posted
Everyone in my HS and college graduating classes were required to attend the graduation ceremony. The Baccalaureate, which had a religious angle, was not required, because the school doesn't push religion on its students. Its really that simple.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Protest the caps and gowns as well, which the students are forced to wear. They have their roots in religion. I say tanktops, shorts, and flip flops for all!
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You mean to tell me your high school would have denied you your diploma had you not attended the ceremony?
Seems very unlikely given the number of people who do receive it without, you know, going to the graduation ceremony. It's really that simple.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if one of the justifications for the kill switch is inadequacy of available sanctions for the speaker saying something wrong, I don't see how anyone can be forced to attend graduation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure. Are people suggesting that all schools everywhere have the exact same policies? Because, while I think that that idea is obviously false, I don't see how some of these comments make sense otherwise.
My high school required graduation attendence. To be honest, I don't know what the consequences were, but we were told that we had to go.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being told you have to attend and being required to attend are two different things entirely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if, say, the principal said, "All seniors must attend graduation," but did not specify potential consequences, what would that be?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, see they have the power to do stuff to me if I don't comply. I don't remember what the actual consequences laid out were, but there were consequences.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be an order to attend. It might nor might not ripen into a requirement.
Really, the word "require" only makes sense attached to something akin to "in order to..."
I was required to complete 86 credit hours in order to graduate law school.
The obvious implicit "in order to" phrase to attach to "you are required to attend graduation" is "in order to graduate."
Less obvious phrases would be "in order to graduate without doing X." If X is trivial, I wouldn't call graduation attendance a requirement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, see they have the power to do stuff to me if I don't comply. I don't remember what the actual consequences laid out were, but there were consequences.
Which suggests that, at your school, there were alternative sanctions to the kill switch.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and at those schools graduation is not required.
I've simply stated that two of the strongest arguments in favor of the kill switch policy - the requirement to be there and the lack of alternative sanction - don't both exist at a single school.
I honestly can't tell if you didn't honestly see that when you made your little comment about this not making sense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't know Tinsley's reputation, so I can't comment on whether this sort of thing is "usual" or not. However, the comic leaves out a lot of context that I think is important to the proper understanding of this case.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am unaware of a case where the ACLU defended a student who used a school supported event to take the Lord's name in vain. Do you have references? Thanks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Brittany McComb, Valedictorian of Foothill High School in Nevada had her microphone cut off during her graduation speech for thanking “Jesus Christ”….”
“Of course if she’d simple taken her Lord’s name in vain…. (picture of Britney “@#ing !!***ERS!!”) …. The A.C.L.U. would now be defending her instead of her school…”
What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Who are you talking to, Jay?
quote:If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works.
Saying so don't make it so.
:echoes kmbboots:
My problem with the cartoon is that it leaves out CONTEXT. Things like the fact that Brittany knew the rules beforehand. Things like the fact that she didn't just thank Jesus Christ, but was proselyting from the stand to a (more or less) captive audience.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
References, please? Thanks. I don't know what case you are talking about here.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Well, first off I list some facts. All the other side is doing is saying so.
posted
1) Her microphone was not cut off for talking about God. It was cut off for deviating from her pre-approved comments.
2) Had curse words not been in her pre-approved script, and had she deviated from that script, the ACLU would most likely have declined to support her.
3) The ACLU might well have chosen to defend her had she sued over requiring a pre-approved script; they've done such things in the past. To my knowledge, though, such suits generally lose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Well, first off I list some facts. All the other side is doing is saying so.
Go figure.
Please indicate a single referenced fact in either of your posts.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tinsley basically labels anything he doesn't like as "liberal." He revels in drawing demeaning caricatures of liberals, but often the point he's making could just as easily be leveled at stupid conservatives, as stupid liberals.
He's got a big grudge against the expensive products that public schools sell for fundraising, but fails to mention that church groups, boy Scouts, private schools and others also use the same expensive fundraisers. He claims that fundraising is a liberal plot of some kind, but misses the fact that the fundraising products are a corporate product. Plus the fact that conservatives prefer that school taxes stay low, which makes fundraising necessary.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
References, please? Thanks. I don't know what case you are talking about here.
Sure you might be able to find a case where they get it right once in a blue moon. Sort of like a blind squirrel finding a nut though…
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of those sites seem to reference a case where the ACLU defended a student for wanting to use a school sponsored event to use the Lord's name in vain. Maybe I am just missing it, though. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 1) Her microphone was not cut off for talking about God. It was cut off for deviating from her pre-approved comments.
2) Had curse words not been in her pre-approved script, and had she deviated from that script, the ACLU would most likely have declined to support her.
3) The ACLU might well have chosen to defend her had she sued over requiring a pre-approved script; they've done such things in the past. To my knowledge, though, such suits generally lose.
1. Because her comments involved thanking Jesus which she did not feel like was appropriate for them to edit out. I agree.
2. Who said anything about curse words? You don’t have to cuss to take the Lord’s name in vain.
3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: None of those sites seem to reference a case where the ACLU defended a student for wanting to use a school sponsored event to use the Lord's name in vain. Maybe I am just missing it, though. Could you be more specific? Thanks.
Oh goodness gracious…. It’s just a dang analogy. The ACLU loves antichristian cases is the point.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bias on those sites disrupts my ability to give their information the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, Brittany McComb was attempting to use the Lord's name in vain - a vain attempt to prosyletize. Is the ACLU on her side?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is inaccurate? Her mic was cut off. It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. If she would have taken the Lord’s name in vain they would have come and said it was her civic right to do so. It’s how the ACLU works. You might not find it funny, but you really can’t honestly say it’s inaccurate in the least. Oh, and by the way, just you saying its dishonest doesn’t make it so.
How does your saying it's accurate make it any more so?
Well, first off I list some facts. All the other side is doing is saying so.
Go figure.
Please indicate a single referenced fact in either of your posts.
FACT #1: Her mic was cut off. FACT #2: It was cut off when she thanked Jesus. (Yes Tom, this was off her the edited approved script, but this was when it was cut)
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's hardly fair, boots. You're using reality to refute Jay's fantasy world. Next you'll be shooting down passing Intelligent Design as science just because it isn't or criticizing President Bush's plan to provide for our energy needs using unicorns.
quote:3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
I think you'd better look back at the case of the microphone at the football game in Texas. The plaintiffs were a Mormon and a Catholic.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Because her comments involved thanking Jesus which she did not feel like was appropriate for them to edit out. I agree.
Do you have any evidence that the school would not have cut off any other student who deviated from her prepared remarks? It sounds like your complaint is that they were not prepared to permit her to deliver a sermon to her class.
quote: 2. Who said anything about curse words? You don’t have to cuss to take the Lord’s name in vain.
The comic specifically uses curse symbols. In fact, if you examine the visible characters in the comic, there's no way you could insert the Lord's name into the characters standing for vulgarity in any semi-grammatical way. This is however irrelevant to the main point: that the ACLU would be unlikely to defend someone who deviated from their prepared script, except insofar as the ACLU might disapprove of prepared scripts at all.
quote: 3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
The majority of cases addressed by the ACLU involve Christians. It is not an anti-Christian organization, except insofar as Christianity is the religion most likely to be accidentally and unconstitutionally legislated by our institutions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: 3. Yeah, right. The ACLU defend a Christian. Ha. That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
Not to be contrary, but the ACLU does defend religious liberty (including but not limited to Christian expression). Blurbs from Las Vegas cases where Christian expression was defened by the ACLU:
"November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school."
"November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas."
posted
Jay, we get that you love the Stop the ACLU web site. You might want to branch out a bit. Again, I'm asking you to site a case where the ACLU defended someone's right to use a school event to use the Lord's name in vain - as your original post suggested. I have listed a couple where the ACUL defended religious speech. So has Stasia. Come up with some actual facts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, what you don't seem to understand is that the ACLU is not against religion; it is against the government controlling religion. Surely, you don't have a problem with that, so you?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the vast number of cases are antichristian.
Give us some evidence on this one, please? When you say "vast number," are you comparing the number of cases each year which are "anti-Christian" to those which aren't even remotely related to religion, or those which are "pro-Christian" in some way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
