School officials allow high school valedictorian to mention Jesus

[The Straight Story]

School officials allow high school valedictorian to mention Jesus

New York, May. 31, 2005 (CNA) - Wisconsin school officials reconsidered a previous decision and allowed one high school valedictorian to speak about Jesus in her recent graduation speech.

When Miriam Cattanach, valedictorian of the Class of 2005 of Spencer High School, submitted her graduation speech to school officials, they said any reference to religion, God, or Jesus must go.

The committed Christian said in her speech that Christ is the hope for the future. When administrators censored her speech, her family contacted Liberty Counsel in Florida.

After the legal group got involved, the school changed its tune, says Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver.


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4031

[Erika]

1. Wonder what their response would have been if Allah

was mentioned?

[Mythsaje]

4. Or

the Lord and Lady.

I'd like to see a Wiccan get the same treatment.

Yeah. That'll happen.

:sarcasm:

[Dorian Gray]

38. Probably the same as it was...

The school refused the speech initially, then went back on their refusal to allow the student to speak it as is when she got lawyers involved.

[The Magistrate]

2. Good That they Did, Sir

The young lady won the valedictory, and ought to be able to say what she damned well pleases....

[The Straight Story]

5. Actually, I would agree with you

Jesus is another person in history, and if he had an effect on her and she wants to share that I don't see the problem really.

If people are atheist, wiccan, et al and what have you then they only (generally) see Jesus as a historical person not as son of God anyway. Would anyone complain/try to stop her if she mentioned Jefferson, Einstein, Peta, et al?

yeah, I got my flame suit on :)

[noahmijo]

7. I agree with that but on the condition that

if a valedictorian wishes to profess his/her thanks to some other God or even no God at all "I owe my good grades to spending time studying instead of in church!" without getting hassled then it's all good.

[The Magistrate]

12. None Of Those Things, Sir, Would Distress Me In The Slightest

[Catma]

3. Jesus is the hope

for the future and anyone who disagrees will be branded and out casted

[longship]

6. Nothing wrong with this.

Anybody has the personal right to speak on any topic he/she wants.

By the way, I am a confirmed atheist and have been for over forty years. I have no interest in having the Jesus myth spread any further than necessary. But just as I would not like a high school forbidding my trumpeting the accomplishments of Isaac Newton, or Galileo, or whoever as my inspiration, I would not like a high school telling another he or she could not cite Jesus as an inspiration.

The measure is whether the school, or district is behind the professions of faith. Here, that is clearly not the case.

I stand beside this girl.

[Karmakaze]

9. I dont have any problem with it either - except...

that she wasn't citing Jesus as a positive influence in HER life but preaching to the school:

"There is someone who can make the journey seem a lot easier. His name is the Lord Jesus Christ," the young woman told her classmates. "He is the ultimate source of success, love, laughter, dreams, and the future. He is the Creator of the universe who longs to have a relationship with you."

Not quite a "Jesus was my inspiration" type speech eh?

[longship]

14. Doesn't matter.

As long as there was no coersion from the district, the school, or the staff of the school, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she said. She earned the right to speak. It was her dime. She could spend it the way she wanted.

I'd still stand beside her.

[Fridays Child]

8. "...students...should be free to 'share their gratitude to God....'"

The problem is that she wasn't sharing her gratitude. She was proselytizing.

"There is someone who can make the journey seem a lot easier. His name is the Lord Jesus Christ....He is the ultimate source of success, love, laughter, dreams, and the future. He is the Creator of the universe who longs to have a relationship with you."

She was preaching to a captive audience, and the school administrators should have upheld the law by forbidding such speech.

[Karmakaze]

10. LOL beat me to it

But yes it doesn't sound like a thank you, but a sermon, to me.

[Fridays Child]

11. Exactly. And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[gaspee]

13. Exactly.

I am so tired of being preached to.

So, so, so so tired.

If I went to a graduation and a 17 year old religious fanatic started preaching at me, it would take all of my willpower to not show a reaction to her disrespect. I would have to walk out so I wouldn't boo or make a comment as inappropriate as her preaching.

Thanking some 'force' in her life = fine. Preaching to a non-church captive audience= not fine.

(Long-time lurker.)

[Erika]

19. Agreed and welcome to DU! n/t

[Fridays Child]

21. Lurk no more! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[The Magistrate]

15. Still, Ma'am

It is a child, speaking as a private person, albeit in the setting of an official function. If the same words were uttered by, say, the school's principal, in introducing the ceremony, it would be quite innappropriate....

[Fridays Child]

22. She used the "machinery of the state," which gave her remarks...

...a cachet of authority.

[The Magistrate]

23. Well, Ma'am

She is not a state functionary, and doubtless the audience of her classmates have already formed some opinion of their own about her, long before this program. It is unlikely in the extreme anyone viewed the remarks as having any particular authority....

[Fridays Child]

25. Immaterial. She used state resources to deliver an evangelical message...

...to a captive audience.

[The Magistrate]

30. Clearly, Ma'am, We Will Continue To Disagree

My preference is always for the material over the abstract in analyzing a circumstance, and this preference leads me to the view that the thing is of no great importance and constitutes no great imposition on any. The young woman in question has managed a noteable achievement, and it harms no one to allow her her day in the sun on her own terms. Part of existence in a society valuing liberty is on occassion listening to people say things you think are drivel....

[longship]

16. See my posts above... n/t

.

[longship]

17. Which law forbidding?

.

[Fridays Child]

20. The Supreme Court's 2000 Santa Fe v. Doe decision would be controlling...

...in my lay opinion.

[longship]

24. Santa Fe v. Doe not the same.

In Santa Fe v. Doe the school was enabling prayer prior to football games by explicitly providing for it. This is a fairly clear violation of First Amendment as the school system, an arm of government, cannot advance religion.

In this case, the school system had no specific enabling action. The student, acting on her own, with no coersion from either the school, or any representative from the school, took it upon herself to speak about her religion. This is an entirely different matter.

I am also a lay person. But it seems to me that this has two First Amendment protections. First, it is personal speech, which is outright protected under the First Amendment free speech clause. Second, the school system does not have the right to restrict religious expression of a personal nature under the First Amendment religious freedom clause. Whether or not the audience was captive is irrelevant.

I basically don't make exceptions for First Amendment rights here. They are fairly clear. As long as the school had no part in specifically providing for religious messages, the student is free to speak. That's the difference between Santa Fe v. Doe and this situation. I know that this is a fine line, but I feel strongly that it's a distinction that makes a big difference. The girl has the right to make her speech.

[Fridays Child]

26. The school did enable her by approving her speech and providing...

...the venue. Santa Fe v. Doe expands the captive audience principle to include extra-curricular activities where state resources are used.

[longship]

28. Correct, but

IANAL. In Santa Fe v Doe, that was not the only criteria. SFvDoe fails First Amendment tests on multiple grounds.

The decision behind SF v Doe is Lee v Weisman where the principal selected clergy to offer prayers at graduation. Here, again there is official coercion in the form of an official of the school system sanctioning the religious practice. In part, the court found:

State officials here direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at secondary schools' promotional and graduation ceremonies. Lee's decision that prayers should be given and his selection of the religious participant are choices attributable to the State. Moreover, through the pamphlet and his advice that the prayers be nonsectarian, he directed and controlled the prayers' content. That the directions may have been given in a good-faith attempt to make the prayers acceptable to most persons does not resolve the dilemma caused by the school's involvement, since the government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds.

So it is the school's action in sanctioning the religious expression which is Constitutionally fatal.

Further more, in Santa Fe v Doe, the court found:

The delivery of a message such as the invocation here--on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer--is not properly characterized as "private" speech.

And,

The policy involves both perceived and actual endorsement of religion, see Lee, 505 U. S., at 590, declaring that the student elections take place because the District "has chosen to permit" student-delivered invocations, that the invocation "shall" be conducted "by the high school student council" "upon advice and direction of the high school principal," and that it must be consistent with the policy's goals, which include "solemniz the event."

The court makes very clear that the school's sanctioning of religious expression is what makes the religious expression fail Constitutional tests. They specifically reject the claims that personal speech is involved when the school specifically provides for the expression.

With regards to the captive audiences:

The school district's supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction.
...
Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means.

Again, the court is clear that it is the school district's specific provision for religious expression which is fatal.

This is not what is happening in this situation. In this situation it is private speech, uncoerced and unsanctioned by the school. Indeed, the school intially tries to forbid it. Furthermore, as it is clearly private speech, the student has First Amendment rights to make that speech. The school system made the correct decision in allowing her to speak on whatever she wanted.

[The Straight Story]

40. Kind of like telling someone to wear a seat belt or to quit smoking

Messages directed at me telling me how to live my life I see as religious or philosophical - both are based on beliefs.

We all have a message, sometimes we are direct and sometimes we hide in between the lines. No matter what message she would have used there would have been preaching to some extent in it.

[Erika]

18. This girl seems to be yet another right winger selling

Christianity. She and her backers would have a fit if others sold their prophets/Gods in a speech.

[Fridays Child]

27. Many Americans can't see the forest for the trees on this issue.

Which is why it's important to emphasize the point you're making.

[longship]

29. It doesn't matter what wing speech it is.

The only religious expression that it outlawed in public schools is that which is officially sanctioned or encouraged by employees of the state. In matters where an individual student, on his or her own volition chooses to speak on a religious matter, it is not fatal to First Amendment tests. Especially in this case, where the student has earned the right to speak by exercising academic excellence, it becomes a First Amendment violation to censor or restrict her expression, and especially if she chooses, on her own volition, to express religious speech. Then, to censor is not only an infringement of her free speech rights, but is also an infringment of her religious rights.

[grumpy old fart]

31. People are always getting this mixed up....free speech v. establishment...

This is not a school official (State) doing anything. This is a U.S. citizen freely expressing her thoughts. Yes, there are restrictions on speech (e.g. "fire" in a theater), but there are no restrictions on someone (not the State) saying what's on their mind.

[Maat]

32. Ya' know ... I'm a 47-year-old .. and IN MY DAY ..

this would have been considered the EPITOMY of rudeness.

Yes, I'm a Juris Doctor (law degree), and I understand the notorious Mat Staver's argument (her lawyer's).

But my Grammie taught me that you didn't force your personal religious beliefs down someone else's throat by going on and on to a captive audience, whether or not it was at a graduation or at a dinner party.

People indicated they wanted to hear about that .. or talk about that .. fine.

But this is a rude attempt at proselytizing. She may have learned a great deal of book knowledge, but her sense of consideration for others certainly leaves something to be desired.

I would have had to go to the loo during this part of the ceremony.

Just my humble opinion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

33. I see your point

it reminds me of an Independence Day celebration in a little town in Southern Illinois. The local gospel quartet had been asked to sing, and before they did, they asked the Baptists to raise their hands, then the Methodists, etc. They ended by saying, "Don't you all want to be Baptists?" and the tone was not a joking one. Personally, I found it offensive, as they were implying that only Baptists were worthy of anything.

That being said, the girl has the right to free speech. But when MY granddaughter is validictorian, her HS better let her espouse her PAGAN beliefs-and I'll use this case to cite as precident.

[Maat]

34. You got it! You're right.

I guess, on this one, I have mixed feelings.

You know what? If your granddaughter did espouse her beliefs, I'd love it.

I guess I have developed a certain hostility .. not towards Christianity, but towards conservative Christian lawyers setting up test cases. Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel, is notorious for letting every fundie around know that he will defend them, frequently for free, IF they just happen to speak about Christ here, or Christ there.

Mat may say he is about religious freedom, but he is really about forcefeeding his version of religion down every non-fundamentalist's throat, in my humble opinion.

And, this law grad has done the research; most Religious hardright legal groups have some major right-wing nutbucket zillionaires funding them.

[onager]

35. You're right. The ACLJ comes to mind...

Jay Suck-u-low, er, Sekulow pulls the same trick. He does a daily radio show on the local Fundie station here in Los Angeles. People are urged to call in with their direful tales of Christian persecution. Sometimes Sekulow offers to defend them right on the air.

The ACLJ is funded by Pat Robertson, as a legal version of an upraised middle finger to the ACLU.

[Maat]

36. Jay! What's funny is Barry Lynn, of AU, says Jay isn't that bad a

guy, personally speaking. I don't believe it.

I think the ACLJ IS the one that gets big fundie money. That and the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund).

I have watched a 1/2-one-hour program of Jay's on Pat R's Family channel.

He mixes law with personal philosophy with ease.

"Who wouldn't want the 10 Commandments everywhere?"

Well, Jay ...

[Zhade]

37. Not my experience - Sekulow was an asshole when I worked with him.

This was back in '94, during my first job in television. He didn't like being touched when you miked him. Could be really rude, especially to those who disagreed with him.

He always gave me the willies.

[Maat]

41. HeeHee. Just saw this post.

Thanks. That's kind of creepy. Wonder what issues he has?

[Brentos]

39. Some agreement

I agree the girl has the right to free speech on this issue.

I agree the atheist granddaughter, or the wiccan, or the Islamic would have the same right.

I would also applaud your using your right to walk out in protest to what she was saying.

I love living in a free country.

I just pray it stays this way.

Thanks,
Brentos, member of CAD (Christians Against Dobson)