RELIGIOUS VALEDICTORIAN: U.S. Supreme Court rules in Nebraska Case

[Tangerine]

McComb v. Crehan, the current case in question, was rejected by the SC without comment. What does that usually suggest, other than that, for the moment, the lower court ruling stands?

tim :eek

It doesn't "suggest" anything. It sends a clear message that the court did not see any reason to rule further- that the ruling by the Federal Appeals Court was correct and that the school's actions in this case were not unconstitutional.

 

[Tangerine]

The whole tax exempt thing though, you are wrong about. A church cannot endorse any person running for any office or it will lose it's tax exempt status, the only "political" things they are permitted to speak about is issues. Such as issues that will violate a belief that they have. (or any issue really, although, it would be annoying to hear about an issue that does not violate the Bible.)

With the advent of "soft money" and "issue advertising" - churches are using a legal loophole to endorse candidates. Coincidence that you generally see these types of ads AFTER primaries when the only two candidates remaining have polar opposite positions on the "issue" at hand? Endorsing an issue when only one candidate supports that issue is a clear way of endorsing a candidate.

She should have been stopped briefly and told that she could only say that which the school approved and to speak about the religious things elsewhere. Not cut off without any warning.

My understanding is that she had already been told not to stray from the text of her speech to include religious themes. She ignored those instructions and did it anyway. She had already received fair warning it was not acceptable.

If I were the principal of the school, I would have also removed her from the ceremony altogether and told her to look for her diploma in the mail.

 

[Leananshee]

If it helps you, I'd be happy to point out why all of the examples you cite are completely irrelevant to this case.

Here. If you really want to see the REAL guidelines, here's the link:
Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools
By the way, the examples I pointed out were in reference to your straw man argument about religious observances in public places, not about this case. I do commend you for getting back to the original topic, though.

Sorry that your point of view on the subject is repeatedly rejected by the court, but that's the way it is.

Cute. Name one Supreme Court case that's touched this specific issue. My point of view? My point of view is that the First Amendment applies to EVERYONE, including students, whether I agree with them or not, and schools should be TEACHING kids their constitutional rights, not trampling them.

Oh, and I really don't care what labels you choose to apply to me. Fire away. My beliefs won't waiver and the courts are on my side.

That's waver, unless you require people to relinquish claims of liability whenever you speak. Perhaps that is what you meant? Fact is, you are only going to take that side if it's a religious message. My side is that First Amendment freedoms shouldn't be checked at the schoolhouse door except where it directly affects the educational mission of the school.

It doesn't "suggest" anything. It sends a clear message that the court did not see any reason to rule further- that the ruling by the Federal Appeals Court was correct and that the school's actions in this case were not unconstitutional.

Far as I'm aware, this particular issue hasn't been heard in the SC yet, and complete silence on its part usually means there's something else coming up that has a broader constitutional implication. In politics, you must usually read between the lines.

tim :eek

 

[Dakota Jim]

I don't disagree with your logic, although I do think religion should be a part of school, especially since the majority of our laws and rules come from the morals taught in the Bible.

That does not fit in todays world. The original Americans were religiously based and came here to continue that in their politics. However, this is today and it no longer matters that a coin says "in God we trust"....There are many who do not believe in god and still have served their country, many died and all pay for freedom from religious pressures.

The whole tax exempt thing though, you are wrong about. A church cannot endorse any person running for any office or it will lose it's tax exempt status, the only "political" things they are permitted to speak about is issues. Such as issues that will violate a belief that they have. (or any issue really, although, it would be annoying to hear about an issue that does not violate the Bible.)

I am not wrong about that. In our last election alone many preached from the pulpit the evils of now President Obama. They endorsed and urged their congregations to support McCain. There hasn't been a church lose it's tax exempt status in modern times most due to PC.

As far as this case goes, she should not have been cut off. The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

She was using public property, on pubic property and prior to the speech, which had been cleared for presentation, she signed a agreement to stick to the speech as approved. She violated that agreement and was cut off as a result.

She was asked to speak, not forced to speak, it was not an assignment but a request, therefor she freely chose to give her speech. There was not a school official that spoke, it would be like a student starting her speech by praying....hmmm....

See above.

She should have been stopped briefly and told that she could only say that which the school approved and to speak about the religious things elsewhere. Not cut off without any warning.

No warning was required or even necessary.

 

[Tangerine]

Far as I'm aware, this particular issue hasn't been heard in the SC yet, and complete silence on its part usually means there's something else coming up that has a broader constitutional implication. In politics, you must usually read between the lines.

So rejecting an appeal is "complete silence"? Again, the fact that they found no error in the Federal Appeals Court ruling speaks volumes.

I'm glad that you believe you know what the SCOTUS is thinking and can speak on their behalf. I'll stick to analyzing what they actually DO. There's nothing more I need to say.

 

[Tangerine]

... I do think religion should be a part of school, especially since the majority of our laws and rules come from the morals taught in the Bible.

I always find it interesting how frequently this point is brought up... usually in reference to the "Ten Commandments." If they are the basis for our laws and rules why are only two of them actually "illegal?"

 

[Leananshee]

You've apparently never closely followed how the SC takes cases. Rejecting a case WITHOUT COMMENT in a non-criminal case, especially one like this, is unusual.

I take it that since you can't comment on anything else but this, can't produce a single case the SC has heard like this, have no comment on the ACTUAL guidelines the government currently advises in this case, and have nothing more to add but a smug, half-thought-through barb, there really ISN"T anything else you can say.

tim :eek

 

[dt3]

Freedom of Speech is the biggest misconception of our Constitution in my opinion. You do NOT have the right to say whatever you want wherever you want. Our founding fathers made this the First Amendment to give you the right to speak out against our government without fear of retribution. Read the Federalist Papers. It is not intended to be complete freedom to say anything anywhere. If you go to a movie theater and scream "FIRE", you will be arrested. If you tell a TSA officer at the airport you have a bomb, you will be arrested. It's only meant to guarantee your right to freedom of speech against our government, nothing more.

 

[Alien Allen]

Shit that is a bummer Donnie.

That means I can't call a moderator a dickhead and get away with it

Oh the tangled web we weave.

I got nothing on this topic other than she was an idiot religious freak. Yeah I said that. When somebody is told in advance they are to not stray off topic and still have to try to preach then they are a religious nut.

This should never have even gone to court to begin with. Damn judges on the local level should have thrown her out and given her and the parents a spanking for wasting the courts time.

 

[dt3]

Shit that is a bummer Donnie.

That means I can't call a moderator a dickhead and get away with it

Of course you can, just not this moderator

 

[Leananshee]

No doubt she's a religious nut, and I've never really cared for extremists. So why give her credence by pulling the plug on her? Why make her a martyr?

As an aside, pit preachers regularly go to public areas of universities, assaulting the ears of passersby with their diatribe. Most people roll their eyes and pass on by. Once I decided to mess with a particularly offensive one by standing close by and reciting the Brady Bunch theme in the style of a charismatic preacher. I drew as much of a crowd as this joker did, including some of his audience. When I finished, those who stopped to listen applauded, then they and I left him alone to rage on. Didn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but it was cathartic.

Yet street preachers still preach, and still Nazis and white supremacists are allowed to hold rallies and marches. So long as they obey the law, let them. The day that only those we agree with are allowed liberty, liberty dies.

Back to the girl in question, she didn't yell fire, she yelled God, which I'm certain to some is about the same thing, but it isn't. This country was founded on relative rights -- you have the right to do something relative to another's to do the same, for the most part, though that's a simplification. The growing sentiment I seem to see that one's opposition be utterly silenced is directly contradictory to that principle.

tim :eek

 

[tnok]

That does not fit in todays world. The original Americans were religiously based and came here to continue that in their politics. However, this is today and it no longer matters that a coin says "in God we trust"....There are many who do not believe in god and still have served their country, many died and all pay for freedom from religious pressures.

I don't believe I said anything about what you or I think "fits", I just said that this countries laws and morals were founded on Biblical principals. Regardless of what you want to argue, that is a fact. Yeah, as far as the moral part is concerned, our country has strayed from it, but with the laws it has not.... Last time I checked killing someone was still illegal, and so was stealing, and bearing false witness (In court at least, ie: perjury)

I am not wrong about that. In our last election alone many preached from the pulpit the evils of now President Obama. They endorsed and urged their congregations to support McCain. There hasn't been a church lose it's tax exempt status in modern times most due to PC.

I have been attending a Christian College for the past two and a half years, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this law, especially since we had an entire class that talked about the tax exempt thing with non profit organizations. It is never OK for a church, ministry, or non-profit agency to endorse a candidate. In fact, it is against the law. That's right, it is unlawful for a non-profit organization to directly endorse or oppose a political candidate.

She was using public property, on pubic property and prior to the speech, which had been cleared for presentation, she signed a agreement to stick to the speech as approved. She violated that agreement and was cut off as a result.

It is not unconstitutional to speak of religion on public property, as a matter of fact, you can pass out religious literature at school and talk about religion with people at school as long as you do it during a time when you would normally be allowed to talk about anything. This time would usually be in between classes or before/after school. If a school was private property then they could stop all of this from happening.(ie: private schools)

If she signed an agreement, then they had every right to cut the audio, but I did not read that in the original post, nor in the link (and i just checked) all it says is that she strayed from an approved text... In that case if she just said one wrong word they should have cut the mic.

If you have a link to all of the specifics of the case, I would like to have it so I can have the info I am missing. Thanks