The Next Rosa Parks?

[Shady]

What about promoting the value of culture and art? Many of the most famous paintings are of religious persons or scenarios. Is displaying such paintings a violation of "church and state"? Are you allowed to only display famous works that are not of a religious nature? To me that's a very unenlightened view. Bye-bye Leonardi Da Vinci.

[Melanie_]

What about promoting the value of culture and art? Many of the most famous paintings are of religious persons or scenarios. Is displaying such paintings a violation of "church and state"? Are you allowed to only display famous works that are not of a religious nature? To me that's a very unenlightened view. Bye-bye Leonardi Da Vinci.

Good point, Shady. I wouldn't want to see all of the Rennasaince works banned from school, nor would I want to see works depicting Aphrodite or Zeus removed. Where is that line drawn? Is the painting being used for educational purposes? Are there other paintings reflecting a range of subjects displayed as prominantly? Why was this particular painting chosen - what are its artistic merits? A case would have to be made based on artistic criteria to support hanging the painting .

[sharkman]

In Canada, we often have a portrait of the Queen up, but that doesn't mean the school is suggesting she is OUR queen since she's England's queen.

She is 'our' Queen. Constitutaionally speaking she is the Queen of Canada. The fact that she is also the Queen of England is a co-incidence.

I thought she was no longer our queen. Perhaps I was mistaken.

The school in question is not endorsing anything, but they are being politically incorrect, a sin worse than most in the eyes of the ACLU. If we continue down this road of banning anything that is objected to, how far away are we from book burnings? And who decides what has artistic merit, the ACLU?

Education is the process by which young ones learn. To shelter them from any explanation or exposure to religions is to give them at best an incomplete education, and at worst set them up to fear or hate what they don't understand - religion. The whole Gay culture is being introduced and explained in the school systmem in a hope to avoid this very thing.

[Riverwind]

What about promoting the value of culture and art? Many of the most famous paintings are of religious persons or scenarios. Is displaying such paintings a violation of "church and state"?

Context is everything. A single picture of Jesus in a school is clearly intended to push Christianity on the students. A school that had a variety of religious and non-religious (or at least non-christian) art work displayed could claim to be promoting art. It is impossible to create a definitive rule but a reasonable person would be able to figure out the intent pretty quickly.

[sharkman]

Sharkman, this clearly violates seperation of church and state. A public school is a state run institution. It therefore cannot endorse one religion over another. If that painting were hanging in one of my children's schools I would protest, too.

I don't know about you, but I'm looking at the definition of separation of church and state. That wording has been in their constitution from day one. It was only in 1963 that prayer was removed from schools. And now the definition has changed to a point where any religious symbol could find the ire of people like the ACLU, while most folks in the U.S. are not upset by it.

Why has the definition changed so radically? What were the intentions of the original authors of the constitution? History tells us most of them were indeed Christians. In fact, they moved away from England and started a new country all for religious freedom, and these words were intended to keep the state from interfering with organized religion, something that England had been doing with a heavy hand. That's why prayer in school had been allowed for close to 100 years. I think only people who feel threatened by religion would care if a picture of Jesus was on the wall.

I mentioned earlier that the result of removing all trace of religion from education only sets students up to fear or hate what they don't understand, something that has been recognized about homosexuality. If teaching about the gay lifestyle is a strategy to reduce homophobia, then removing all 'religious' symbols will do the reverse.

Here's a link to show how far the ACLU will go. The city of Angels can no longer have even the smallest symbol. No doubt, next up is the actual name, and many ACLU lawyers will get rich beyond measure, for California is teaming with cities that have religious meaning to their names.

[Riverwind]

Why has the definition changed so radically? What were the intentions of the original authors of the constitution? History tells us most of them were indeed Christians.

What has changed is the definition of religion. 200 years ago everyone was assumed to be Christian and when someone was talking about freedom of religion they really meant the freedom to choose between different sects of Christianity. The writers of the US constitution put the separation of the church and state in it because they did not want a particular sect of Christianity (i.e. Catholicism or Anglicanism) to dominate the gov't.

200 years ago a similar argument over a picture of a Pope in a school would have caused a similar debate. Today the debate is about a picture of Jesus because society has changed and it is not longer reasonable to assume that everyone is Christian.

The founding fathers of the US may have been Christian but banning symbols of Christianity in schools is completely consistent with the principals that they established 200 years ago.

[Melanie_]

I mentioned earlier that the result of removing all trace of religion from education only sets students up to fear or hate what they don't understand, something that has been recognized about homosexuality. If teaching about the gay lifestyle is a strategy to reduce homophobia, then removing all 'religious' symbols will do the reverse.

If schools were to teach about all religions, and athiesm as well, equally and without value judgments attached, it would be equivalent to what the gay rights agenda is about. No one religion (or sexual orientation) should be given higher standing or more credence than another. I agree with you that teaching about all religions might reduce prejudice; social studies classes can do this. The point is not to endorse one religion more than another.

[sharkman]

I mentioned earlier that the result of removing all trace of religion from education only sets students up to fear or hate what they don't understand, something that has been recognized about homosexuality. If teaching about the gay lifestyle is a strategy to reduce homophobia, then removing all 'religious' symbols will do the reverse.

If schools were to teach about all religions, and athiesm as well, equally and without value judgments attached, it would be equivalent to what the gay rights agenda is about. No one religion (or sexual orientation) should be given higher standing or more credence than another. I agree with you that teaching about all religions might reduce prejudice; social studies classes can do this. The point is not to endorse one religion more than another.

When a nation was founded on freedom to practice Christianity, it is strange to see them now where many believe they should not endorse one religion over another. Most Muslim nations have managed to hang onto their religous heritage, why must the U.S. let go of theirs?

There was a time when the words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", were words to live by. Now Americans are reduced to asking their country to remove this picture and that symbol and those protestors. Protect me from religion, from a people whose money says,"in God we Trust". I look with interest to see what the U.S. will become in 20 years.

[Riverwind]

When a nation was founded on freedom to practice Christianity, it is strange to see them now where many believe they should not endorse one religion over another. Most Muslim nations have managed to hang onto their religous heritage, why must the U.S. let go of theirs?

The US was founded by people who fled religious persecution in England. That experience is one of the reasons why the writers of the US constitution wanted religion to be kept out of the state. You could argue that the founders of the US would have never expected Christianity to dissappear as the primary religion in the US, however, it is also likely that they would still support the principal that the state should stay out of matters of faith.

[ClearWest]

The state should stay out of religion, that's fine with me.

However they should also stay out of a few other things. Like a girl's valedictorian speech.

People give speeches and make reference to Benjamin Franklin or Martin Luther King or Oprah and that's just fine and dandy--but mention Jesus and suddenly it's preaching!? And they have the nerve to silence her when she is just speaking her mind and giving thanks to her God and giving credit to her role model!?

If I was the valedictorian of my graduating class I would have thanked and given mention to all the people who have ever been a major source of inspiration and motivation in my life. It shouldn't matter whether it's a parent, a teacher, a friend, or a deity.

I'm a Christian myself but I wouldn't be the least bit offended if a Muslim got up and thanked Allah, or a Hindu got up and thanked Vishnu--or explained how big of an influence Vishnu had in their life. If someone got up and started thanking Charles Manson, I would probably leave--and avoid further association with that person, but I wouldn't try to silence them in the manner in which this girl was silenced.

This girl isn't "The State" so I don't see a breach in the so called 'separation of church and state'. It's not the girl who is ignoring constitutional rights here, it's the school board.

[Riverwind]

People give speeches and make reference to Benjamin Franklin or Martin Luther King or Oprah and that's just fine and dandy--but mention Jesus and suddenly it's preaching!? And they have the nerve to silence her when she is just speaking her mind and giving thanks to her God and giving credit to her role model!?

You are misrepersenting what happened. The girl submitted a speech for approval and was told the last half had too many references to god and that she would have to stick to the first half. When she was up on stage she started to give the second half of her speech but was cut off as soon as the adminstrators realized she was going to ignore their request. IOW - she was not planning a simple thanks to god - she was planning sermon. She will, of course, now claim that she was only given simple thanks to god, however, the school adminstrators had good reason to beleive she had much more planned based on her previously submitted speech.

[Charles Anthony]

The girl submitted a speech for approval and was told

Approved and told by whom? The Administrators!

Yes, I am pointing this out in a sarcastic and a snarky way because it is important to note, from the same article:

But because it did have numerous references to God and Jesus Christ, the school district cut off the mic, leaving her practically silent. That's when many people stood up and booed, showing their support.

She had popular support from her peers.

If (I know this is a big "if" but I want to closely examine the principle of church-state separation), every single person being addressed was a Christian except for The Administrators, would it have been wrong? (even if she was starting to preach in a public school)

[Riverwind]

If (I know this is a big "if" but I want to closely examine the principle of church-state separation), every single person being addressed was a Christian except for The Administrators, would it have been wrong? (even if she was starting to preach in a public school)

A single school which is a statistical aberration does not invalidate the policy. In fact, many so called 'Christian' teens are that way because the have been given no choice by the authority figures in their life. For these teens, a non-religious school environment is very important part of their religious freeedom even though they may not realize it yet.

[Charles Anthony]

Let me rephrase the question:

If every single person being addressed was an indisputable self-proclaimed free-willed Christian except for The Administrators of this public school, would it have been wrong even if she was starting to preach?

Wrong does not mean "invalidate the policy" for every other public school. Wrong means a violation of individual rights of the people present (specifically: students and Administrators) during this event.

[ClearWest]

For these teens, a non-religious school environment is very important part of their religious freeedom even though they may not realize it yet.

An athiest school is no less biased than a protestant or muslim school. Let's eliminate the bias altogether and allow a wide array of opinions and ideas to flow freely throughout the school as a positive and enriching part of the teen's education.

Especially if it's in a public school, which everybody pays for and nearly everybody attends.

[Drea]

They should've let her speak her sermon.

Then the principal could've gotten up and said "Ms. So and So will certainly make a great preacher one day" and left it at that.

The non believing students would've had a laugh and the believing students would've gotten their beliefs validated.

Just like a grad who stands up there and cracks jokes the principal could say "Ms. So and So is off to a great career as a comediene!'

The principal could have easily "diffused" the situation IMO.

[Machinations]

Only a raving atheistic nutjob would take offense at a positive religious reference in a public speech, regardless of the religious persuasion. The irony of this situation is that if she'd made statements pertaining to her own atheism and her belief in the the non-existence of God (an equally, if opposite, religious sentiment) she probably would have been left alone. Free speech rights are limited only by the prospect that public harm might result. Saying "God bless this graduating class" or whatever harms no one, not even the God-haters.

The only raving nutjobs I meet are generally of the religious variety. I believe this remains constant, for the most part, throughout the globe. Could it be that an irrational belief in an invisible superman leads to irrational thought and actions?

On topic, this is just an excuse to rant about Liberals from the conservative machine down south. If this was about a valedictorian talking about the war in Iraq, you would be on the opposite side of the issue. Ann Coulter would be screaming about 'anti-Americuns and Libruls (sic)' and who knows what else. She would infer then, that the high school class or at least the valedictorian, is a traitor to her country.

Partisans, you're so transparent. I prefer thinking moderates with no political ideology who vote their conscience and do so with learning.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Actually I think that I meet more capitalistic zealots than religous ones.

[Machinations]

Actually I think that I meet more capitalistic zealots than religous ones.

Point conceeded.