Losing the Right to Worship

Anyway, I listened to this radio program (Reluctantly, because it was a preacher channel, that my mother wanted to listen to in the car), and it brought up an interesting case. A child brought in a bible to school. Wasn't showing it off or anything. Wasn't talking about it. Just laid it out on his/her desk, and read it, when finished with the assignment he/she was doing. However, the schoolboard wanted to make a big deal about it. Apparently, he/she was sent to the principle's office, and it eventually became a struggle in court to ban bibles from the school. It was shot down, thank God, but the point I am trying to make is that, it might be happening. People may be losing the right to worship.

What do you think?

Yes, of course. They're trying to enforce a new law in my state at the moment to ban bibles from hospitals because it might offend people. I read about it because the newspaper was complaining about "those Christian extremists" complaining about it. Some atheists are pushing too far into freedom of religion and are starting to limit the freedom of religion of religious people because "it might offend people".

Originally Posted by Cody

Yes, of course. They're trying to enforce a new law in my state at the moment to ban bibles from hospitals because it might offend people. I read about it because the newspaper was complaining about "those Christian extremists" complaining about it. Some atheists are pushing too far into freedom of religion and are starting to limit the freedom of religion of religious people because "it might offend people".

I'm not offended when a muslim walks in the door. I'm not offended when a Jew denys Jesus, or if a Hindu talks about reaching Brahma. I'm not offended when a Buddhist talks about the Eight Fold Path. So, why should anyone else, who has some sort of religious idea be offended? It won't offend anyone.

The bibles in hospital are placed by religious groups, not the hospitals. So, if a Jewish person might want to put a Torah or something in there, he can. I've had enough of the media exaggerating and distorting things.

We should ban any book that has any mention of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and so on. I mean, what if people get offended that that religion was mentioned in print? Wait a minute. That's every book ever written. Ever. You can't ban the bringing of religious books somewhere without the banning of, for one, all books relating to religion, and, additionally, without banning all non-religious books. The government is not allowed to favour one or more religions over others, and is not allowed to favour non-religion over religion.

So, yes, targeting the Bible as the only religious book worth banning is direct persecution of Christians. Which, according to the constitution and the principles of democracy, isn't supposed to happen. Bibles being in hospitals doesn't affect people's ability to go there. Students bringing Bibles to schools doesn't directly affect another person's education unless they go out of their way to make it so.

EDIT: Now, the question is--is this leading not only to religious persecution, but to government censorship as seen in Fahrenheit 451? You tell me.

Originally Posted by Andross

Now, I believe in a sort of Intelligent Design. God created evolution would be the easiest way to explain what I believe in. Anyway, just wanted to show that first before I posted a topic on religion.

Anyway, I listened to this radio program (Reluctantly, because it was a preacher channel, that my mother wanted to listen to in the car), and it brought up an interesting case. A child brought in a bible to school. Wasn't showing it off or anything. Wasn't talking about it. Just laid it out on his/her desk, and read it, when finished with the assignment he/she was doing. However, the schoolboard wanted to make a big deal about it. Apparently, he/she was sent to the principle's office, and it eventually became a struggle in court to ban bibles from the school. It was shot down, thank God, but the point I am trying to make is that, it might be happening. People may be losing the right to worship.

What do you think?

They couldn't ban bibles from school, it's unconstitutional to even send to the office for that, so he was probably sent to the office for something else that he didn't want to tell his mother.

Originally Posted by DarKnite'92

They couldn't ban bibles from school, it's unconstitutional to even send to the office for that, so he was probably sent to the office for something else that he didn't want to tell his mother.

If the school brought banning bibles to a legal court, I think the kid was sent to the office because of carrying a bible.

Originally Posted by Cody

Yes, of course. They're trying to enforce a new law in my state at the moment to ban bibles from hospitals because it might offend people. I read about it because the newspaper was complaining about "those Christian extremists" complaining about it. Some atheists are pushing too far into freedom of religion and are starting to limit the freedom of religion of religious people because "it might offend people".

Aethism affends me, ban every song by Rob Zombie, The Beatles, John Lennon, Trivium etc. Wow, this is interesting, but I when has congresss read that pesky first amendment.
White People affend me kill them all
Non White people affend me kill them all.

Originally Posted by Andross

If the school brought banning bibles to a legal court, I think the kid was sent to the office because of carrying a bible.

This is weird, taking "under God" out of the pledge is one thing but this is highly unconstitutional. I thought it was fake until a second person said a case. I guess the blind folded woman started leaning towards one way.

I rather doubt this story, why? Because the case would never have made it to court, you couldn't find a lawyer that would support it, even if you could no judge would even hear it. I rather suspect that this is a rallying cry "Look at us! We're martyrs! Rally round!" much like every group does from time to time.

What do I think? I think that if anyone ever bans bibles in school, or even considers it while having the power to make it so, they should be taken out for an afternoon of electroshock, because the stress of their job has finally caught up with them, and they are obviously not in their right mind. There is no reason at all to ban them. And if there is, it escapes me.

That doesn't mean, however, that I would like anyone to point it out to me, because if you did, you'd probably need some electroshock as well. Maybe even a double dose after this warning was posted. Sent to the principles office... *shakes head* it stuns me to think that things like that have happened, and continue to happen. And nobody seems to think that it's worth protesting about. It is, in a word, sickening. In another word, stupid. In yet another, mean. And in a few, mindless, and downright pointless.

EDIT: And martyrs have nothing to do with this. It was a child.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I rather doubt this story, why? Because the case would never have made it to court, you couldn't find a lawyer that would support it, even if you could no judge would even hear it. I rather suspect that this is a rallying cry "Look at us! We're martyrs! Rally round!" much like every group does from time to time.

You can take anything to court. For instance, prostitutes once gathered and tried to ban Grand Theft Auto because they thought it was offensive to their kind. Stupid cases always go to court, but they always get shot down, quickly. This is a bit different, however, because recent things, such as completely taking the words "Under God" out of the pledge. It is only a sign of the sure to come, persecution of the religious.

First, it's going to happen to Christianity, is what is going to happen. Then spread to other religions.

So, this story is real. This is, in fact, normal, compared to the more retarded stories. For instance, city officials in Virginia once called in the police to arrest and hand cuff a kindergarten child for throwing a fit in class. Also, there once was a case where a lunch woman brought in cookies for lunch, spilled some on the ground, a kid picked them up, ate one, and was sewed. If you can believe these, which are all real, you can certainly believe this one.

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.

But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.

That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.

"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."

In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.

In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was 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.

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.

"There should be no controversy here," 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."

Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.

Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.

In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.

The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.

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," it states.

"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 is not school sponsored."

District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.

"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."

McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.

"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions.

"It's what I believe."

Source

Ok, this is mainly about the freedom of speech factor that so many on this forum seem to advocate for all racial profiles, religions, and beliefs. The fact that the school was trying to stop this girl from speaking out was not the problem, and neither was the fact that she went against their orders and said what she wanted to-- both parties had the right to do what they did. The school board was aloud to edit her material to what they thought appropriate, and she the right to ignore it. The problem here, as I see it, is that she was cut off. Suggesting a change is one thing, but censoring is quite another.

As I see it, she was completely within her rights to do this. They asked her to make a speech, as the valadictorian it was her right to do so, and within the First Amendment we are given the right to speak freely... and to have religious freedom. Let's turn this around for a moment, for those of us that have problems with Muslims... what if an Islamic boy had gotten up on stage and wanted to thank Allah for helping him, and went on to say that the group was going to hell as they were? This is almost exactly what she was going to do by mentioning Christ, because the philosophies are almost identical, but only in a more gentle way.

In my opinion, it was a breach of her First Amendment rights, as well as her rights as a citizen of the United States. What does everyone else think?

This sounds like the thread I posted. I just think that Christians, as well as other religious people, are starting to be persecuted. Even in the Bible, it said that people will be persecuted.

I am pretty sure that this country was founded on the principles of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. It is a sad day when America's founding principles are forgotten...

Originally Posted by Andross

You can take anything to court. For instance, prostitutes once gathered and tried to ban Grand Theft Auto because they thought it was offensive to their kind. Stupid cases always go to court, but they always get shot down, quickly. This is a bit different, however, because recent things, such as completely taking the words "Under God" out of the pledge. It is only a sign of the sure to come, persecution of the religious.

No, some things don't even get a trial. On top of that, removing "Under God" would be to ensure that everyone is treated equally, surely something you support.

So, this story is real. This is, in fact, normal, compared to the more retarded stories. For instance, city officials in Virginia once called in the police to arrest and hand cuff a kindergarten child for throwing a fit in class. Also, there once was a case where a lunch woman brought in cookies for lunch, spilled some on the ground, a kid picked them up, ate one, and was sewed. If you can believe these, which are all real, you can certainly believe this one.

I'd want sources, ones that, you know, give the entire facts.

You may be familiar with the case where a woman sued McDonalds because their coffee burnt her. You probably felt that this was stupid. What you didn't know is that many customers had complained that the coffee was too hot, and that there had been minor burns before, by not doing anything about this McDonalds had violated their duty of care, yet the media never bothers to report most of that.

Originally Posted by Hostis of Angelus

Source

Ok, this is mainly about the freedom of speech factor that so many on this forum seem to advocate for all racial profiles, religions, and beliefs. The fact that the school was trying to stop this girl from speaking out was not the problem, and neither was the fact that she went against their orders and said what she wanted to-- both parties had the right to do what they did. The school board was aloud to edit her material to what they thought appropriate, and she the right to ignore it. The problem here, as I see it, is that she was cut off. Suggesting a change is one thing, but censoring is quite another.

No, the school was providing somewhere for her to express her view, as far as I know that gives them the right to decide exactly what she can say and to censor anything she says. On top of that, she was warned, given an edited speech, and told that if she deviated from it she would be cut off, you're saying that it's fine to tell people what they can and cannot say, but that it's not fine to punish them for not following that?

As I see it, she was completely within her rights to do this. They asked her to make a speech, as the valadictorian it was her right to do so, and within the First Amendment we are given the right to speak freely... and to have religious freedom. Let's turn this around for a moment, for those of us that have problems with Muslims... what if an Islamic boy had gotten up on stage and wanted to thank Allah for helping him, and went on to say that the group was going to hell as they were? This is almost exactly what she was going to do by mentioning Christ, because the philosophies are almost identical, but only in a more gentle way.

He would've been cut off too.

In my opinion, it was a breach of her First Amendment rights, as well as her rights as a citizen of the United States. What does everyone else think?

No breech. If I give you a stage to say something on my behalf, and you then proceede to say things that I don't agree with, I have every right to stop you.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

No, some things don't even get a trial. On top of that, removing "Under God" would be to ensure that everyone is treated equally, surely something you support.


I'd want sources, ones that, you know, give the entire facts.

You may be familiar with the case where a woman sued McDonalds because their coffee