Quote# 12509

[Re: a girl using her valedectorian speech to preach and getting her mike cut off-regardless of the fact that she added the religious stuff in AFTER the school people approved her speech]

Regarding the argument that these students were a "captive audience":
the girl giving the speech was a captive audience to the secular teachings of the government-run school system for roughly 10 years of her life. I figure the school administration can survive 20 minutes of payback.

Medic911, Rapture Ready 33 Comments [6/22/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: the_ignored
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
TDR

regardless how ridiculous the argument Medic makes is, why would they cut off her mike? If it's been approved, suffer through it. Wouldn't it make your graduation seem shabby if your valedictorian can't even make a proper speech?

(says she whose graduation was a farce. No. Not going there)

6/23/2006 1:01:33 PM

Yahweh

regardless how ridiculous the argument Medic makes is, why would they cut off her mike? If it's been approved, suffer through it.

Read that again. A speech was submitted an approved, which contained no religious content. When the girl was supposed to deliver her speech, she delivered a religious sermon instead, so the religious material wasn't approved in the first place.

6/23/2006 1:05:02 PM

TDR

whoops, I'm an idiot.

6/23/2006 1:31:46 PM

Julian

No you're not TDR, some posts are so painful you just have to skim. A few posts this month I haven't even been able to read them, let alone pull them apart. They'll probably win awards.

Gosh, maybe I should go into my old church I was forced to go to for 8 years - maybe I should give them 20 minutes of payback?

Of course that would involve talking about God being a figment of collective imagination and borne out of ignorant superstition. If I was as retarded as the valedictorian, I guess I'd have to take school into the church.

6/23/2006 1:57:09 PM

NotMe

Why didn't she go to some christian school if she was a \"captive audience\" to the secular school? Not that those 2 hours of religion you get a week really matter all that much, but that's besides the point.

And it isn't about the school administration suffering though it, but the other students. (My graduation was a mess to. I came 15 minutes late because I had to work, I could probably get off early but who cares, the speeches were boring, the \"acts\" were boring, I had my mp player on through all of them, and as soon as I had my diploma I got out of there.)

6/23/2006 2:37:31 PM

Papabear

Hasn't it ever occurred to Xians like this that adding to one's speech after it the final draft has been approved is tantamount to lying, in this case lying for Jesus?

As for the \"20 minutes of payback\" agrument, I don't remember Jesus talking about \"payback.\" Love your enemies, maybe. Turn the other cheek, maybe. Even hate your friends and family, but nothing about \"payback.\"

6/23/2006 3:07:21 PM

honestchristian

I am an evangelical christian. I believe we are hypocrites when it comes to things like this. The deal is when someone stands in front of a crowd and talks about Jesus then we Christians say \"Hey it's our rights, this is a free country, we have 1st amendment rights to talk about Jesus, I am going to sue if you don't allow me to talk about Jesus, call my attorney\" But if this young woman was a muslim or a buddhist and she went up there and gave a speech at graduation talking about her love for her religion you would hear Christians screaming. \"they have no right to free speech, they should shut up, this is america how dare they use the public schools I pay taxes toward to talk about their religious beliefs, this is an outrage\".
If we want rights to talk about Jesus we have to expect others to have the same right in this country to 1st amendment rights under the law. We evangelical Christians like everything else don't get that. And we wonder why people think we are hypocrites and phony. I have changed my name from sad to honest by the way.

6/23/2006 5:06:39 PM

Jacob Syne

Payback for SATAN!!! *rock out*

6/23/2006 5:38:05 PM

MK

honestchristian - You hit upon what is probably the main crisis eating at the churches in America in this day and age.

6/23/2006 7:03:30 PM

honestchristian

We want to take away everyone else's right but OUR own. This is hypocritical and UNJESUS. We even want our second God Bush to change the constitution to take away the rights of gay people! HUH?!

6/23/2006 7:43:21 PM

Jeremy

It's worth mentioning that the girl is probably in the right here and is going to win the lawsuit against the school district.

6/23/2006 10:41:40 PM

Crosis

<<< the girl giving the speech was a captive audience to the secular teachings of the government-run school system for roughly 10 years of her life. >>>

Note \"secular\". It does not mean \"anti-religious\", it means \"taking no stance on religion\".

<<< It's worth mentioning that the girl is probably in the right here and is going to win the lawsuit against the school district. >>>

Doubtful ... she does have a right to speak, but the school district that organized the program has a right to approve or veto the content of a speech that is part of the program. Preaching is not an appropriate part of a public school program, and even in my Christian days I would have probably been upset by it.

6/24/2006 1:02:30 AM

Julian

honestchristian - you're absolutely right.

Also of note is this great quiz.
http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php

14. In 1890, bible reading was outlawed from Wisconsin schools. Who was responsible?

A Roman Catholic family. A Roman Catholic family objected to the exclusive use of the Protestant King James Version of the bible. The court barred all bible reading from Wisconsin public schools. [State ex rel. Weiss vs. District Board, 76 Wisc. 177 (1890)]. Catholicism was a small minority in 19th-century America. It is usually minority groups who need the protection of the Bill of Rights.

15. The U.S. Supreme Court outlawed student-initiated prayers at high-school football games in 2000. Who were the plaintiffs in that lawsuit?

Roman Catholic and Mormon families. The Texas lawsuit was taken by a Catholic family and a Mormon family who had children who were being harassed by the born-again majority in the public schools.

6/24/2006 1:13:44 AM

TheAmazingToby

Roughly 10 years of school? I didn't think they selected a valedictorian from a sophomore class. I thought seniors were 12 years, not including kindergarten. Where is this school, Arkansas?

6/24/2006 4:10:52 AM

Adrian

Great quizz indeed, Julian. Also gave me a few interesting ideas:

the Pilgrims originally were a tolerant people, when they founded Plymouth in 1620. By 1691, the Pilgrims had adopted the theocratic, intolerant Calvinism of the Puritans, who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. The Puritans came to this land expressly to establish a bible commonwealth, and banished \"heretics\" and dissenters. In Virginia, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death by burning. Quakers were particularly persecuted. People who were not orthodox Christians were not legally protected, could be denied civil rights and jailed.

Makes you wonder if someone with a time machine couldn't have done something to greatly reduce the level of USian fundie fucktardism and the sufferings it caused over 3-4 centuries by sinking the ships of the puritans before they ever reached America or by ensuring that the colony would die in the egg :P

In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring that \"In God We Trust\" appear on all U.S. coins and currency. The first paper currency with the motto appeared in 1957. This was right after the McCarthy era, during the early Cold War, when no congressperson would dare be seen voting against \"God.\" \"In God We Trust\" did appear occasionally on a few coins, starting with a 2-cent piece in the 1860s, in an attempt (it is surmised) to put \"God\" on the side of the north during the Civil War. In 1956, an Act of Congress adopted \"In God We Trust\" as a national motto. The original motto, \"E Pluribus Unum\" (\"out of many, [come] one,\") celebrating plurality, still appears on the Presidential Seal and on some paper currency.
...
As with \"In God We Trust,\" \"under God\" is also a Johnny-come-lately. It was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy era. The original pledge was first published on September 8, 1892 in the magazine \"Youth's Companion\" with no reference to a deity.

Too bad those two aberrations were never squashed. They pretty much have to be anti-constitutional, since they are forcing the Xian God on everybody, regardless of one's religious affiliation or lack of. I guess a good timeframe to get rid of those was present in the \"fall of the Wall-early 90s\" period, but sadly it was passed...
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks that if they really want to proclaim their trust in something, \"Dog\" would be a lot more reliable than \"God\"? (and I'm not even a dog person, in fact I'm a big cat-lover)


6/25/2006 5:21:17 PM

Adrian

Great quizz indeed, Julian. Also gave me a few interesting ideas:

the Pilgrims originally were a tolerant people, when they founded Plymouth in 1620. By 1691, the Pilgrims had adopted the theocratic, intolerant Calvinism of the Puritans, who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1628. The Puritans came to this land expressly to establish a bible commonwealth, and banished \"heretics\" and dissenters. In Virginia, heresy was a capital offense punishable by death by burning. Quakers were particularly persecuted. People who were not orthodox Christians were not legally protected, could be denied civil rights and jailed.

Makes you wonder if someone with a time machine couldn't have done something to greatly reduce the level of USian fundie fucktardism and the sufferings it caused over 3-4 centuries by sinking the ships of the puritans before they ever reached America or by ensuring that the colony would die in the egg :P

In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring that \"In God We Trust\" appear on all U.S. coins and currency. The first paper currency with the motto appeared in 1957. This was right after the McCarthy era, during the early Cold War, when no congressperson would dare be seen voting against \"God.\" \"In God We Trust\" did appear occasionally on a few coins, starting with a 2-cent piece in the 1860s, in an attempt (it is surmised) to put \"God\" on the side of the north during the Civil War. In 1956, an Act of Congress adopted \"In God We Trust\" as a national motto. The original motto, \"E Pluribus Unum\" (\"out of many, [come] one,\") celebrating plurality, still appears on the Presidential Seal and on some paper currency.
...
As with \"In God We Trust,\" \"under God\" is also a Johnny-come-lately. It was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy era. The original pledge was first published on September 8, 1892 in the magazine \"Youth's Companion\" with no reference to a deity.

Too bad those two aberrations were never squashed. They pretty much have to be anti-constitutional, since they are forcing the Xian God on everybody, regardless of one's religious affiliation or lack of. I guess a good timeframe to get rid of those was present in the \"fall of the Wall-early 90s\" period, but sadly it was passed...
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks that if they really want to proclaim their trust in something, \"Dog\" would be a lot more reliable than \"God\"? (and I'm not even a dog person, in fact I'm a big cat-lover)


6/25/2006 5:21:51 PM

Mad Dog Presley

Bright light city and I'm gonna save some souls
Gonna set the school administration tempers on fire
Got a graduation speech thats ready to burn,
So get that offensiveness up higher
Theres a thousand bored students waitin out there
And theyre all wanting to get out of there, like I really care
And Im just an evangelist with hellfire preaching to spare
Viva las vegas, viva las vegas

How I wish that there were more
Than the twenty-four minutes in the speech
cause even if there were forty more
I wouldnt stop preaching for a second anyway
Oh, theres ranting and raving and the torture wheel
And how extremely self-righteous I feel
All the teachers and parents can't stop my spiel
Viva las vegas, viva las vegas

Viva las vegas with your students anger flashin
And your teachers, principal and administrators to the control booth a-crashin
All those hopes for me to indoctrinate down the drain
Viva las vegas making my speech last into nighttime
Turnin night into daytime
If you heard it once
Youll never want to hear it again

Im gonna act like a freakin' nun
And your'e not gonna have any fun
My diplomacy skills aren't worth a dime
If I wind up being kicked out well
Ill always remember that I wasted your time
Im gonna give it evrything Ive got
Lady luck please let the religious topics stay hot
Let me shout \"YOUR'E GOING TO HELL!\" with evry shot
Viva las vegas, viva las vegas,
Viva, viva las vegas


I also posted these lyrics on the boards, but since I'm such an attention whore, I posted them here too.

6/25/2006 6:44:31 PM

Napoleon the Clown

CYA: Cover Your Ass. The school didn't want the ACLU to bitch about religion being mentioned at a government run school.

6/25/2006 11:42:40 PM

Redhunter

honestchristian said:

\"If we want rights to talk about Jesus we have to expect others to have the same right in this country to 1st amendment rights under the law. We evangelical Christians like everything else don't get that.\"

AND


\"We want to take away everyone else's right but OUR own.\"

That has got to be the most honest thing I've ever heard a christian say (now i get the name). Either you are an openminded and realistic person or some kind of troll. I give you the benefit of the doubt of course.

I have had numerous discussions with christians where the christian couldn't understand for example why people objected to the ten commandments on courthouse lawns (We have one of those battles pending here which is currently on hold). My M-i-L for example can't see why a list of 'american laws' like the 10C shouldn't be there. When I try to get her to think of it as what she would think if (insert some non-christian document here) some other religion did the same thing. Would it seem fair to her? Would the praising of some other god and his rules outside the courthouse give you the feeling that you would get a fair shake from the judges inside if you happened to be affiliated with another church's religion? \"Oh now you're just being ridicules!\" she sneered. It is nearly impossible for (christians at least) religious folk to look at their god as one of dozens of gods worshipped in America. They have it in their head that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and all contradictions are absurd. I applaude the fact that you are able to see things from someone else's point of view, I think most of the atheist's I've talked to certainly accept the fact that there are christians, and they have a right to do and say what they will as long as it doesn't infringe on others. Many christians refuse to allow others to even have an opinion, because they think that they are being persecuted if they aren't able to have their beliefs plastered all over govt building, dollar or coin. I always believed that 'freedom of religion' meant an American could worship whomever or whatever they wanted, or they didn't have to worship anything. Christians seem to think it means that they are to be prominently displayed everywhere. They mostly don't get it because they can't look at things subjectively or without their 'jesus glasses' which makes everything they say or do correct in the eyes of their god.

This is kind of rambling and kind of not, so, worded real good, I'm knowing that. (that was supposed to be a joke) But I guess you just threw me with honesty and after reading on this site for months, your unselfish and open-minded post was really nice. I hope that you realize that most of the people here are commenting on the creme-de-la-creme of psychobabble and idiocy and don't hate on as wide of a scale as most of the folks we bash.

You seem to be intelligent, are you sure you're a christian? (i don't do those little smiley, winking typing symbols so just imagine me smirking at that comment)

6/26/2006 11:00:28 AM

honestchristian

Hello Redhunter, thank you for your post. No, I am not a troll. I am honestly a born again, evangelical Christian for 26 years now. The reason I am out here is because I have observed that there is a hypocracy in the christian church today. And yes, I was once a part of it. I still am to a degree I go to church and I graduated from Seminary with a graduate school degree. I love Jesus more than life and the Jesus that is being portrayed on these so called christian message boards is NOT the Jesus of the Bible. The Christian church today is making a mockery of the love that is shown only in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are making Jesus an exclusive club of which only they can belong. This is the only site where I can come out and talk about what is going on freely, right now believe me their are many christians who are sick of people making Jesus out for political gain and to preach an exclusive gospel. I might start my own site for those evangelical christians who are sick of the hypocracy in the christian church. I just have not had time to do so. But I am the real thing.

6/26/2006 3:44:42 PM

Shadows

Wow, is it just me or is it sad when a christian is unable to say what you just said on a christian forum without being ridiculed and ostracized. (sp?)

6/26/2006 6:04:51 PM

honestchristian

Oh, they would hate me so much on their message boards! Hate me. I am sure they would consider me a hypocrite for being out there with all of you. :) Now don't get me wrong I do not believe in everything you all post out here, not at all. But at least you all are not fake. I blame them, people who have known the love, redemption and forgiveness of the Lord Jesus have no excuse for their hatred, racism, and bigotry. NONE. When you truly have a relationship with Christ as your Lord and Savior you cannot help but to love. I know for myself I am a sinner true blue saved by grace ONLY. I am no where near perfect, never will be. Jesus covers me. So how can I do anything but show love to others Jesus' love, not mine. Mine is imperfect. Jesus' love never despised, never hated, never judged, always accepted, always loved, was always pure. He had every right to judge and HE did not! Based on the bible I read HE only judged the religious right of His day the ones who thought their shit did not stink. I wonder what He would do today?
Not trying to preach just making a point against what we see today on Christian message boards. Thanks all,

6/26/2006 6:24:41 PM

Jezebel's Evil Sister Bernice

To Honest Christian:

You said this is the only site where you can post freely. Have you visited exchristian.net?

True, most of the members of that site are ex-christians and are now agnostic/atheist or deist. However, there are a few regulars who are open-minded christians who are welcomed (and a few fundie trolls who drop in from time to time, who are not exactly welcomed but tolerated, for the most part, for their entertainment value). I think you might enjoy the forums and articles posted there. Lots of interesting topics and debate. Take a look.

6/26/2006 6:27:05 PM

honestchristian

Thanks Jezebel I will check out that site tomorrow. I would love to fellowship with other christians who feel as I do. We need to take back our christianity!

6/27/2006 1:24:40 AM

Mike

The way this is described isn't exactly what happened. She DID have the religious stuff in her speech. The school told her to take it out, she grudgingly agreed to do so, then made her speech and--Surprise!--the fundie-ism was back!

In other words, she had time to get a lawyer and fight to say what she felt like saying, but instead, she thought she knew better than the administrators what should go into a graduation speech, and made it herself.

6/27/2006 1:42:24 AM
1 2