Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1412
Location: Nouvelle Orléans, Louisiane
lmao.. well said from the First Lady herself
I'm working on my response - will have one out soon. I haven't thrown my hands up yet of this!! _________________ "You can't kiss and keep your eyes open, they'll cross forever" - Rubyfruit Jungle
quote:Originally posted by HawaiianEyes:
OK, I know that this is off topic, but in the military you haven't any right to be gay. If you do tell, you will be dishonorably discharged. If they do ask, and you lie but there is evidence to the contrary, then you will be discharged. The "don't ask, don't tell" thinking is greater than just an imposition on free speech, it is about freedom to be.
~Hawn
Hawn it is wonderful to have you joining the discussion. As I had intended to tell Dance, this is not off topic or off base...not totally anyway.
I will not defend the military on the way they treat homosexuals but I will provide a little additional information and if it appears that I am defending them let it be known that I am not. I am only providing additional information that is pursuant to the fact that not all homosexuals in the military who come out are dishonorably discharged. Since the don’t ask don’t tell policy was implemented more homosexuals receive an honorable discharge than a dishonorable.
Qualification standards for enlistment appointment, and induction section B 8 deals with homosexual conduct.
Section B 8 c 2 it basically states:
Nothing in the procedures requires rejection into the armed forces if it is in the best interest of the armed forces. (This section for all intents and purposes gives the military and out if they wish to use it)
Department of defense directive 1332.14 revised December 21, 1993 also deals with this issue but there is nothing like section B 8 c 2 above but it does cover separation from service. By the guidelines called out in 1332.14 it is rather difficult to get a dishonorable discharge solely on the basis of being a homosexual.
Under 1332.14 Part 1 H 3 explains that:
3. Characterization or Description. Characterization of service or description of separation shall be in accordance with the guidance in section C. of Part 2. When the sole basis for separation is homosexual conduct, a characterization Under Other Than Honorable Conditions may be issued only if such a characterization is warranted under section C. of Part 2 and there is a finding that during the current term of service the member attempted, solicited, or committed a homosexual act in the following circumstances:
a. By using force, coercion, or intimidation;
b. With a person under 16 years of age;
c. With a subordinate in circumstances that violate customary military superior-subordinate relationships;
d. Openly in public view;
e. For compensation;
f. Aboard a military vessel or aircraft; or
g. In another location subject to military control under aggravating circumstances noted in the finding that have an adverse impact on discipline, good order, or morale comparable to the impact of such activity aboard a vessel or aircraft.
Only if any of the above H 3 a-g is met or if there are other disfavorable marks on their record that would constitute poor service would a homosexual get a less than honorable discharge.
I know it is hard to suffer through “change” but it is clear and the writing is on the wall…we will win.
As Osborn recalled his commanding officer saying…"he thought the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was a violation of people's civil rights." I totally agree with that but it is a step toward what we want and will eventually have. Sometimes we do not like these small baby steps but we must not forget that most often they lead us to our ultimate goal. We just can’t stop fighting…ever.
quote:Originally posted by Mdm Prez:
It seems like it's all been said here. I've been following it daily, and I commend each of you for your opinions. So I'm going to respond here
in a totally different way:
I LOVE INTELLIGENT LESBIANS!!!!!!!!!
Cat
Mdm...I hop up on your lap...look you in the eyes and lean in kissing along your cheek then I nibble on your ear and softly whisper...what about ones like me hmmmm?
quote:Originally posted by chordphrute:
lmao.. well said from the First Lady herself
I'm working on my response - will have one out soon. I haven't thrown my hands up yet of this!!
Chord...
I am drumming my fingers on the desk waiting...
Looking at my watch...still nothing
singing do wa diddty diddty dum ditty do
still nothing...
I keep waiting
LOLOLOL
Eiregirl
Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:50 am
Mdm Prez
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 1536
Location: U.S. of A.
chord
I count you as one of 'them', i.e., intelligent lesbians. You appear to be very bright to me, chord.
Cat _________________ If you're not getting the answers you want,
you're not asking the right questions.
Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:29 pm
Mdm Prez
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 1536
Location: U.S. of A.
Eire
Gee, Eire, you didn't have to go to all of that trouble, I already think you are quite intelligent. But, thanks anyway.
Cat _________________ If you're not getting the answers you want,
you're not asking the right questions.
Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:31 pm
DanceofSorrows
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 2837
Eire,
You have made some excellent points. The whole conversation stirred many things within me and as to whether or not we come to a conclusion of the end process or not, I have apprechiated your feedback and well thought out answers. Cheers.
You have made some excellent points. The whole conversation stirred many things within me and as to whether or not we come to a conclusion of the end process or not, I have apprechiated your feedback and well thought out answers. Cheers.
Dance~
Dance,
Thank you very much for being a part of this discussion. Many wonderful points and comments have been made by everyone who participated. If nothing else I hope this discussion causes people to think about how important the freedom of speech is. I hope it brings some understanding that to deny someone that freedom today we may be denying ourselves and the following generations that very freedom tomorrow.
To everyone,
There will always be things said that offend people no matter how innocently, respectfully or responsibly those things are said and when someone is offended it should not always be the person doing the talking that needs to shut up or apologize for what they said because there are choices being made on the part of the listener…most importantly they are listening when nobody is pointing a gun at their head…there are many other choices being made as well most of which have been discussed in this thread. It is not always the listener who is offended. More often than most people know there are people denied the right to speak and they too have the right to be offended for whatever cause or reason they were denied that right.
This I suppose is one of the conclusions that can be made…at least from my point of view…it all boils down to the choices we make…the choice of whether to speak or not…the choice of whether to listen to the speaker or not…the choice of whether we want this freedom or not.
Eiregirl
P.S.
Drumming my fingers on the desk looking at Chord
Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:35 am
chordphrute
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1412
Location: Nouvelle Orléans, Louisiane
ta da...
This has only taken a few months... *ahem*...
After re-reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading the speech, I find that this speech clearly abuses the privilege of free speech in a school setting. I know this is completely contradictory to everything else I've said but hear me... It is exacerbated so much that she violates the rights of others’ freedom of religion. Indeed, I agree that yes we have constitutional rights, and that these rights should not be violated.
This speech clearly crosses the line of decency for a Valedictorian speech. When reading the speech, one will find that only maybe 10% percent of the speech is dedicated to its purpose. Yes, indeed it is acceptable for the student to have talked about or listed the inspiration for her success, but you have to do so with the decency and respect for others to not abuse this privilege and began proselytizing.
In addition, it is the school’s responsibility to ensure that any event it presents or sponsors does not violate the separation of church and state. In this case, the school takes on the role of sponsorship. Being that this is a public school, 90% of its funds come from taxpayers. Therefore, it has to “censure” anything that “represents” the school. In this case, the censorship takes place with Brittney McComb’s speech.
Brittney’s speech first starts off well with the “blocks” metaphors. At this point, the contents of her speech are related to and directly correlate with the affair. Even when she states, “thank the Lord for patient teachers” is acceptable. The speech is still acceptable until she begins to talk about the hole/void in her life that God has filled. This is where she begins to proselytize.
The first instance of proselytizing begins when she says that God’s love (or lack thereof for some) is something that we all desire. This is not true for every person attending that stadium. You asked where in her speech is she trying to induce/convert anyone; this is where it begins. For someone who is an Agnostic, God doesn’t exist until concrete evidence is produced. For someone who is an Atheist, God doesn’t exist at all. For someone of the Muslim religion, God’s love is certainly not desired. For someone who is Buddhist, God’s love is not desired. So, she has not only begin to violate the rights of others to attend a public event, paid for with their tax dollars, and not have to be concerned about being bombarded with religious testimonies, but she has also violated their right to freedom of religion. The content of the speech proselytizes in everyway possible. In fact, she even admits that this is what she was trying to do.
She starts off with stating that everyone desires God’s love. Then on top of that, she states that God's love is so great that he gave His only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace. She even quotes the BIBLE. Man, imagine if you are Jewish and you are still waiting for the “Savior” to arrive, or better yet, your religious beliefs aren’t based on the content of the Bible. She goes on to say why Christ died and assumes that everyone believes that Christ died for him or her. Indeed she was not directly inducing, but clearly anyone can see that she implied incitement, and indirectly encouraged others to accept Christ, etc. This is ludicrous. It is unacceptable for this type of content to be a part of a Valedictorian speech sponsored by a public school system who’s funds come from taxpayers of all different religious backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs.
Furthermore, you stated that, “…as long as a person takes responsibility for what they say, as long as they are respectful of others opinions, as long as they are honest in there opinions then I have no problem whatsoever with what they say.” Should a conflict arrives, I can assure you the student will not bare the responsibility. It is the school and the school district that allowed this speech to take place that will bare the brunt of the responsibility. Parents and taxpayers entrust school administration to create and enforce policy that will protect the rights of all individuals, and this is exactly what the school district was doing. Furthermore, this speech was not respectful to everyone attending. Yes, you make a reference to the select few that did not find it disrespectful; however, you are basing your opinions from what is more than likely a biased news report.
Her proselytizing is clearly “cut-out” (as Brittney would say) in the speech with the Biblical references to support it. You asked, “What gives one group of people (minority or majority) the right to infringe upon the rights of another group of people?” As I watch news and take in the pain that evolves from hearing right-winged conservatives push the “Christian” agenda, I ask myself that very same question everyday. _________________ "You can't kiss and keep your eyes open, they'll cross forever" - Rubyfruit Jungle
Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:17 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
A handful of points occur to me.
My first reaction is why is it always
Christian
speeches which attract so much hostility? I have not heard this particular speech and will not set myself up as an apologist for it; however, it is noticeable (certainly in the UK, I don't know about anywhere else) that you can say anything you like, but mention Jesus Christ and oh boi are you in trouble!
Granted that Chrsitians tend to be overt proselytizers.
Free speech exists. It is necessary to maintain that freedom, whatever your beliefs, by testing it, pushing the envelope, daring to be controversial or even offensive, risking reaction, saying things at "inappropriate" times or in "inappropriate" places. If the impetus of conscience, or the word of God, or your own desire to be heard drives you, then you must dare, and dare at the risk or wrath and ridicule. (In the past, I have preached in the street, impelled by I-knew-not-what at the time; no doubt there were passers by who were profoundly irritated by my presence and by my voice.) In the context of "inappropriateness" a Valedictorian Address is pretty low on the sliding scale.
A small point, but an important one. Many evangelical Christians believe very sincerely that we all
do
desire God's love, whether we realise it, whether we deny it, whether we deny God's existence even. They believe that sincerely and compassionately and they express it. That expression is not always welcome, but it is inevitable where freedom of speech is allowed.
Now we come down to it - The "Religious Right". They irritate me as much as the next person - I have profound problems with their theology and their political assumptions, and most of all with their self-righteousness (yes,
self
righteousness - theirs is
not
the righteousness of God). Their influence is irritating. But I am afraid this goes with the territory when we consider free speech. The freedom they exercise is the freedom you/we exercise.
If we disagree with Brittney, we have the right to confront her, remembering that she is not a towering intellect, and probably doesn't even realise she has courted controversy. We have very little right to demand anyone's silence.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:57 am
Start Over
Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 222
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos
I'm afraid I agree with most of Mairi's points, her first especially.
I will admit you made some good points but I am not convinced.
Hugs you tight...and without further ado...
No she is not violating the freedom of religion of anyone and that is a very simple fact. I would challenge you to prove that she did. She did not tell anyone they could not worship as their own religion tells them too. She did not force anyone to convert from their religion to hers. She did not even belittle any other religion. I am sorry Chord but there is absolutely no way for you to defend that statement.
If this speech abuses the right of free speech and crosses the line of decency for a Valedictorian speech then there are a ton of Valedictorian speeches given in the United States every year that abuse that right and cross that line but in this case and in my opinion it was the school district that abused the right a free speech.
A person has the privilege to have a drivers license but they have the right of free speech. Free speech is not a privilege it is a Constitutional right in the United States and the right of every citizen of the United States.
If you are willing to have a debate we can discuss the so called separation of church and state which by the way there are people from every religion and spiritual belief who stand on both sides of this issue of which was not upheld by the Supreme Court until around 1947 if I recall correctly. Up to 1947 it had been slapped down by the Supreme Court a few times.
I agree that when a person gives a speech, any speech…they should do so with decency, with an amount respect to those listening and they should be responsible by being honest in what they say. If they do that then they can say whatever they want and if it offends me…well I will be offended with pride in knowing the rights of the Constitution are holding strong.
As I have stated many times…you will never convince me that she was proselytizing. Was she preachy in what she wanted to say…but never got to say…yes she was. I have even given in and agreed she was preaching but I’m never going to agree that she was proselytizing because in my personal opinion from reading her speech she was not.
The schools responsibility…aside from helping parents educate their children (I feel it is the parents primary responsibility)…well hmmm is it the schools responsibility to create mindless robots that are afraid to say what is on their mind. Is it the schools responsibility to teach our children not to think for themselves and that they cannot say anything that may offend someone. Do all of the schools teach our children that they must think this and not that…that they can say this but that…hmmm I’m looking at my little girl now and thinking very hard that she just might be home schooled. However, I don’t think that is what you mean by a schools responsibility…you stated,
“it is the school’s responsibility to ensure that any event it presents or sponsors does not violate the separation of church and state. In this case, the school takes on the role of sponsorship. Being that this is a public school, 90% of its funds come from taxpayers. Therefore, it has to “censure” anything that “represents” the school. In this case, the censorship takes place with Brittney McComb’s speech.”
Like I said before…if you want to have a discussion on the separation of church and state…bring it on and I will be more than happy to discuss it with you. Sweetie I totally disagree with those last two sentences and here is one of the reasons why… Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, requires the Secretary of Education to issue guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. The secretary of education adhered to this requirement and issued the following in regards to a graduation ceremony.
“School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech such as prayer. Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate, neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech (whether religious or nonreligious) is the speaker's and not the school's.”
I think that is very clear…under Section 9524 the Secretary of Education is to establish the guidelines and did so by issuing those guidelines. The guidelines regarding a graduation ceremony state that “Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria…” That person will retain primary control over the content of their speech. It also says in long drawn out words that the school is not responsible for the speech given and the school can, if they choose to do so, make a neutral disclaiming statement which would further make it clear that the school was not and is not responsible for any statements made. Now tell me…did Foothills High School follow those guidelines? Did the school district follow those guidelines? I…don’t…think…so. The school districts own regulations reflect these guidelines almost word for word under Clark County School District Regulation 6113.2. So did the school follow the regulation… I…don’t…think…so.
You stated that “Parents and taxpayers entrust school administration to create and enforce policy that will protect the rights of all individuals, and this is exactly what the school district was doing. Furthermore, this speech was not respectful to everyone attending. Yes, you make a reference to the select few that did not find it disrespectful; however, you are basing your opinions from what is more than likely a biased news report.”
I don’t think the school based it policy on the policy set forth by the Secretary of Education under Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. I did not make a reference to a select few based on biased news reports. I made it very clear in one of my replies that I diligently searched newspapers, television news reports, the radio, and searched the internet for any person that was in attendance (other than school officials) who were offended by what she had said (before she was cut off) or by what she was going to say and I found none. I also asked for anyone reading this thread that if they knew of anyone or had seen any report of anyone who was in attendance that was offended to please post that information for us to read or where we can find that information and nobody has done that.
It really does not matter what the content of her speech was. It really does not even matter whether she was proselytizing or not. She could have been up there at the podium saying how the Wicked Witch of the West, Gaia (she is cool), Buddha or whoever was the inspiration for her success and why they were that inspiration and she would have still had the right to do it and the school had no right to cut her off.
As long as there are people who exercise the “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” there will be people who get offended by what that person says…it does not matter where it is or who is exercising that right. If you are in front of a group of people giving a speech the chances are there will be someone in the audience who will be offended by what is said. When should we not give the speech? Is it when one person is offended? Ten? A hundred? Or should we base it on a percentage…20% or 50%. A person can give the most wonderful speech you ever heard. They can do it with the utmost of respect and responsibility and exercise the highest standards of honesty and decency. They could make it widely known what the speech will be about. They can make it known that only people who wish to hear what will be said should attend and there will still be people who are offended by what that person has to say and guess what…99 percent of those people who get offended will not even hear what is said…they will be offended simply because that person gave that speech. And that is a fact.
I wonder if we stop fighting for our rights whether in the United States, Ireland or anywhere will we have any 10…20 years from now…will they be slowly stripped away from us. If my daughter is lucky enough to stand in front of her graduating class will she be able to speak her mind. If she chooses to do so will she be able to say that two gay women inspired her to succeed? Or will she be able to say she was religiously inspired by whatever religion she chooses to follow and will she be able to say why it inspired her?
I look at it as an equal opportunity to offend society…no offense intended and I will defend your right to offend and be offended
Hugs,
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
I agree with what you said and it was said very well.
Two of the greatest freedoms anyone can have are the freedoms of speech and religion. Men and women around this world have died fighting for these freedoms and millions upon millions have shed their blood fighting to keep and maintain those freedoms. I for one would rather die fighting to keep those freedoms than live in a place that would take those freedoms away. Can you imagine what it is like to live in fear that someone will be offended by what you say or believe? We have friends who have lived in places where if they said the wrong thing to the wrong person they may not wake up the next morning. There are people in many countries that if they speak out against the government they could easily end up dead.
Here we are talking about what a high school senior said (or wanted to say) at her graduation ceremony. We are talking about what this girl wanted to say in what is widely thought of as the freest country on this planet and we are talking about why anyone in a free society would want her to shut her blanking mouth because someone is or might be offended by what she has to say. It still just boggles my mind that people get so offended to the point that they would want to deny someone those very precious freedoms when there are people who would lay down their very life to have such freedom.
Why?
Now I know there are times and places where it is not appropriate or would be better to not talk about or say certain things…but with that aside…
Why are people so afraid to talk about religion…to talk about politics? Ohh but Evee we don’t want to offend anyone…who gives a purple bunnies pink ass if it offends anyone…the reason people get offended is because they don’t discuss it openly. They don’t engage in discussions about it and by that act of not engaging they make it a taboo subject. If a person knows where you stand and they know what you think about certain things they will be less likely to get offended by what you say and more likely to engage in discussions with you. Then you have the exchange of ideas and knowledge. Now you have a more amicable coexistence. But no we can’t talk openly about “taboo” subjects in public…we would not want to offend anyone. I am not talking just about religion and politics because there are other topics that many people can find offensive but those are the two major topics that people get offended by…Why?
Shrugs…I still see it as an equal opportunity to offend society and I will defend your right to be offended.
Here I go rambling on again so I will stop here (I heard someone say "about time")
I just love a good discussion
Hugs you tight,
Eiregirl _________________ All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are
Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine
These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.
Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:21 am
Mairi bheag
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 5094
Location: Scotland
We should acknowledge that the very fact that some statements cause offence means that freedom of speech is being exercised. Diversity involves tension, or it is not diversity at all, but suppression.
By the way, in Britain today, a woman was suspended from work for wearing a cross round her neck.
Mb
xx
_________________ all posted material (c) Marie Marshall, unless otherwise stated.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Gallery
FAQ
Profile PM's 
