christian...I don't know.
Sorry Anok that you are fed up. As a christian I do share my faith in God as often as I can because I actually BELIEVE what the bible says and care about people. I don't want to see anyone perish. How cold/mean would that be if I believed it and didn't say a thing?
I guess if I only half believed it then I'd keep my mouth shut.
With that said...if I ever personally frustrate you just say the word. I don't want to aggravate you personally...I kind of like those bunny ears I am not the type to only hold friendships with people who are just like me. I enjoy friendships of diversity.
As far as the question...where does it say that Jesus is God...very good question. There is a lot to say about that but maybe we should start another discussion thread for that one.-
I've lived in various different places, and walked down Mission beach (I know, not Venice beach, but hey ) and never seen Pagans or heathens approaching people - and Judaism is actually hard to get into - they definitely don't go about trying to convert people.
I've yet to meet a Buddhist who spoke about Buddhism to total strangers without having first been approached about it....
Perhaps there are small, fringe religious groups who do - along with cults - but that's pretty rare if you ask me!
Sorry Anok that you are fed up. As a christian I do share my faith in God as often as I can because I actually BELIEVE what the bible says and care about people. I don't want to see anyone perish. How cold/mean would that be if I believed it and didn't say a thing?
I have no problem with people discussing their faith in certain settings. In fact, I rather enjoy the discourse and opportunity to learn about different faiths. However - what people are fed up with (me included) is the use of inappropriate settings to preach unsolicited religious beliefs in the hopes of "spreading the word" IE conversion. And then crying foul when they are informed that their speech is inappropriate and won't be allowed.
"Freedom of speech" is a bit of a misnomer. We are not free to say what we want, when we want to whomever we want all the time. I legal terms, you are not free to use violent or threatening language, to produce libel or slander, to yell "FIRE" in a theater, to verbally harass or intimidate others, to lie in court, and other such restrictions.
You are not allowed to say whatever you want to say in private entities if what you want to say is against the owner's wishes - such as private schools, businesses, and publicly owned entities such as public schools. (The "owner" there being the government, who ha promised not to promote any religion over the other).
So, the reality is that the rules that apply to everyone pretty equally, are being paraded around as free speech violations by cases like this one - and that's just annoying.
(By the way, you personally don't annoy me )
I think the Jesus thread would probably be best suited for the religion group, then? I think that would be fun : )
-
-
whewww....glad I don't annoy you...lol
yeah...let's start the Jesus discussion in our religious debate group-
Yeah, I think that will be a good debate!
/runs off to get notebook.... -
Count me out of that one.
-
-
Y'all are still discussing this?
LOL!
Funny. -
Since John Elway retired, there's been no good reason to watch the Broncos. That is until they got Jay Cutler. Cutler brought a little excitement back to the game. And now the Broncos are trading him. That, my friends, is definitive proof there is no God.
-
Chewbacca!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
-
sigh -
Well at my graduation (at a public school) you could talk about God all you wanted, and no one cared As long as you were not a head figure like a coach or teacher it didn't matter. They only do it so it won't seem like they are trying to force their views on you. But I don't know why people go through such extremes if you don't believe it than you shouldn't care when someone talks about it...sigh -
Keep in mind that this is a high school student, whose rights are (like it or not) governed by case law that limits their expression, at least in schools. The Supreme Court may have a tough time reconciling an opinion in favor of the student with the case in which a student who put up an anti-war banner (and not even on school grounds) lost. The basic argument was that school officials have a right to impose rstrictions for the safety of the students (uh-huh).
Hey, in my high school speech I re-read that old chestnut "Desiderata." Someone should have stopped me.-
In the article I quoted upthread, there has been a precedent to dismiss appeals of similar type. It has been in favor of the school both times.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
