Valedictorian's speech cut short by school district because she mentioned God...

[Disney Doll]

Haven't we all reaslized yet that free speech applies to everyone in this country excpet for those who believe in God?

An no, it wouldn't bother me if a Muslim follower mentioned their God either.

There's an awful lot of seemingly intelligent people who have no idea what "separation of Chruch and State" really means. And that's shame.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Haven't we all reaslized yet that free speech applies to everyone in this country excpet for those who believe in God?

An no, it wouldn't bother me if a Muslim follower mentioned their God either.

There's an awful lot of seemingly intelligent people who have no idea what "separation of Chruch and State" really means. And that's shame.

I don't think anyone has a problem with a "mention" of deity.

We haven't seen the entire speech though to see if it was merely a "mention" or if it was more than that.

 

[Bob Slydell]

I'm sure if it was a Christian school she would not have been censored for mentioning God and Jesus and their positive influence on her life.

I could be wrong--but that is the only reason I brought up that her parents could have sent her to private school.

Obviously they would have pretty much no speeches thanking Satan.

Censoring a speech that thanked Satan would still be censorship, though. You implied that private schools wouldn't censor.

I'm sure many Christian schools would censor a validictorian's speech that gave a sermon as well, BTW.

 

[Maleficent13]

Why is it these days we feel like we MUST express an opinion about everything? How about if you don't like a speech, you sit respectfully, allow the person to finish speaking, and then make a mental note not to listen to that person ever again?

It is the mentality that we should have some control over the speech of others that is upsetting, regardless if it is turning off a mike or booing someone off the stage.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Censoring a speech that thanked Satan would still be censorship, though. You implied that private schools wouldn't censor.

I'm sure many Christian schools would censor a validictorian's speech that gave a sermon as well, BTW.

Was not my intent to imply that they didn't. I was sticking to the topic at hand where people think only speeches that mention God get censored.

I guess I should have clarified better.

 

[LuvDuke]

discuss...

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5042317&nav=15MV

Personally, the skoool was waaaaaay out of bounds rejecting her first speech. So she committed it to memory and used that one in her speech. As soon as she deviated from the new "approved" speech and mentioned God, they cut off her microphone (as they said they would). They said she couldn't reference God because it was proselytizing. Yeah, OK.

What a nice way to ruin such a special moment for her.

Boy, she really showcased those religious values: First she LIES about what she's going to say, then she uses the opportunity to further her own agenda, and apparently never gives a second thought if her actions would potentially ruin the moment for the rest of the group.

Some heroine you got there, John.

Btw, I've been to 4 graduations in the last month and God was mentioned quite a few times. Glenn Beck and the rest of the rightwing must've missed those moments.

 

[cardaway]

Why is it these days we feel like we MUST express an opinion about everything? How about if you don't like a speech, you sit respectfully, allow the person to finish speaking, and then make a mental note not to listen to that person ever again?

It is the mentality that we should have some control over the speech of others that is upsetting, regardless if it is turning off a mike or booing someone off the stage.

Of course not, but I don't think anybody would go for people getting up on stage and there not being any control over what they say. Whether it be asking for the speech before hand or having somebody in charge of the off button, I think everybody would agree somebody should have control at some level.

 

[eclectics]

Agreed.

But she still broke the rules--which is why there is censorship. Students have brought it upon themselves in years past which is why we are where we are right now.

Yes it is "sad" that she cannot speak uncensored. But had she simply read her agreed upon speech--there would have been no issue. She was provided a consquence for this action. She ruined her own moment.

ITA. And I believe what she said should be secondary in this case. It's why she said what she said that should be the focus. A valedictorian should think of the entire student body and the school itself, not just herself. She is representing the entire school. To deliberately change her agreed upon (PC arguement aside, she did agree to it) speech is selfish and having the ceremony disrupted was entirely her fault and not fair to her fellow students. I'm all for free speech but there are certain venues to do it in and ruining all the other students and their parent's day just to get your point across is very immature, imho.

 

[LuvDuke]

Haven't we all reaslized yet that free speech applies to everyone in this country excpet for those who believe in God?

Haven't we all realized that the martyr act really is ridiculous in a country in which nearly 80% of the population identifies themselves with some religious group? Apparently, some haven't.

There's an awful lot of seemingly intelligent people who have no idea what "separation of Chruch and State" really means. And that's shame.

I think most intelligent people understand very well what the concept "separation of Church and state" means. It's that significant minority who can't grasp the idea that "separation of Church and state" does not mean relious groups can run roughshod over the rest of us and the state has to look the other way.

Again, I went to 4 graduations in the last month and God didn't seem to have a problem at any of them.

 

[beattyfamily]

I think she should have been able to give her speech the way it was written but I also think that she should have followed the school's ruling although I strongly disagree with it.

 

[poohandwendy]

A few people including myself have already covered the fact that we have not seen or heard what she was going to say.

So how about it, should the audience be able to boo the person off the stage if they don't like what she is saying?

Absolutely...being booed off the stage is not censorship. It's one thing for people to express they don't like what you are saying, a whole other thing for an organization to stop you from expressing your views regarding religion.

I would like to hear what she actually said.

 

[DawnCt1]

You might think it's sad we have to censor a Valedictory speech. I agree, but I also think it's just as sad that the top student needs to act childish, rebellious, and lacking in consideration for her fellow graduates by turning her speech into a sermon.

.

What I think is sad is why a paid graduation speaker has to turn his paid speech into an opportunity to promote his left wing agenda, as did happen at DSs graduation this past weekend. Even the visiting college students from Boston noticed it and they are definately used to liberalism in the schools. I would much rather hear from a successful student telling her class what inspired her to greatness. If for her it was Jesus, what is wrong with that?

 

[diznygirl]

ITA. And I believe what she said should be secondary in this case. It's why she said what she said that should be the focus. A valedictorian should think of the entire student body and the school itself, not just herself. She is representing the entire school. To deliberately change her agreed upon (PC arguement aside, she did agree to it) speech is selfish and having the ceremony disrupted was entirely her fault and not fair to her fellow students. I'm all for free speech but there are certain venues to do it in and ruining all the other students and their parent's day just to get your point across is very immature, imho.

She knew the rules, she broke the rules. They told her what would happen if she broke the rules - they followed through when she did.

And yes, it was very immature and selfish of her to do this knowing what would happen. I guess she has book smarts, but no common sense.

 

[poohandwendy]

Ok, going only by what we do know, this is what the article said:

The microphone cut out after the valedictorian at Foothill High made reference to God.

It does not say after she turned her speech into a sermon, but after she 'made reference to' God.

And it also says that she said:"God's love is great"...sorry, were is the offense here? Where is the sermon?

I think the school made a bad call. I also think the girl made a bad call by not doing what she agreed to. IMO, she should have tried to get a speech approved that reflected her feelings, but I wonder if there is any speech allowed that mentions God in that school? Did they nix any mention or did they think her speech was too religious?

I am just wondering though, lets say that she had been a drug user in middle school and wanted to mention her experience of moving beyond that. And lets say the school said, nope...can't mention drug use, totally inappropriate. I wonder how many people would be upset with her for going ahead and saying it anyways because she feels strongly about it?

On the one hand, we applaud people for standing up for what they think is the right thing, even if they break rules in the process. Like Rosa Parks, for instance. I guess it just depends on the issue.

 

[cardaway]

Absolutely...being booed off the stage is not censorship. It's one thing for people to express they don't like what you are saying, a whole other thing for an organization to stop you from expressing your views regarding religion.

Well then we disagree again. Had the school approved a speech full of religious references, and the audience booed the person off the stage, then I would be saying the audience was out of line. The speaker in this situation deserves to be able to finish the speech as long as the speeker is not breaking the rules. In that was to happen I would hope the people in charge would tell the audience to quiet down.

 

[poohandwendy]

She knew the rules, she broke the rules. They told her what would happen if she broke the rules - they followed through when she did.

And yes, it was very immature and selfish of her to do this knowing what would happen. I guess she has book smarts, but no common sense.

Would you say the same thing about Rosa Parks?

 

[poohandwendy]

Well then we disagree again. Had the school approved a speech full of religious references, and the audience booed the person off the stage, then I would be saying the audience was out of line. The speaker in this situation deserves to be able to finish the speech as long as the speeker is not breaking the rules. In that was to happen I would hope the people in charge would tell the audience to quiet down.

Oh, I would agree. But you are talking apples and oranges. The people have a right to express their discontent, rude or not. And the school has the right to tell them to stop. The difference is that booing someone is merely an expression of disagreement. Taking the microphone away when at the mention of God is censorship.

 

[Crankyshank]

How is that ANY different than her mentioning that her parents, friends, teachers helped her through the years? Since when has expressing how you came to the place you are become 'childish, rebellious or lacking in consideration'? That is her personal experience, why does it bother someone else that she feels God was an inspiration in her life...whatever the source, isn't it a positive thing for her to mention what inspired her?

Why not just not allow Valedictorians NO speech if it is so ''tedious'' to have to listen to their personal reflections? Haven't they earned that 5 minutes?

I said thanking God is fine. The article said there was *several* mentions of God and Jesus Christ. That's a bit more than saying "thanks for your support" or saying she wouldn't have gotten where she is without God. The childish and rebellious part is knowing her speech was not allowed and still saying it. I don't see them turning off the mic at the first sign of a God mention - I see it as a they realized she is going to read the rejected speech, they knew what was in the speech, and they shut the mic off before she really got into her sermon.

Yes they earned their 5 minutes. But the point of a Valedictory speech is not an acceptance for the Oscar speech - it's supposed to be enlightening and inspirational. I don't know many people that would find a sermon at a public school graduation enlightening or inspirational.

 

[ducklite]

The article states that half of her original speech was cut due to multiple references to God and Jesus Christ. That sounds to me like it went from being a brief and appropriate thank you to a sermon.

Anne

 

[poohandwendy]

. I don't know many people that would find a sermon at a public school graduation enlightening or inspirational.

If that is the standard, then probably half of the valedictorians should have the microphones turned off because I have heard many speeches that I have not found enlightening or inspirational.

In my opinion, the valedictorians speech is about what enlightened and inspired the valedictorian.