Mairi…that is again very well said and I hope that woman sues the hell out of whoever and makes herself a nuisance to them.
“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.”
That reminds me of a question I asked in a previous post…“Would you agree to a ban that says students cannot wear conspicuous religious symbols in public schools?” This actually happened and a law was passed in France…I think it was in 2004 that bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in schools. Belgium also implemented a ban in 2005 on wearing turbans in schools. I have heard that Italy tried to ban the wearing of crucifixes. There are Muslim countries that prohibit practicing in other religions in public.
I agree that having and exercising the freedom of speech can and does cause some to take offense about what someone else has said. This can and has caused tension to increase and in some cases increase to the point of open conflict of which can be good or bad depending on what the conflict is about. I feel it is wrong to try and suppress the speech of anyone who wishes to express themselves especially when they are not being malicious or disrespectful of others. If they are being honest in what they say, respectful in what they say and take responsibility for what they say then why the hell not let them say it instead of trying to shut them up?
I better stop there before I start rambling again
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.
Sun Oct 15, 2006 1:14 am
chordphrute
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1412
Location: Nouvelle Orléans, Louisiane
Don't get me started on the NCLB Act of 2001 - I will fight until I die for that legislation to be revoked. I promise you I am well versed in guidelines and legislation put forth by the U.S. Department of Education. I have written pages and pages in response to your latest post, but it will continue to be cyclical so I have not included it because we could get as technical as we wanted with footnotes and a bibliography included in each one of our posts, and neither of us will change our minds. On this issue, I am taking the stance of a future public school administrator and in doing so, I believe am protecting the rights of all - not just a select few. Go back and reread the entire unedited speech - change every word 'God' to Allah or Buddha or the pink panther - and people would still have a fit. It would be proselytizing in my opinion, no matter the religious label. I absolutely believe she was proselytizing. You do not. It would be a good thing to take a step back and realize that we are talking about a High School student who is representing an entire class with a speech, but not only that - she is representing the school. I've exhausted all energy toward this at this time.
Gassho.
_________________ "You can't kiss and keep your eyes open, they'll cross forever" - Rubyfruit Jungle
You and everyone who has responded to this thread have been wonderful to debate with. As you have all probably noticed I love a good discussion and when any of you or anyone else wants to pick up on this again I will be more than happy to continue with it or until I find something else I want to say
I have very much enjoyed this discussion and hope we can have many more.
As to your latest reply…
I would much rather you took the stance of a citizen of the United States instead of a future school administrator and I do realize that she was only a high school student but I also realize she is an American citizen with all the rights the Constitution and laws of the United States grants her and every citizen of the United States. It is because of those rights that we have been able to have this debate and I find that to be a wonderful thing.
In my opinion it does not matter if she was proselytizing or not I would still defend her right to give her speech and if it was something that offended me so what I would get over it and move on with my life.
Could she have been more respectful in her speech to other religions…she was not disrespectful to any at all so perhaps she could have mentioned how people of other beliefs could be inspired by their own beliefs and that would have been more respectful but she still did not show any disrespect. Could she have been more responsible in her speech…she was fully responsible and took responsibility for everything she had to say. Was she honest in what she said…in her opinion she was totally honest. Was she held accountable for her speech…yes rightfully or wrongfully she is being held accountable.
To me it is clear the school did not follow their own policy, they did not follow school district regulations, they did not follow the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, they did not follow the NCLB Act of 2001 and ultimately they stepped on her Constitutional rights. It does not matter whether we like what she was going to say or not. It does not matter whether she was proselytizing or not. It does not matter whether it was appropriate or not. It does not matter if anyone was offended or going to be offended or not she still had the right to speak.
As Mistress in all of her wisdom said about her preacher preaching politics from the pulpit, “i don't want to hear politics from the pulpit and i don't want to hear religion from the White House.” She felt what her preacher was doing was inappropriate and told him so. I agree that it was inappropriate as I also feel that Miss McCombs speech was somewhat inappropriate even though she was respectful and responsible with what she said but that still does not change the fact that she had the right to speak.
Giggle…Deb just told me that she is pretty sure that if we all had been locked in a room together talking about this all of you would have conspired to gag me LOLOL...hmmm
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.
Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:43 am
Guest
gag... and the rest!
Mb
xx
Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:21 am
Guest
I do not agree that we can or must separate politics and religion. Religion is not simple a matter of one's
idiotikos
but, as every philosophy is a moral philosopy because it inevitably governs our actions, it is a matter also of one's
politikos
.
Whilst it might irritate the heck out of me, what is said from the pulpit or on the stump is in the public arena. I would not expect a preacher to confine himself or herself to theology, because any religion has its social consequence, and simply must extend into the outside world. Similarly, no politician can or chould be divorced from his or her philosophy, nor should he or she be silenced from making that plain in the political arena.
I quote Mohandas K Gandhi, the Mahatma:
"Human life being an undivided whole, no line can ever be drawn between its different compartments, not between ethics and politics. A trader who earns his wealth by deception only succeeds in deceiving himself when he thinks that his sins can be washed away by spending some amount of his ill-gotten gains on the so-called religious purposes. One's everyday life is never capable of being separated from one's spiritual being. Both act and react upon one another."
"I CLAIM that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another."
And most famously:
"
Those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means
."
OK you may say that Gandhi and Brittney are very different, but I am sure the former would have defended the latter's rights.
quote:Originally posted by Anonymous:
gag... and the rest!
Mb
xx
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.
OK you may say that Gandhi and Brittney are very different, but I am sure the former would have defended the latter's rights.
Mb
xx
Mairi,
There is a very big difference between Brittney and Gandhi…one has nice boobs…and there are many different philosophies in the world and most of them coexist harmoniously to a great extent while others go against and attack the very foundations of others. One extreme example would be the philosophy of a communistic society verses a capitalistic society. Both have advantages and disadvantages but do not coexist very well within the same society.
I agree with what you have said as I also agree with Gandhi however…I do find it inappropriate for a preacher, priest, priestess or rabbi or any religious/spiritual teacher to talk politics during a service but I do believe they have the right to do so and I will argue their right to do so. If they wish to make their political views known I feel it would be more appropriate for them to do it before the service or after the service or at any other time and I would say it is appropriate but during the service I find it inappropriate. That does not mean I do not think they have the right…because they do…just as I have the right to leave the building or stay and listen. On another note however in some societies it is perfectly acceptable because the spiritual leader is part of the governing entity of the society.
I also feel it is inappropriate for a person in government to preach religion to me…while I do not want them preaching to me I do expect them to follow there beliefs not only in their lives but in their job as well whether they are elected or not. For those who were elected, if the people who elected them do not like the decisions they make or the way they make those decisions…if they do not like the way the person they elected is doing the job then they should elect someone else. I personally like knowing why and how someone I elected or someone who represents me in government make the decisions they make on my behalf.
I will stop here…but if you would like to discuss the so called “separation of church and state” let me know.
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.
Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:35 am
chordphrute
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1412
Location: Nouvelle Orléans, Louisiane
Eire, you're just itching to discuss the separation between Church and State. Let's do it. _________________ "You can't kiss and keep your eyes open, they'll cross forever" - Rubyfruit Jungle
Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:13 am
Start Over
Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 222
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos
yes, lets do it!
(hint: it's NOT in the Constitution)
Cheers
Start
Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:49 am
chordphrute
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 1412
Location: Nouvelle Orléans, Louisiane
quote:Originally posted by Start Over:
yes, lets do it!
(hint: it's NOT in the Constitution)
Cheers
Start
ohh we know that much.. i know Eire's got something up her sleeve.. c'mon i'm foaming at the mouth here. _________________ "You can't kiss and keep your eyes open, they'll cross forever" - Rubyfruit Jungle
quote:Originally posted by chordphrute:
Eire, you're just itching to discuss the separation between Church and State. Let's do it.
Since you are twisting my arm...it is on the board under a new thread.
Hugs...with untwisted arm
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.
quote:Originally posted by Start Over:
yes, lets do it!
(hint: it's NOT in the Constitution)
Cheers
Start
Hugs start tight...that is very true...but some countries do have it in the constitution.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Start Over:
yes, lets do it!
(hint: it's NOT in the Constitution)
Cheers
Start
ohh we know that much.. i know Eire's got something up her sleeve.. c'mon i'm foaming at the mouth here.
Chord...you can stop foaming at the mouth and go read...I await your reply.
Can't wait to see how you can possibly wiggle out of this one LOL
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.
Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:13 am
Azraelle
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 39
I wish I had the energy to read all the replies ._. But it's three in the morning and I have work tomorrow, so.
This is my simple reply:
I don't think it's right that they turned her mic off, but I don't think it was right of her to be inconsiderate towards the people in the audience, either. Think about it. If a Satanist got up there and started ranting about killing and raping people, the entire crowd probably would've been ticked at the *school*. Not the person saying it. However, since Christianity is the social moral standard, people are ranting about how they can't express their beliefs.
Kinda twisted, isn't it? Imagine if over 90% of the population worshipped Satan.
While turning off the microphone seemed a bit of a hasty and judgemental decision on the school's part, the girl should have realized not everyone appreciates being preached to, and when the school board told her as much, she shouldn't have looked at it as "Oh, they're trying to stifle my beliefs", she should have realized they were doing it for the good of the school and keeping the people who would be in the audience in mind.
I have recently found some more information and I think it is of at least some importance to know.
Brittany, her parents and their attorney had been trying to contact the school district attorney to discuss the speech. According to a legal brief that was filed none of their calls were ever returned. It is very apparent to me that the school district did not even wish to talk about the speech. It is just my opinion but if they had returned the calls and talked with the McCombs something may have been worked out. But that really does not matter to me because I feel she still had the right to give her speech.
Azraelle…
It is a pleasure to have you join the discussion and I hope after you have revitalized yourself you will review all the replies…there have been some very good ones and I hope you enjoy reading them.
As to your reply I wish to thank you very much for it and I do appreciate your opinion.
She never got to finish the speech so she never really got the chance to offend anyone. I have still not been able to find any reports, articles or anything indicating that any students or parents or anyone (aside from school officials) who were in attendance that was offended. She was not talking about Satan and people were still ticked off at the school and the person saying it…and they were not even there to hear her speech. She might have been better off if she had talked about Satan…at least then they would have only been ticked off at the school.
It is not just Christians who rant…many religions get up on their soap box to rant and rave about how they cannot express themselves without other people trying to stomp on their right to express their beliefs. It appears that it is only Christians because they are the vast majority in the United States and the world for that matter. When a Muslim starts talking there are very few if any who try to keep them from talking but when a Christian does it…they come out of the hills telling them how they can’t be saying what they are saying…is that example 100% true…no its not but to many people that is how it appears.
I agree they were not trying to stifle her beliefs but I do feel they were stifling her rights.
To me with this particular instance the school was teaching the students and others that if someone says something you do not like you can shut them up so nobody can hear them. Even if there are more people who want to hear it than there are that don’t.
Azraelle I hope you go back and read all the replies and if there are questions or comments you would like to make I hope you ask them. I cannot speak for everyone but if there is anything I have said that you would like to discuss or have more clarification about all you have to do is let me know. I feel that anyone here will do the same.
Thank you again for your reply,
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.
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 
