College Conservative Movement

Students do not have full protection under "freedom of speech". It has been documented over and over again that some of their rights are degraded for the overall ability to educate all minors. Even if she was not touching on religion and instead was talking about someting contraversial the school has the right to shut her down.

“Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray while standing in synagogues and on street corners so that people can see them. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6).

Perhaps you don't understand. There are the narcissist Christians that think they are holier than anything else on this earth. However, most are not like that. Most Christians live life just like all non-Christians. However, Christians see god as a guiding light to get them through life in the most positive way. Is it really a violation of your rights to hear a speech with the word Jesus in it? Jesus did exist. It's just a question of whether you think he is holy or not. Many people speak of prominent figures in certain areas like politics and the sciences in a similar way. This is not criticized. Most valedictorians talk about what got them to the level of achievement that they have discovered. In her case, it was God. Why is it that a valedictorian has to lie about her driving force that led her to such a high level of success? It makes no sense. This is not a classroom. This is graduation and a valedictorian earned the right to give that speech. I fail to grasp how anyone of any faith can be offended by someone who holds something so near and dear to one’s heart. She does not force you to believe anything. She is just telling her story of how she got to that podium.

Is it really a violation of your rights to hear a speech with the word Jesus in it?

Yes, it would be. Our government says education and church are to remain separate. This allows all minors to be educated, no matter their beliefs, without harassment from others. This graduation is still a school event, so religion should not be included in the activity.

It does not matter who does or does not believe in God. Public schools cannot support religion, period. Just because she is the top student does not give her the right to break the rules already place.

How can this be different when the news cameras interview a winning player in the NCAA championship or the Super Bowl, and the player would like to thank his family, supporters, and Jesus? You cannot "bleep" it, and it would just bring up a hailstorm of criticism because we are overdoing it. So the player thanks God, good for him, move on.

I find some people keep on sticking to that word and sound so fearful, but it's just paranoia.

Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!

How can this be different when the news cameras interview a winning player in the NCAA championship or the Super Bowl, and the player would like to thank his family, supporters, and Jesus?

The protection exists in publicly-funded schools from K-12. NCAA, Super Bowl, and TV interviews are not part of K-12 edudcation. Those participants can go elsewhere if religion offends them. School students may only have the option to attend a single school, so they cannot go elsewhere if religion was allowed in the schools.

Our government has decided that educationing students is more important than the free practice of religion in public schools. Since it is one of the few places where religion has restrictions, I have no problem with it. Students have the right to get an education without having a religious doctrine forced on them.

This isn't the classroom. This is a speech at graduation. Nothing is being forced on anyone. This is just student saying what helped her to be successful. Why does it offend you so much to hear why other people are successful?

I do not think our government wants a "Godless America". Just like people have the right to practice the religion of their choice, we have provide the right for our children to be educated without having religion forced on them. I personally have no problem with it, as it should by a parents choice in how their children are raised with or without religion.

If we did not have separation of church and state, those without a religion or those that practice a religion that is in the minority, would face discrimination culturally, educationally, and in politics. To gain rights, someone must give up something. Those with religious beliefs are given the right to practice, but give up the right to practice it in schools (or other government activities) in order to create the right for everyone to have an education and participate in government activities. It is all a balance of rights.

In a related note, my wife taught in a Catholic School in the past. They were offered some of the same services as public schools, but with restrictions. For example, the government funded tutors were located in a trailer outside the school building, since they could not use a classroom that openly displayed religious materials. I government considers everyone equal in educational opportunities first, over religion.

This isn't the classroom. This is a speech at graduation. Nothing is being forced on anyone. This is just student saying what helped her to be successful. Why does it offend you so much to hear why other people are successful?

A graduation speech is STILL a school sponsored activity. All the students and/or families that do not believe in this person's religious beliefs have the right to enjoy their last moments of the educational experience through graduation without religion being part of the process.

Now we are getting too picky about this. If a student speaker chose to recognise Jesus among his many supporters and his family, but then talks about something different, does that really cross the line about promoting religion?

Or if the student would say "I like to thank Him for my achievements in becoming valedictorian."

I find this as a first step to white-washing the entire school curriculum so it is all happy and dorky, free of religion, ethnic, cultural, and socialeconomical criticism.

I think that we shouldn't teach evolution because some people might believe something different. Teaching evolution as fact rather than the theory it actually is, is worse than someone saying jesus in a freaking speach.

Evolution IS a Fact, you just don't understand the definition of theory as it refers to Science. It isn't a religion either. Believing something that isn't a true fact is called ignorance.

Evolution in the contexts of human origin is a theory. There have been genetic tests done that indicate we all are decendents of one female. Just because scientific data can back up a theory... doesn't mean it's a fact. There is scientific data that backs up creation.

This is not a debate on creation vs. evolution... this is a debate on the harm of saying the word Jesus in a speach. How long before kids get suspended for saying "Jesus!" when they are suprised by something.

God creating the world in 7 days is unscientific. Maybe we should have ask him to create two more Earths nearby so we can divide the human race up.

When the bible is translated, it does not directly translate into 7 DAYS, but 7 periods of time. That works with the fossil records.

LOL. now we are talking semantics and it depends on which faith you are a part of. Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth is 6000-10000 years old, and that the planet was created in just six literal days.

7 periods of time, now that's a laugh.

Humans evolved slowly from a pile of rocks... now that’s a laugh. I've always thought that my uncle had some rocks in his head. We all have our beliefs. Why is it if they are Christian, they are attacked by the ACLU? Her speech is not a state sponsored lesson; it is simply a speech describing how she reached such a high level of success. Do you want her to lie about how she became so successful because you don't posses the maturity or confidence in your own beliefs to hear beliefs other than your own?

I think that we should also censor future valedictorians' speeches so that they do not have any describing any human heroes as motivation for success. I would be offended because I may not find their heroes inspirational in any way. I may find their message to be something I do not agree with.

Humans evolved slowly from a pile of rocks... now that’s a laugh.

If this is your understanding of evolution, no wonder you have concerns.

It's called an over simplification to make a point. The fact of the matter is... in order for evolution to be true... life had to form from the elements of the earth. That can be described as the rocks of the earth.

Now here's a hole in the theory of evolution... where did all of the matter from the big bang come from? There is faith involved there by saying "it was always there." Sounds a bit like a religion to me. The only difference is Christians assume God always was. You assume that the matter always was. Both come to faith.

Let's not turn this into a debate on evolution vs. creation. Let's discuss the debate of the Godless nature of society.

No religion in schools does not equal a "Godless society".

Not allowing religion in school protects all children, no matter what religion they are or are not. It allows students to get an education without harassment for their beliefs. It protects Christians just as much as any group.

What if the speaker at the ceremony was a believer of witchcraft or a terrorist group driven by their beliefs? What if they were atheist and criticized all those that believe in a God? You cannot take a speech or school lecture back once it is offered, so to protect everyone in an educational setting you limit religion.

We do not allow hiring to be determined by religion. If we allow religion in school, we will need to allow all religions equally, even that of the educators. What if that instructor had an extreme religious belief that the majority of the community did not support? Well too bad, those kids are now forced to endure what ever this teacher wants to push.

You talk as if this is a class that is being taught. This is simply a graduation speech. There is a MAJOR difference between a graduation speech and the classroom. What about teachers and graduation speeches that promote liberal politics? Why is it ok for that but not religion?

If you do not treat all public funded education sponsored events the same, you just setting up major problems. There is no way to leglislate that it is OK at this event but not this event. Everyone that participated in this educational process with the right to protection from other's religious beliefs, should be able to enjoy their final celebration under the same protection.

What about teachers and graduation speeches that promote liberal politics? Why is it ok for that but not religion?

LAW

Saying that it is law to not have religion ever mentioned in a speech at graduation is debatable. That is what this whole debate is about. The rationale given on why it applies to freedom of religion is that people shouldn’t have to hear other people’s opinions on things if they don’t agree on it and it may cause them to be uncomfortable with their own beliefs. How do you think a conservative feels in the classroom when a teacher rips on President Bush?

The law is the rules that define separation of church and state. If you are trying to find a rule that specifically says "graduation ceremony", you can keep looking forever. I guess you need it more simple...Church=Religion, State=School, Graduation Ceremony held by School, therefore no religion

The laws due exist Chad, but maybe you are suggesting we redefine them.

The problem is our schools are funded by government/public funding. If schools allow religion, you have opened a whole can of worms, as the government would be funding religion. You would than have to fund all religions. Do you see the slippery slope it creates?

The law says that the state cannot establish an official state religion. It does not say that the public domain must be godless.

The problem is that some folks in the US want the country to be more religious. Europe is moving along a secular track since they have been through years of war due to religion.

I do not see how we could imagine people believing that the Earth is still flat, or that the world was really created in seven days, and that other groups think the planet is only a few thousand years old. It just does not make sense.

What does Europe have to do with the US? We have yet to have a religious war.

Despite what time they put on it, it is perfectly understandable to believe in creation of man. The bible can be translated to say 7 periods of time, not 7 days. It is likely that each "day" as it is translated into English stands for one period of time. This is consistent with fossil records.

The law says that the state cannot establish an official state religion. It does not say that the public domain must be godless.

Exactly, but consider this...

Government allows religion in schools. It would need to allow ALL religions and views. There would be no way to restrict was is being taught to students. Any restrictions would be consider an endorsement of one religion over another, and would establish as state religion.

Consider this... they allow religion in a graduation speech. Anyone can speak about their religion in their speech... no need for ANY government regulation.

What if a person with religious beliefs that the majority do not believe in is the valedictorian? What if a satanist, terrorist, cannibal, etc, won? You would have to let them speak as well.

Freedoms are being taken away piece by piece--especially for Christians. This young woman had every right to mention God and Jesus in her speech. She was not "preaching" as they said. She was sharing from her heart and thanking her God for everything. I don't understand this whole thing. They allow planned parenthood in the schools, "diversity" training (a way to allow the homosexuals to infiltrate the minds of our children), teaching evolution as fact, inappropriate books in student libraries and they're concerned about a 2 page speech that thanks God. Did I mention that the Bible was originally used in schools as a teaching tool? We so easily forget our roots and what made this nation strong: God.

very well said...

Freedoms are being taken away piece by piece--especially for Christians.

Separation of church and state has existed for a long time now. This did not just happen over night. Besides, it limits ALL religion in schools, so it is not a personal attack on Christians.

The fact of the matter is she that her mentioning the importance of her faith is not what got her mic cut, it was when she started proselytizing, a big difference. This conservative college student chose to conveniently leave that bit of information out, hurts the point you were trying to make , doesn't it? Where are the honest, rational conservatives? They seem to be a tiny minority.

I heard an interview with the admins who made the decision. They said that it was because she used the word "Jesus."

Chad, you very own posting said she was proselytizing. I like whenever people contradict your statements you ignore your very own evidence.

The admin said it was considered proselytizing BECAUSE she used the word "Jesus."

The word "proselytizing" means "To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another." The young lady was not trying to convert anyone. She was telling people what meant most to her in her life. And yes, it was Jesus. If Buddha or Muhammad or any other religious figure was mentioned her mic would'nt of been cut off. There is a prejudice against christians. She shared from her heart. And to the person that mentioned that separation of church and state has been around for a long time--look at your history. It hasn't been around that long. And separation of church and state isn't even in our constitution! Look it up. It was a statement that was taken totally out of context and used to silence the christian church.

If Buddha or Muhammad or any other religious figure was mentioned her mic would'nt of been cut off.

How do you know? There is no evidence this was an attack on Christians.

No it is not mentioned in the Constitution, but believed to derive from the First Amendment. The first mention of "wall of separation between church and state" goes back to Thomas Jefferson. It has also been traced backed to James Madison and Ulysses Grant. I would call that along time in respect to U.S. history.

On more point about your lack of science understanding

where did all of the matter from the big bang come from?

A:The Big bang! All matter is energy, hence E=Mc^2 or don't you believe in atomic weapons?

That 'evolved from rocks' speaks volumes also, we are fundamentally created from energy. Religion is fear of dark matter.

I yi yi...my such controversy over this young ladies speech at the graduation! You gotta love it! Sheesh, if the officials just would of let her speak freely she would not of got all this free publicity--but that's the great thing about America: FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

In reaction to your statement: "God creating the world in 7 days is unscientific. Maybe we should have ask him to create two more Earths nearby so we can divide the human race up."
You have the perception that Christians are ignorant about science. So it is just so intelligent to presume that we evolved from one species to another through the silly process of evolution? Do you realize that that takes a lot of faith to believe that?!? It's like finding a watch in the middle of the forest on a stump and assuming that it evolved there--that metal, plastic, leather band and inner workings just "happened" to come together. Someone had to create the watch. If you want to believe that we evolved from simians, you go ahead. There is no "missing links" to tie us to simians. Update your info: scientists are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. They are desperately trying to prove that there theory of evolution is correct because it fits into their worldview. There are plenty of scientists that are christian and NOT ignorant. Check out the Answers in Genesis website and the Institute for Creation Research. You need to get out of your head that christians are stupid unless you are afraid to have YOUR beliefs challenged.

This guy is good

So it is just so intelligent to presume that we evolved from one species to another through the silly process of evolution?

So, how do you explain all the evidence that demonstrates the process? No faith required when their is evidence.

That says it all, you block me from sending a reply because I merely pointed out a concious omission and then answer my post without allowing me to respond. That;s intellectual honesty. I was going to give a real response, but I can see reason is too threatening for college conservatives on this website.

I didn't block you. I don't see anything that got marked as spam. Not sure what happened. If you need to... email me at xtremesledding33@case.edu and I'll post for you.

Someone had a period listed in the blocked list for some reason. I saw it and deleted so my posts could be seen.

I would think that advocating the answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research to be misguided and could be harmful to the further development of natural life sciences. I doubt that their evidence suggests the Earth is only a few thousand years old rather than millions as such evidence we are led to believe.

Who knows if these guys were placed in charge of space exploration sciences. The moment they see evolution happening on another world, they'll busy suppressing the evidence. They wouldn't want to even think that it was just the normal process of the universe that is building up any solar system or galaxy out there, not a higher supernatural being.

"There should be no controversy here," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."

Courts have come to the conclusion about graduation speeches being school-sponsored. Keep in mind she deviated from her pre-approved speech (everyone goes through this process, she wasn't singled out) which had a "reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven." which was removed. It was a graduation, not a church service. She had 4 years to try and convert other students on her own time without her words being school- sponsored.

I can't believe the statement "And separation of church and state isn't even in our constitution! Look it up." OK I will, umm..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". The ONLY two references to religion in the Constitution and BOTH are exclusionary. Our government wanted it out of government. It is good not just for government, but for religion too. The government can't interfere with religion and religion interfere with religion government. What, we shouldn't have separation of church & state? The colonies already did that, you could get executed in Virginia for denying the Trinity or for cursing a lot. The Founders weren't about to do the same thing, because you see, when you do the same thing over and over again, you get the same results. They separated religion from government and that gave individuals the utmost religious freedom possible. I can't believe some people are actually here in 2006 arguing AGAINST separation of church & state. You guys need to start a college conservative intellectual movement, if that can even exist without imploding.

*a quick note, it was the weblink to the MSN story that wouldn't let me post for some odd reason, so I retract my accusation. You'll have to Google the quote to verify it, so please do so.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - doesn't this embrace the atheists? It says a law respecing AN establishment of religion... what's wrong with respecting all of them?

The thing that still gets me... this was not a classroom lecture... this was a graduation speech.

This whole line of conversation is plain ridiculous. It is quite apparent, at least in my eyes, that the ACLU is choosing definitions to avoid conflictions with their opinion. If one side cannot be mention, than surely it should not be taught against? If creation can't be taught, why teach evolution? No need to discredit either opinion, however, your posts state religion needs to be left out to avoid preferential treatment of specific religions, teaching against religious views in the absence of religious views is preferential!

If one side cannot be mention, than surely it should not be taught against? If creation can't be taught, why teach evolution? No need to discredit either opinion, however, your posts state religion needs to be left out to avoid preferential treatment of specific religions, teaching against religious views in the absence of religious views is preferential!

...because evolution is based in science. It is not a religion. It also does not teach against religions.

My reaction to this statement: "...because evolution is based in science. It is not a religion. It also does not teach against religions."

Excuse me? Evolution is based on science?!?! Where did you get that notion? The other day I watched a program that talked about a famous volcano exploding in the late 1800's. They got all their facts because there was EYEWITNESS evidence:i.e. People that experienced the volcano and the ensuing mess it created. My point: Can you prove evolution? Was someone there to observe it? Is evolution going on today? No. Is one species evolving into another? No. Science has to be OBSERVABLE. So, in conclusion, neither evolution nor creation (God creating everything) can be proved because no one witnessed it. So evolution is a set of beliefs thus it is a religion. And, as Ann Coulter calls it: The Church of Liberalism. Great book. Read it.

"If you want to believe that we evolved from simians, you go ahead."

We did not evolve from simians, hence a further demonstration of your ignorance. We did evolve from a common ancestor, hence the FACT that our DNA is 99% Identical to that of the Simians.

Excuse me? Evolution is based on science?!?! Where did you get that notion? The other day I watched a program that talked about a famous volcano exploding in the late 1800's. They got all their facts because there was EYEWITNESS evidence:i.e. People that experienced the volcano and the ensuing mess it created. My point: Can you prove evolution? Was someone there to observe it? Is evolution going on today? No. Is one species evolving into another? No. Science has to be OBSERVABLE.

Obviously, you are not a science major. I love that use "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around" as proof against evolution. Much of the historical record and science is based in indirect evidence, NOT "Eyewitness evidence". I would not recommended learning the scientific process from Ann Coulter though. No one observes mountains being formed because it takes hundreds of years, but we know how it occurs.

Is evolution going on today? No.

Here is just one example: Host-plant adaptation drives the parallel evolution of reproductive isolation.

I just love to be called ignorant. Obviously, you aren't a science major either. Where is there prove that one species evolved from another? Where? In your imagination. "Indirect evidence"?!? Oh, come on. There are many holes in evolution that this space does not allow. And, by the way, you are defending evolution like its your faith. Hmm..

I just love to be called ignorant. Obviously, you aren't a science major either. Where is there prove that one species evolved from another? Where? In your imagination. "Indirect evidence"?!? Oh, come on. There are many holes in evolution that this space does not allow for me to mention. And, by the way, you are defending evolution like its your faith. Hmm..

Michael, I love how you argue against a post that included an example of evolution, by not even addressing the specific example that was given. To ignore someone's example does not prove your view correct. You said there was no recent examples of evolution, yet the reply gives you one. Did you even read the published article before just responding with no new information/data.

Here is another example: Recent evidence for evolution of the genetic code

Bickering about the origin of the Universe aside, this girl was not called to speak at graduation because she was religious. She was called because she had a 4.infinity grade point average. If she wanted to thank anyone or anything for her private success in her studies, it should not be the school district's business.

It is the school's responsibility to maintain the standards as currently defined for our education system. Currently that standard say church and state are separate.

I don't know how many times I can say this... but seriously... it's not a lecture where children are required to take notes and learn material. A girl is telling her story at the microphone. If she were inspired by the heroes of the Iraq war in our military, would anyone question? If she were inspired by a drive to save the world from global warming, would anyone question? Why is it that a girl who has god as an inspiration is silenced? Are you saying that only people without divine inspiration have a right to speak? I'll have to remember that next time I get inspired because apparently in this country, you can only speak of your inspiration if it is not rooted from your religion.

One more thing... if the students and parents can't handle hearing someone else's inspiration that is based on something they don't agree with, they have some serious issues. If a student gave a speech about an inspiration by a drive to stop global warming, how would it be any different? I don't believe in global warming. Here's the difference... I am mature enough to respect someone else's opinion.

continued...

I won't stop them from speaking; I will listen to what they have to say respectfully and continue to believe what I believe.

Chad, you keep forgetting this is in a K-12 environment. There are very different freedoms in this environment. Students cannot just leave a classroom (or have to leave their own graduation ceremony) when religion is forced on them. Besides, schools cannot endorse a religious stance, and whether or not you accept it this was a school event. The restriction has nothing to do with level of belief, but that our government cannot endorse any religion.

Schools are allowed to establish rules. Freedom of speech is restricted in schools everyday. If she cannot follow the rules established by the school, I guess she should have not been invited to give the speech in the first place.

When separation of global warming and state is enforced by our government, than your arguement would actually make logical sense.

Religion is not being forced on anyone. By listening to her speech, it does not force ANYONE to embrace her religion. Everyone can choose to either accept or reject the ideas in her speech. The school would not be endorsing any one religion if they got rid of religious restrictions on graduation speeches for everyone. It would only be endorsing if they only got rid of the restrictions for one religion.

There is no constitutional provision protecting people from public expression of religion. However, there is a constitutional provision granting the free exercise of religion. If one's exercise of religion includes public thanksgiving for success, so be it.

There is no constitutional provision protecting people from public expression of religion.

No, but it does limit venue and funding when the institution or activity is "state" funded.

However, when religious expression of any type is suppressed, isn't a state-sponsored policy of atheism, which could be considered a religion in its own right, established?

No, they did not acknowledge atheism either. That would occur only if she had said that "God does not exist" in her speech. Atheism believes in no gods of any type, but our government takes no stance on religion.

It makes no logical sense in a debate or discussion to say that omitting something equals acceptance of its absence. I recommend you consider a logics course.

No, it does make logical sense. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, "If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.” Therefore, isn't the censorship of any mention of God from the graduation speech favoring one position on divinity over another?

Mike, what your suggesting means the graduation speech would need to mention every religion possible to be fair. That is impossible, so avoiding any religion-related topic avoids picking a favorite.

You argue that not mentioning God equates to endorsing the belief that God does not exist. Just because something is not mentioned does not mean a personal or organizational belief exists for or against something. It just means it was not covered for some reason (inappropriate for speech, legal reasons, topic of speech, etc.). Schools limit topics of sexual nature as well, but they are not suggesting sex does not occur. You are making a jump in conclusion that someone trained in logic or argument would understand cannot occur.