[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":
33 comments
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?
regardless how ridiculous the argument Medic makes is, why would they cut off her mike? If it's been approved, suffer through it.
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.
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.
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?
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".
<<< 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. >>>
honestchristian - you're absolutely right.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.
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)
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)
Bright light city and I'm gonna save some souls
I also posted these lyrics on the boards, but since I'm such an attention whore, I posted them here too.
honestchristian said:
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.
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?
To Honest Christian:
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!
<<< 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! >>>
For 10 years the government run school system recognized the rights of this girl's parents to teach their children about god in whatever way they saw fit. But this girl used deception to trample on that arrangement the minute she was handed a microphone and a crowd gathered.
That isn't payback Medic911, that is pure arrogance
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
