Valedictorian sues over Gospel speech

The quotes above have PROVEN beyond any doubt that the girl set this up to spring on the assembly at the last minute and that she knew it was not right and not approved. She violated the rules. She practiced the event with others and never mentioned her little added on speech until it was time for her to get her bit of glory for the cause.

Jesus would be ashamed of her for breaking the rules, lying in effect, and for turning a secular event into her own personal pulpit. those comments would NEVER have been allowed at the school and she KNEW that!! Obviously. Otherwise she would have rehearsed the entire speech with the included religious plea before the event. She cheated the system and villated the Federal laws against preaching on school grounds at an event meant to be an occasion for all, including those who keep their religion seperate from the rest of us.

So the offender practiced the speech with others...agreed to perform the speech just like all the others..and at the last minute she decided..or perhaps it was planned all along, most likley.. to include her personal plea to all to join her crusade. She needs to do it where people are not gathered for purposes that do nOT include comeing to hear her preach.

Now that PROOF has been shown that she broke her agreement, where is the poster above that insisted on seeing the proof? Hmm? The proof is there now. She rehearsed with the others and decided to go off script and now must pay the price for that deception and rule violation. She KNEW that her little add on speech would NEVER have been allowed, so she just demmanded to be the last to speak so she could get the last word in, and make sure it was her own personal words and NOT the agreed upon ones.

She cheated and lied and broke the rules and the intent of the law..and now she whines that her rights were violated..nonsense!! She is the guilty one, thats all. Does this girl think that she can just go thru life breaking her word and chaeting and ignoring the rules? Is she above the law? does her personal religious beliefs overcome all of our rights to be free of her preaching? Will she break all her agreements in the future if she sees a chance to preach? She would be fired from a job for her actions but here she sues!! Amazing.

She should be made to apologize and should be punished further to get her to see that she is not above the law and the system and that she needs to keep her opinions to herself until she is in a venue that appreciates preaching. At a school function, there is NO justification for blurting out personal beliefs, or there would be no way to stop the others from making the event a religious argument instead of a graduation.

Originally posted by melatonin
In other words. She intentionally deceived someone.

I think you're right.

Originally posted by melatonin
I assume bearing false witness is bad, mmmkay?

Although hiding the truth isn't lying, I'd say from a Christian perspective the deception would be a sin for the simple fact the school placed their trust in her and she willingly/knowingly violated that trust. Even though she's a sister, I'd have to point that out so she could correct it.

Originally posted by melatonin
And the Flying Spagetti Monster loves you. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

RAmen

I have had Wiccan friends say "goddess bless" and I appreciate that, because they meant it with their heart. It was a well-wish that I would not turn away, get sarcastic or angry over because they genuinely hope for some favor to come my way. For me to be a smart@ss back is just as rude as unapproved preaching during a graduation ceremony.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by melatonin
The actions of the school officials supports this. They wanted her to state that they would not have approved the speech. They were attempting to distance themselves from her words. Which I think is OK, no? I think your constitution has something to say about such things.

From previous court cases it is already determined that the schools can't approve speeches at graduations that are deemed proseltysing. If the Prinicipal felt he was seen as approving this girl's speech, he would have seen this as an issue. People complained, the school wanted to cover their asses because a student decided to subvert the process to preach with the aim to convert to a captive audience. They compelled her to make a statement stating this was not approved by the school.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by melatonin]

Exactly. Melatonin has it right. I asked my husband, a former public high school teacher for 20 years, about the legality of such things. He said that because public schools are public institutions, that they would need to distance themselves from a proselytizing speech; they cannot be seen as supporting such a thing, due to the separation of church and state.

IMO,I wouldn't be surprised if she and/or her father had been aware of this and that the girl did it in order to initiate a lawsuit.

THe school is doing the right thing, in order to protect themselves.

Originally posted by forestlady
I asked my husband, a former public high school teacher for 20 years, about the legality of such things. He said that because public schools are public institutions, that they would need to distance themselves from a proselytizing speech;

The school did not endorse what she said erego they cannot be held liable. I do think it's cool though that we have your husband as a resource to question these things. It'll be nice having a subject-matter expert view on the topic.

Originally posted by forestlady
they cannot be seen as supporting such a thing,

One would have to assume the school supported it, which is not the case.

Originally posted by forestlady
due to the separation of church and state.

What law is that again?

Originally posted by forestlady
THe school is doing the right thing, in order to protect themselves.

You believe it is just and fair to hold someone's diploma because of something they said at a graduation ceremony?

Originally posted by saint4God
For me to be a smart@ss back is just as rude as unapproved preaching during a graduation ceremony.

Saint, I took what Val said as a little jokey comment playing on the context of the thread. A bit of wit. I gave a little jokey comment back. What she said was meaningless to me apart from being witty, I'm sure what I said was meaningless to her.

If she felt it was demeaning, or me being a smartass, then I apologise. But I'm quite sure she didn't. If she did, she'll feel better after she eats the bolognaise I suggested she have for lunch.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The quotes above have PROVEN beyond any doubt that the girl set this up to spring on the assembly at the last minute and that she knew it was not right and not approved. She violated the rules. She practiced the event with others and never mentioned her little added on speech until it was time for her to get her bit of glory for the cause.

Even if all of that is true, it has absolutely no bearing on this case. She simply exercised her Constitutional rights. No rules, agreement, or anything can abridge those.

So, for example, a science teacher should not expect sanction for teaching religion in a science class?

After all, free speech comes above any rules or agreements...

Originally posted by melatonin


Saint, I took what Val said as a little jokey comment playing on the context of the thread. A bit of wit. I gave a little jokey comment back. What she said was meaningless to me apart from being witty, I'm sure what I said was meaningless to her.

Yep, no problem here. My comments were intended to be taken lightly, and I took yours the same. We can disagree without hating. No hate on my side - especially since I found out the flying spaghetti monster loves me. It's made me a better person.

Originally posted by saint4God
What law is that again?

Originally posted by forestlady
THe school is doing the right thing, in order to protect themselves.

You believe it is just and fair to hold someone's diploma because of something they said at a graduation ceremony?

The separation of church and state is in the Constitution, I believe the first amendment.

Normally, I wouldn't agree to holding back her diploma, but she herself has put the school in a very uncomfortable situtation. Usually what is done under these circumstances is that the diploma is not issued at the graduation, but has to be picked up later. She's done the coursework, they can't deny that she completed high school.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Even if all of that is true, it has absolutely no bearing on this case. She simply exercised her Constitutional rights. No rules, agreement, or anything can abridge those.

people make nondisclosure contracts all the time, they are held liable if they break them by acknowledging their "right to free speech" in those circumstances.

and once more, not a single religion has a place in schools as anything more than an expression of personal belief. she's violating the first amendment by using her "free speech"
the thing is... she gave up her right to free speech in this instance by making an agreement with the school.

now, saint, 1st amendment. it's been ruled repeatedly that there is a wall of separation between religion and governmental institutions. the separation of church and state is solid constitutional law

Originally posted by forestlady
The separation of church and state is in the Constitution, I believe the first amendment.

Which part? Mind quoting it?

Originally posted by forestlady
Normally, I wouldn't agree to holding back her diploma, but she herself has put the school in a very uncomfortable situtation. Usually what is done under these circumstances is that the diploma is not issued at the graduation, but has to be picked up later. She's done the coursework, they can't deny that she completed high school.

Thank you for agreeing on this point. It may have bearing on getting into college for the next semester, that paperwork is a beast.

Originally posted by saint4God
Which part? Mind quoting it?

first amendment, several rights:

speech, religion, petition, press, assembly

the freedom of religion is laid down by the establishment clause which strictly separates the government from religious institutions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

now, this has been ruled to mean that religion and government don't get to play with each other.

constitutional law on this issue is clear, saint, don't try to change the issue. there is no issue on the establishment clause.

you cannot be truly free to practice your own religion unless you are free from the practices of the other religions.

edit: added italics

[edit on 9/3/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This is true, and this speech is in now way having Congress make a law respecting the establishment of religion, so let's read more of that same sentence in the constitution, first amendment:

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Very interesting, yes?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
now, this has been ruled to mean that religion and government don't get to play with each other.

By whom? Being involved in church affairs, one can see they do indeed have lots of interplay. I'd encourage anyone to participate in being a part of it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
constitutional law on this issue is clear, saint, don't try to change the issue.

I agree it is clear and am not changing the issue.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is no issue on the establishment clause.

I agree there is none and that it does not apply as congress is not making a law to establish religion.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you cannot be truly free to practice your own religion unless you are free from the practices of the other religions.

Says who? Again, there is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution. It cannot be quoted as part of the first amendment because it is not there.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

This is true, and this speech is in now way having Congress make a law respecting the establishment of religion, so let's read more of that same sentence in the constitution, first amendment:

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Very interesting, yes?

yes, a sentence with multiple clauses!

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
now, this has been ruled to mean that religion and government don't get to play with each other.

By whom? Being involved in church affairs, one can see they do indeed have lots of interplay. I'd encourage anyone to participate in being a part of it.

it was ruled by the supreme court. the best example of this, especially pertaining to schools, is everson v

I agree there is none and that it does not apply as congress is not making a law to establish religion.

or any other governmental institution.

Says who? Again, there is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution. It cannot be quoted as part of the first amendment because it is not there.

you also cannot quote your right to have any privacy.. but yet it's considered to be constitutionally sound. there is a separation, it's just not 100% explicit.

saint, here's how it goes:
if i'm right, secular democracy.
if you're right, tyrannical theocracy... i say tyrannical because there really hasn't been an example of a theocracy that isn't...

oh yes, one more thing to point out... how can the government have anything to do with religion when it's not allowed to make laws pertaining to it?

[edit on 9/4/07 by madnessinmysoul]

mad,

You're misrepresenting the intent of the constitutional separation of church and state. The separation was intended to prevent the establishment of an "official" religion such as existed in England. The intent was to prevent prohibiting the free exercise of any one person's religion. It was to abolish governmental restrictions on religious freedoms as had existed in England. So the intent of the separation of church and state clause actually falls on the girl's side. Since constitutionally she is not to be prevented from exercising her religion, they cannot constitutionally prevent her from professing her faith which means her law suit claiming discrimination has a good chance of winning.

The constitutional clause was never intended to be taken as you can't profess your faith on government property.

[edit on 9-4-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
mad,

You're misrepresenting the intent of the constitutional separation of church and state. The separation was intended to prevent the establishment of an "official" religion such as existed in England. The intent was to prevent prohibiting the free exercise of any one person's religion.

you can't freedom of religion without freedom from religions.

It was to abolish governmental restrictions on religious freedoms as had existed in England. So the intent of the separation of church and state clause actually falls on the girl's side.

no, again, not the issue. breach of agreement.

Since constitutionally she is not to be prevented from exercising her religion, they cannot constitutionally prevent her from professing her faith which means her law suit claiming discrimination has a good chance of winning.

she isn't being discriminated against. she'll lose on breach of agreement. she agreed to say one thing, she said something else. this is an issue of contract, not freedom.

The constitutional clause was never intended to be taken as you can't profess your faith on government property.

proselytizing isn't professing...
by allowing this girl to use a captive audience in a government institution it works as a government endorsement of religion...

he freedom of religion should play no part here. it isn't a freedom issue, it's an issue of the agreement she made and then broke. she needs to apologize for deceiving the school.

Byrd,

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, which is the exact misapplication of the constitutional clause that has caused people to lose rights. And the intent of the separation of church and state clause in the constitution is exactly as I stated it.

Originally posted by Valhall
Byrd,

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, which is the exact misapplication of the constitutional clause that has caused people to lose rights. And the intent of the separation of church and state clause in the constitution is exactly as I stated it.

the supreme court... which actually has a say on these issues... would disagree with you on that.

and again, this isn't a freedom of speech or religion issue, it's a breech of agreement issue.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if i'm right, secular democracy.
if you're right, tyrannical theocracy... i say tyrannical because there really hasn't been an example of a theocracy that isn't...

You missed a spot when painting on the portrait of yourself being a hero. I will refrain from making either a silly nonsensical statement or a dispute of it since it lends not the credibility for taking the time to do so.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
oh yes, one more thing to point out... how can the government have anything to do with religion when it's not allowed to make laws pertaining to it?

They can, have an will revoke rights if a church endorses political candidates. They can, have and will take taxes from churches. They can, have and will require church to obtain permission to build in certain areas, maintain government law, and obtain prior approval for holding events. These are a few examples.


[edit on 4-9-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if i'm right, secular democracy.
if you're right, tyrannical theocracy... i say tyrannical because there really hasn't been an example of a theocracy that isn't...

You missed a spot when painting on the portrait of yourself being a hero. I will refrain from making either a silly nonsensical statement or a dispute of it since it lends not the credibility for taking the time to do so.

saint, i have a credible point. without the separation of church and state we leave the door completely open to a theocracy taking grip.

They can, have an will revoke rights if a church endorses political candidates.

no, they revoke tax exemption. tax exemption isn't a right, it's an acknowledgment that religion has nothing to do with government... the second the religion steps over the line into government it gets that taken away.

They can, have and will take taxes from churches. They can, have and will require church to obtain permission to build in certain areas, maintain government law, and obtain prior approval for holding events. These are a few examples.

but that's just treating them like any social institution. this has nothing to do with the religion, just the people running it and organizing events and construction.

but this isn't really the issue here... the issue is that a girl deceived a school and is now suing them because there were repercussions and she doesn't want to just apologize for breaking a prior agreement. on top of that, her speech did contain material that is outright wrong in the context of a school event to a captive audience...