Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
I was making an observation. Feel free to scroll past my posts if you like.Simple solution, don't pray when she is. Next.Christa and Danny Schultz, who said watching their son receive a diploma this weekend would amount to forced religious participation
Irreparable Harm | Fellowship of the Minds
The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would suffer irreparable harm if anyone prayed at the ceremony.I'm curious what the Schultzes believe happens when someone hears the word "god". Do they think the person hearing it is automatically converted?
Do they accept cash? Cash has the word "god" on it.
Do they get offended when their friends say, "God damn it!"?
What goes on in their minds? Does ANYthing go on in their minds?
Again, not the point. The Schultz's were entitled to their day in court, just as this young women was. Both had their say, the Schultz's lost.
The prayer was delivered and now it is after the fact.
The issue now is the possible ramifications of this ruling.
As has been noted on here, a federal appeals court has reversed a federal judge's opinion that a young woman named Angela Hildenbrand could not legally pray on the podium during her graduation ceremony.
Court Lifts Ban On Texas Graduation Prayer : NPR
On June 6th, Hildenbrand delivered her address and prayer:
Lord, I thank you so much for the blessing of this day. And I just thank you for the amazing group of people that you surrounded me with.
God, I thank you for the support of our whole entire community through this case hearing; and also for Erin (Leu)and all the people at the Liberty Institute; and my parents, whove helped get me through the last couple of days.
Lord, I just thank you so much for your presence in our lives through these 18 years. And I just praise you for your incredible faithfulness through all adversity and all joy.
God, I thank you for the men and women who have given their lives helping to give us, and protect, the freedoms that we have today. And I ask that you please keep your hand of guidance on all of them past, present and future military.
God, I thank you just so much for the freedom to be here today. And most of all, I thank you for loving us first.
God, I ask that you please keep each of us safe and well, as we all go our separate ways. And I cant wait to see where youll be leading each of us. I ask that youll ask us all to remember where we come from, and to know where we stand.
God, I thank you for the gift of your Son and for the forgiveness that surpasses all understanding. And most of all, I thank you for your great love for us, and for our great nation, where we are free.
And its in Jesus name I pray, Amen.
Prayer Steals the Show at Texas Graduation | CitizenLink
(A video can also be found at the link).
I disagree, but respect the court's ruling, and I have to admire this young woman for fighting for something she felt was right.
However, now that this precedent has been set and the legality of the matter is not in dispute, would you accept a Muslim student calling their classmates to prayer at the podium of their graduation?
If not, how (in your opinion) is it different?
I started a separate thread on this after noticing that some members of the forum discussing the issue wouldn't answer that simple question.
Hats off to Alliebaba who did.
Simple solution, don't pray when she is. Next.Christa and Danny Schultz, who said watching their son receive a diploma this weekend would amount to forced religious participation
“Irreparable Harm” | Fellowship of the Minds
The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would suffer irreparable harm if anyone prayed at the ceremony.I'm curious what the Schultzes believe happens when someone hears the word "god". Do they think the person hearing it is automatically converted?
Do they accept cash? Cash has the word "god" on it.
Do they get offended when their friends say, "God damn it!"?
What goes on in their minds? Does ANYthing go on in their minds?
Since there is no Constitutional basis for any objection, so you concerns must be based on prejudice and bigoty.
That still doesn't answer the question.
I also don't think it's prejudicial or bigoted for an athiest to object to someone leading a prayer at a public graduation ceremony.
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?
I think if you are going to allow a Christian prayer to be offered then you must allow any and all other prayers, from any religion.
Including Satanism.
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.
The ruling is just IMO.
The views and opinions expressed by a valedictorian do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the school or the government. Only an extreme, anti-religion zealot would see this as a violation of the establishment clause.
But likewise, if the school told her she couldn't say her prayer, that is their right and would not constitute an infringement of protected free speech either.
The ruling is just IMO.
The views and opinions expressed by a valedictorian do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the school or the government. Only an extreme, anti-religion zealot would see this as a violation of the establishment clause.
But likewise, if the school told her she couldn't say her prayer, that is their right and would not constitute an infringement of protected free speech either.
Interesting point, though short of shutting off her mike or tackling her away from the podium I dont see the pratical application of stopping someone who just starts saying something the school wouldn't approve of.
The Constitution doesn't protect one from ideas with which one disagrees.Simple solution, don't pray when she is. Next.Christa and Danny Schultz, who said watching their son receive a diploma this weekend would amount to forced religious participation
Irreparable Harm | Fellowship of the Minds
The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would suffer irreparable harm if anyone prayed at the ceremony.I'm curious what the Schultzes believe happens when someone hears the word "god". Do they think the person hearing it is automatically converted?
Do they accept cash? Cash has the word "god" on it.
Do they get offended when their friends say, "God damn it!"?
What goes on in their minds? Does ANYthing go on in their minds?
The erroneous idea that they have a right to freedom from ever seeing other people freely express their religious beliefs.
Butthurt leftists think their rights trump everyone else's.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.
The speaker earned the right to be up there, to give a speech to her peers. More to the point she earned the right to say the speech SHE wanted to say. The Schultz's believed thier "right" to not hear a speech with religous elements trumped her "right" to control the content of her speech.
Yes you can sue, and that is your right, but to feel the need to sue an 18 year old over the content of her valordictorian speech to me is the definition of "asshat".
That still doesn't answer the question.
I also don't think it's prejudicial or bigoted for an athiest to object to someone leading a prayer at a public graduation ceremony.
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?
No, that would NOT be acceptable. Praying is not analogous to an attack on other people's beliefs, which is what you're talking about.
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?
No, that would NOT be acceptable. Praying is not analogous to an attack on other people's beliefs, which is what you're talking about.
Is it illegal?
Inappropriate and obnoxious, yes, but illegal?
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.
The speaker earned the right to be up there, to give a speech to her peers. More to the point she earned the right to say the speech SHE wanted to say. The Schultz's believed thier "right" to not hear a speech with religous elements trumped her "right" to control the content of her speech.
Yes you can sue, and that is your right, but to feel the need to sue an 18 year old over the content of her valordictorian speech to me is the definition of "asshat".
Butthurt leftists think their rights trump everyone else's.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.
The speaker earned the right to be up there, to give a speech to her peers. More to the point she earned the right to say the speech SHE wanted to say. The Schultz's believed thier "right" to not hear a speech with religous elements trumped her "right" to control the content of her speech.
Yes you can sue, and that is your right, but to feel the need to sue an 18 year old over the content of her valordictorian speech to me is the definition of "asshat".
No, that would NOT be acceptable. Praying is not analogous to an attack on other people's beliefs, which is what you're talking about.
Is it illegal?
Inappropriate and obnoxious, yes, but illegal?
What does illegal have to do with it? No one's talking about ARRESTING the speechgiver. We're talking about the school allowing the speech to be given or not.
Cripes. Stay on-topic, would you?
Butthurt leftists think their rights trump everyone else's.The speaker earned the right to be up there, to give a speech to her peers. More to the point she earned the right to say the speech SHE wanted to say. The Schultz's believed thier "right" to not hear a speech with religous elements trumped her "right" to control the content of her speech.
Yes you can sue, and that is your right, but to feel the need to sue an 18 year old over the content of her valordictorian speech to me is the definition of "asshat".
You still haven't answered the question posed in the original post.
I support the valedictorian's choice to invoke whatever higher power he wishes, or none at all.
