Valedictorian sues over Gospel speech

[Baptist Believer]

If we are not praying in the name of Jesus there is no reason to pray.

Yes.

And leading double lives a Christian one and a secular one where God is allowed to be excluded is hypocritical.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting anything otherwise.

But living a Christian life doesn't mean deceiving others, using the power, platform and influence of the state to spread your religious views, or hiding behind attorneys when it is time to face the consequences of your actions.

In fact, it is worse than being "secular," it is a very negative witness of Christ.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Yes.


And I don't think anyone is suggesting anything otherwise.

But living a Christian life doesn't mean deceiving others, using the power, platform and influence of the state to spread your religious views, or hiding behind attorneys when it is time to face the consequences of your actions.

In fact, it is worse than being "secular," it is a very negative witness of Christ.

By your standard we should pull a large portion of our missionaries out of China and India and many other locations. Paul and the other Apostles knew that they were not wanted by the local authorities to preach Christ. Yet they went anyway.

And this youg girl did not use the state to spread the truth, which is far differnt than "religious views". And what she did was not illegal. the interference of the school was the illegal activity and they will loose this in court as it has already been supported by many courts in this country.

 

[KenH]

And what she did was not illegal.

No, it was not illegal. It was unethical. Ethics mattered to Christians when I was young. Maybe they don't anymore.

 

[carpro]

Actually, Jesus often gets a good hearing among the lost... but not among the religious. Many churches (including "fundamental" ones) have theological, social and institutional structures in place to ensure that nothing changes and that the Spirit is not welcome.

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[webdog]

Christians shouldn't lie.

Christians shouldn't sue.

Why shouldn't Christians sue? Scripture please.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Give me one that says it's OK. Give me a biblical precident. I don't see anyone in the Bible suing, ever. I see submission.

 

[carpro]

Give me one that says it's OK. Give me a biblical precident. I don't see anyone in the Bible suing, ever. I see submission.

Except when it comes to evangelizing.

 

[Don]

Hey, carpro: Why don't you try keeping the discussion about what the girl did, instead of attacking people?

Nowhere in the article does it identify whether the girl intended to add that bit, and didn't tell the school officials. It also doesn't say whether she was suddenly led to do so. It also doesn't seem to mention (or I may have missed it) that she was specificially told beforehand not to include religious comments.

Because of that lack of information, people can only discuss what she did, and what she's now doing. No one is judging her intent.

I applaud her mentioning Jesus (it was my understanding that she didn't pray; she did a short speech).

If she was given instructions not to mention religous beliefs beforehand, and she intended to do it all along, I take back my applause, and rebuke her instead, because she deceived the school officials, who are now looking at her witness for Christ and saying, "Christians think it's okay to lie and deceive."

The school will lose the free speech lawsuit; but unless it can be unequivocably proven that she did it on the spur of the moment, that there was no deception intended, then there has been no victory here.

 

[Baptist Believer]

By your standard we should pull a large portion of our missionaries out of China and India and many other locations.

You must have a reading comprehension problem because that is not my “standard.” Would you please deal with what I am really saying instead of spinning fantasies?

Paul and the other Apostles knew that they were not wanted by the local authorities to preach Christ. Yet they went anyway.

Yes they did. But if you have been following the discussion, you will know why I see many distinctions between what they did and what this girl claims she did.

1.) They didn’t use the power, influence and platform of the state to get their message out to a captive audience.
2.) They didn’t run a version of their speech before officials and then change it when they delivered it.
3.) They endured the consequences of the authorities without complaint.

I’ve said this several times. Instead of just ignoring it and coming up with wild accusations, why don’t you engage with these ideas and refute them if you can. You unwillingness to do so thus far is very telling.

And this youg girl did not use the state to spread the truth...

Sure, she used the captive audience that the state provided for the occasion and she used the public address system to spread “the truth.”

...which is far differnt than "religious views".

They are still religious views even if you and I understand them to be “the truth.”

And what she did was not illegal.

As has already been noted, it was at least unethical. And that should be enough. Furthermore, I believe it to be illegal based on the Supreme Court decisions regarding this issue.

the interference of the school was the illegal activity...

Illegal? Based on what? Do you still maintain that “free speech” somehow applies in a mandatory, state-sponsored event that is heavily scripted?

...and they will loose this in court as it has already been supported by many courts in this country.

Can you name examples of this support? I’ve follow church/state issues closely for nearly 20 years, and I don’t see any indication that makes me think this will be overturned.

(Please note that “loose” is the opposite of tighten and “lose” is the opposite of win.)

 

[Baptist Believer]

Actually, Jesus often gets a good hearing among the lost... but not among the religious. Many churches (including "fundamental" ones) have theological, social and institutional structures in place to ensure that nothing changes and that the Spirit is not welcome.

Smoke and mirrors.

I see that you carefully considered what I wrote.

I based what I said on discussion and evangelism among quite a few unchurched people, as well as over 40 years in Baptist churches.

Your experience may vary, but that does not warrant brushing aside my point.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

3.) They endured the consequences of the authorities without complaint.

Everyone should read that, over & over. Good stuff.

 

[carpro]

I see that you carefully considered what I wrote.

Enough to see that you greatly expanded the topic and avoided the question at hand. Looked sorta like the beginnings of a sermon.

 

[carpro]

Nowhere in the article does it identify whether the girl intended to add that bit, and didn't tell the school officials. It also doesn't say whether she was suddenly led to do so. It also doesn't seem to mention (or I may have missed it) that she was specificially told beforehand not to include religious comments.

My point exactly.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Don]

My point exactly.

Thanks for your help.

Not intending to help you. I disagree with her entirely, if she intended from the beginning to add to what she presented to the school officials.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You must have a reading comprehension problem because that is not my “standard.” Would you please deal with what I am really saying instead of spinning fantasies?


Yes they did. But if you have been following the discussion, you will know why I see many distinctions between what they did and what this girl claims she did.

1.) They didn’t use the power, influence and platform of the state to get their message out to a captive audience.
2.) They didn’t run a version of their speech before officials and then change it when they delivered it.
3.) They endured the consequences of the authorities without complaint.

I’ve said this several times. Instead of just ignoring it and coming up with wild accusations, why don’t you engage with these ideas and refute them if you can. You unwillingness to do so thus far is very telling.


Sure, she used the captive audience that the state provided for the occasion and she used the public address system to spread “the truth.”


They are still religious views even if you and I understand them to be “the truth.”


As has already been noted, it was at least unethical. And that should be enough. Furthermore, I believe it to be illegal based on the Supreme Court decisions regarding this issue.


Illegal? Based on what? Do you still maintain that “free speech” somehow applies in a mandatory, state-sponsored event that is heavily scripted?


Can you name examples of this support? I’ve follow church/state issues closely for nearly 20 years, and I don’t see any indication that makes me think this will be overturned.

(Please note that “loose” is the opposite of tighten and “lose” is the opposite of win.)

As far as whether or not what she did is unethical we will have to agree to disagree.

On the issue of legality and if this would get overturned I submit the following:

Student Assemblies and Extracurricular Events Including Graduation

This area of the Guidelines will prove to be a significant blessing for public school students. The Guidelines state that where “student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content.” Thus, students may
• Engage in prayer or religious expression at student assemblies.
• Engage in prayer or religious expression during graduation. (This section of the Guidelines incorporates the legal principle arising out of our victory in the Adler v. Duval County School Board graduation prayer case.)

http://www.lc.org/newsletter/lib/lib0303.htm


The activity of the school to supress constitutionally protected free speech is what was illegal.

The comparison I made to missionaries is valid. The activities of the missionaries is illegal and they go into countries for the sole purpose of evangelism under the cover of something else. Sometimes their cover is to teach or to just be a visitor. But never is their primary purpose given. The only difference with this girl is she was right and the school was constitutionally wrong.

 

[Jim1999]

Back in the late fifties, Baptist preachers were jailed in Quebec for passing out tracts and street preaching. We broke the law to preach the gospel. We paid the consequences; we went to jail. Eventually got the right to tell God's story in a province once dominated by the local RC priest.

I am not debating the legality of this girl's actions I still think she was brave and correct in telling forth the truth. If there are consequences, then she must be prepared for those too.

And, yes other religions should be free to dispense their message. Atheistic evolution, another religion, has had its way for years. Non-believers have been free to present their message for years.

Further, in Canada, a Christian man was charged for quoting verses that appeared to be against homosexuality, in a newspaper was charged with a violation of human rights.

There were consequences in Jesus' time and why should we expect less?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[carpro]

Not intending to help you. I disagree with her entirely, if she intended from the beginning to add to what she presented to the school officials.

But you did help, and I appreciate it.

If.

And we don't know that , do we?

Until we do, the piling on here at BB is premature.

 

[Don]

But you did help, and I appreciate it.

If.

And we don't know that , do we?

Until we do, the piling on here at BB is premature.

Actually, it goes both ways. Your congratulations of her is also premature, until we know whether it was intentional deception or spur-of-the-moment.

 

[carpro]

Actually, it goes both ways. Your congratulations of her is also premature, until we know whether it was intentional deception or spur-of-the-moment.

Ahhh...

I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. Don't you?

 

[billreber]

Valedictorian (etc)

Am I the only one who read in the original article that the school officials said (after the fact) that if the girl HAD put into her proposed speech anything about Jesus, they would have prohibited it?

Regardless of the intent of the girl, the school was WRONG to discriminate against a person simply because of their beliefs. THAT point is where the school will lose the lawsuit.

Previewing speeches IS legal. Forced censorship of religious beliefs is NOT.

Bill :saint: