geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
- Thread starter
- #21
I have to assume this was the valordictorian or the salutatorian giving the speech.
that poses the question that if the valordictorian was an atheist, and wanted to talk about the evils of religion, or make statements refuting religon, would you find that acceptable?
Edit: She was the valordictorian: So how is her mentioning God somehow a state sanctioned recognition of religion?
First, she didn't mention God. She led the assembly in Prayer. I feel that was an endorsement of religion. The Federal Judge agreed, the 5th Federal Court of Appeals disagreed.
Though, it wasn't a full hearing and simply a ruling on the federal judges ban. At any rate, my opinion is just that. Obviously the law disagrees.
I wouldn't find an athiest talking about the evils of God to be acceptable or appropriate. I think you could use the establishment clause to argue against that as well. However, it does make an interesting question as to if that would be correct in light of this ruling.
She prayed as part of her valerdictorian speech, if people wanted to follow along it is up to the audiance.
This is not a government representative or agent trying to make a religous speech, it is a private citizen given a podium at a public event.
While the schultz's had the right to sue, it still makes them asshats trying to impose thier morality on someone who earned the right to speak thier mind at the event.
The court's agreed with you.
I don't think it's fair to call the Schult'z "asshats". They could easily say the same thing about the speaker. In fact, this has been a long standing issue with the Madina Valley Independent School District and the Schultz who feel the school promotes religion.