separation of church and state

[gridfaniker]

Hypothetical:

A senior at a public high school is the valedictorian of his class. A professed Christian, he naturally wants to mention his faith and attribute his success as as a person to it. A review of his veledictory shows that he in no way wants to promote his Christian beliefs by urging his classmates and those who will be attending the commencement ceremony to accept the Lord as their personal savior. In no way does he question the beliefs of those who prescribe to other religions. In fact, no others religions or faiths are mentioned. In a nutshell, he simply wants to credit the Lord for his achievements. While that is the standard theme of his valedictory, it is far from being a sermon. In fact, it contains most of the standard fare from most speeches: be true to yourself; never give up; etc. etc.

Question: should he be permitted to deliver the speech or should it be banned on the grounds it violates the First Amendment?

[vpkozel]

I would hope that he would understand that a graduation is not the place for a long disertation on how God and his impact on his life. Should he mention it and move on, sure and if someone had a problem with that I would say they were wrong.

[gridfaniker]

I would hope that he would understand that a graduation is not the place for a long disertation on how God and his impact on his life. Should he mention it and move on, sure and if someone had a problem with that I would say they were wrong.

I would agree that a high school graduation is probably not the place for it, but my question is: does it violate Constitutional rules separating church and state?

[vpkozel]

Are any tape recorders confiscated?

[gridfaniker]

Are any tape recorders confiscated?

no.

which side do you think the ACLU would fall on? Remember, this is an agency that professes to protect individuals' Constitutional rights, one of which is the right to free speech.

[vpkozel]

no.

which side do you think the ACLU would fall on? Remember, this is an agency that professes to protect individuals' Constitutional rights, one of which is the right to free speech.

Well, that's the thing. This would not be a free speech issue because no one is preventing him from saying these things or threatening retribution if he does. It is a lot like the HOF/Tim Robins thing, IMO. It is just not an appropriate place to say some things. No one will punish him for these beliefs, but they have no obligation to provide him with the forum to share them.

[gridfaniker]

Well, that's the thing. This would not be a free speech issue because no one is preventing him from saying these things or threatening retribution if he does. It is a lot like the HOF/Tim Robins thing, IMO. It is just not an appropriate place to say some things. No one will punish him for these beliefs, but they have no obligation to provide him with the forum to share them.

what if in the hypothetical he was told that he had to delete any and all references to his faith or not be allowed to address his classmates. Does that make it a free speech issue?

[kshead]

what if in the hypothetical he was told that he had to delete any and all references to his faith or not be allowed to address his classmates. Does that make it a free speech issue?

You'd think the second brother would have sense enough to not tip his hand before the speech. :) But I guess not.

[vpkozel]

what if in the hypothetical he was told that he had to delete any and all references to his faith or not be allowed to address his classmates. Does that make it a free speech issue?

Not really. Now if they told him that they would flunk him if he did it or not provide a transcript or arrest him, then it would be different.

There is no right to give valedictory speeches in the Constitution that I am aware of.

[gridfaniker]

Not really. Now if they told him that they would flunk him if he did it or not provide a transcript or arrest him, then it would be different.

There is no right to give valedictory speeches in the Constitution that I am aware of.

you're correct, there is no right to give valedictory speeches in the Constitution, but they are given nonetheless, at thousands of schools each year. If someone was told that he couldn't include mention of his faith in his speech because it violates separation laws, does he have a legitimate gripe?

[Ssstern]

you're correct, there is no right to give valedictory speeches in the Constitution, but they are given nonetheless, at thousands of schools each year. If someone was told that he couldn't include mention of his faith in his speech because it violates separation laws, does he have a legitimate gripe?

I think the word that is the catch is "mention". As is in "Being a Christian or whatever". I think is find. If he begins to preach then that is another story.

[vpkozel]

you're correct, there is no right to give valedictory speeches in the Constitution, but they are given nonetheless, at thousands of schools each year. If someone was told that he couldn't include mention of his faith in his speech because it violates separation laws, does he have a legitimate gripe?

They are given because people want them, but to have a graduation without one is certainly not infringing on someone's rights. Whoever is in charge of the event would certainly have the right to ask the speaker to stay away from controversial or incendiary. The speaker then has the right to decide whether or not to edit his comments. But unless someone is arresting the guy or punishing him, then not being allowed to give the speech is not violating the First in any way.

[builder]

I think the word that is the catch is "mention". As is in "Being a Christian or whatever". I think is find. If he begins to preach then that is another story.

Nope. If it's a student, fine. Principal or teacher, that's different. If it's a student, I think it falls under free speech. I can get up and leave if I dont want to sit there.

[HardHarry]

you're correct, there is no right to give valedictory speeches in the Constitution, but they are given nonetheless, at thousands of schools each year. If someone was told that he couldn't include mention of his faith in his speech because it violates separation laws, does he have a legitimate gripe?

Grid, do you want the actual legal distinction here or is this merely rhetorical? First amendment stuff isn't my specialty, but I believe this falls under special exceptions for speech made in govt settings versus open public forums.

IMO though, the kid should be able to rattle off a couple of mentions, but if he does turn it into a conversion sermon, then he is violating the rights of the people he is addressing. There's a balancing test that always takes place with these things. These folks didn't come to hear a religious pitch (implied consent), so they shouldn't be subjected to one.

[gridfaniker]

They are given because people want them, but to have a graduation without one is certainly not infringing on someone's rights. Whoever is in charge of the event would certainly have the right to ask the speaker to stay away from controversial or incendiary. The speaker then has the right to decide whether or not to edit his comments. But unless someone is arresting the guy or punishing him, then not being allowed to give the speech is not violating the First in any way.


OK, I think I asked this in the original post but didn't clarify that I was referring to the separation of church and state (thought the title of the thread made it clear). Would the mere mention of one's faith in a speech at a public school qualify as a violation of rules regarding the separation of church and state?

In a nutshell: is the speech-giver violating someone else's rights by mentioning his faith in the speech?

[vpkozel]

In a nutshell: is the speech-giver violating someone else's rights by mentioning his faith in the speech?

Mentioning, no. Making it the recurring and constant theme, probably.

[chipshot]

Mentioning, no. Making it the recurring and constant theme, probably.
still no

[gridfaniker]

Making it the recurring and constant theme, probably.

how so?

[vpkozel]

still no

how so?

By making it part of the entire process then you are saying to the audience that they either have to listen to the speech or not participate in the graduation ceremony. So you have now pitted the students right to say something (which does not grant him an audience) against their right to peacefully assemble.

If you then force an audience member to listen to your version of religion, then you are also infringing upon their ability to enjoy a gathering in a non religious place without being subjected to religion - which is an entriely reasonable assumption on their part.

I don't really think that it is a First Ammendment issue in any way, but if you want to make it one, and the kid has been approached and asked to tone it down and refused, then I would say that he is in the wrong.

[Shrapnel]

To me, so long as the school wasn't specifically encouraging and/or asking for the part about the religion, the kid should be able to say pretty much whatever he wants. He isn't an employee of the school/state.

[gridfaniker]

I don't really think that it is a First Ammendment issue in any way

so your answer is, no, it does not violate anyone's rights under the First Amendment?

[vpkozel]

so your answer is, no, it does not violate anyone's rights under the First Amendment?


Well, that's the thing. This would not be a free speech issue because no one is preventing him from saying these things or threatening retribution if he does. It is a lot like the HOF/Tim Robins thing, IMO. It is just not an appropriate place to say some things. No one will punish him for these beliefs, but they have no obligation to provide him with the forum to share them.

[Ssstern]

The fact that this is a minor who is probably 16-17 yrs old have any bearing on this question? Another question, since I have not attended highschool in several years. Are Valedictorians elected or choosen?

[gridfaniker]

The fact that this is a minor who is probably 16-17 yrs old have any bearing on this question? Another question, since I have not attended highschool in several years. Are Valedictorians elected or choosen?

they usually earn it based on their grades. Melody Martin earned it, albeit indirectly, based on her ability to suck cock. She sucked cock for As and the good grades got her top honors.

[Superfluous_Nut]

they usually earn it based on their grades. Melody Martin earned it, albeit indirectly, based on her ability to suck cock. She sucked cock for As and the good grades got her top honors.wow. it took like 8 posts before you finally went there.

[coachevans26]

He can say what he wants, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, which in this case it does not. Remember, student led prayers are Constitutional and Bible reading is Constitutional as long as they are not mandated, are voluntary in nature and student led.

[Superfluous_Nut]

He can say what he wants, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, which in this case it does not. Remember, student led prayers are Constitutional and Bible reading is Constitutional as long as they are not mandated, are voluntary in nature and student led.

i don't think you can say a graduation ceremnoy is "student led".

[vpkozel]

i don't think you can say a graduation ceremnoy is "student led".

Do you think he should be allowed to give his speech? Should the administration of teh school be able to edit his remarks?

[kshead]

i don't think you can say a graduation ceremnoy is "student led".

The courts agree with you here. So far, anyway....

[slydevl]

Do you think he should be allowed to give his speech? Should the administration of teh school be able to edit his remarks?

I had to have my speech approved before I gave it

[WilliamJ]

there was a dude several years ago that graduated from harvard, i think, he gave his entire speach in latin. the faculty had no idea he was going to do this.

[ECILAM]

To go straight back to Grid's original question, no, it would not be a violation. Even in an extreme exaggerated scenario where the student condemned secularism, condemned non-Christian religions, and called for a return to the values of the 1950s, I don't think it would violate the First Amendment. It would be out of line and expose the kid as an unhinged zealot, but the criticism would focus on the context of the time and place, not the Constitutionality of the content.

[Superfluous_Nut]

there was a dude several years ago that graduated from harvard, i think, he gave his entire speach in latin. the faculty had no idea he was going to do this.
i'll bet he was popular with the ladies.