Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    “So, we all have "little minds" (a theme you repeat often) and apparently he's the brightest person in the room and there is no boogieman ... I presume you mean bogey man and not some master of funk. Later, you decide there is in fact a bogey man in the form of "the government" (que scary music ... no, scary, not funky, OK Mr Boogieman, just boogie on along now please).

    “When he speaks then we should listen to his opinion but we're not allowed to have any opinion on what he says?

    “Since then you have doggedly persued a worthless argument in an attempt to back up your initial statements.”

    Simon,

    The thing absent a boogieman is the act of quoting Jesus and stating agreement with the quote. To this day I see nothing whatever dangerous about doing that. Gandhi did that. Was Gandhi dangerous to someone like you or me? I don't think so.

    It is very appropriate to share and listen to a wide range of perspectives. I’ve not suggested this in inappropriate. But when we share an opinion that makes an assertion then we have a burden to prove that opinion true when asked to do so. Or, at least that is how I see things.

    I don’t see how what you write above suggests lack of objectivity on my part.

    “Once again - we're all 'petty' for having our opinion are we?

    “Yes, there is a chance that the boy will grown up and teach us the mysteries of the universe. I won't hold my breath though. Given that it appears he wants to go into politics and has a penchant for Christianity it's more likely we'll be reading his name in relation to some gay-preacher-politician sex-scandal and he'll be able to fall down on his knees and practice his praying for the camera all over again.”

    People are not petty for having opinions. Whether an opinion is sound depends on how well it can withstand substantive scrutiny.

    I don’t see how what you write in this cases suggests lack of objectivity on my part.

    “We're little-brained again ... my my, so many insults. Everyone else is so stupid aren't they? Only you have the 'sense' to look for knowledge anywhere and everywhere. You're so clever.

    “This picture you like to paint of yourself as being on some quest for knowledge is just an act IMO. You bring your opinions to the table like anyone else and try and twist the world to fit them.”

    No.

    My point you take exception to was not to insult anyone here but to point out an object lesson in relation to civil disobedience.

    “Marvin. Since you first appeared on this topic it's been clear you do not have an objective viewpoint on the subject.”

    During this discussion my primary concern has been sufficiently spelled out, and it’s objective. Ultimately it asks a question: how is appropriate governmental intrusion into speech best determined.

    But as I said already, from what I can tell participants here don’t want to go there. So be it.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Do you want to be kicked off the forum? I hope you don't b/c I will miss you.

    How many subatomic particles are in the dust around my door?

    How many angels can fit on a pinhead?

    What do dogs really think about?

    What are the dynamics of a cockroach/elephant dispute?

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    Marvin: The mere act of quoting a historical religious figure and stating agreement with that quote is necessarily a religious act.

    Yes or no?

    How do you answer?

    ---

    Yes, it is.

    You are trying to dumb down Costner's actions and hoping we don't see it.

    1. The "historical figure" quoted was Jesus. What else is he known for other than being the originator of one of the world's major religions- Christianity.

    2. Costner chose to recite a prayer by Jesus- something he explicitly agreed not to do.

    Had Costner opted to quote something from Jesus about taking care of the poor, showing mercy, being forgiving, etc., while still in violation of the policies he agreed to abide by, I think it would have had a less controversial effect.

    But, Costner chose to quote a prayer from the originator of his religion of choice- Christianity. How convenient!

    Judging from the reactions his conduct has elicited on this thread should make it painfully obvious to you that his actions were not as benign as you think they are.

    Would you argue that it was not a religious act if Costner had quoted a prayer by Muhammed from the Koran? What else could it possibly be?

    And, you still completely deflect from acknowledging that Costner violated rules he agreed to abide by, which was a massive act of deception. So, what does that say about the effect, if any, his religion actually has in his life, if he's willing to lie ( four of the seven sins god hates involve lying) to promote his beliefs?

    To me, it betrays that Costner is a "conditional" Christian. In other words, he will tell you his religion is superior to all others, but he will violate the basic tenets of his "most right" religion when it suits him. Hypocritical beyond belief!

    It is an epic fail, unfortunately lost on you and those of similar thinking.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    During this discussion my primary concern has been sufficiently spelled out, and it’s objective.

    Ultimately it asks a question: how is appropriate governmental intrusion into speech best determined.

    But as I said already, from what I can tell participants here don’t want to go there. So be it.....MS

    Band on the Run,

    You completely miss the point. Completely.

    I’m not interested in whether I’m right or wrong.

    I’m interested in having the conversation, and having it substantively. If you want to talk about specific ideas I’ve attempted to discuss on this thread then pick one and I’m happy to talk. I’ve asked lots of questions and presented lots of “what ifs” in order to explore the aspect of this discussion that’s important to me. Pick one. Isolated it so I know what the hell you’re talking about. Then we have something to talk about......MS

    ...........................................................................................................................

    You Blew Off a Constitutional Lawyer..

    "BOTR"..

    You deliberatley Ignored an "Expert on the Subject"..
    You just told an Expert on the Subject,she miss`s the point..Completely..

    And..

    You don`t care if your right or wrong..

    Which means you will continue to argue a subject you have No Clue about ..

    On a thread your Off Topic on..

    You`ve Hi Jacked this thread and caused Pointless Disruption..

    Thats called "trolling" Marvin..

    ........................  photo mutley-ani1.gif...OUTLAW

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    how is appropriate governmental intrusion into speech best determined.

    How is appropriate religious intrusion into secular (publicly funded) speech best determined

    That arrogant brat would not have had a venue without public funding. Funding that was provided by persons of ALL faiths.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    Marvin: The mere act of quoting a historical religious figure and stating agreement with that quote is necessarily a religious act.

    Yes or no?

    How do you answer?

    “Yes, it is.

    “You are trying to dumb down Costner's actions and hoping we don't see it.”

    AndDontCallMeShirley,

    No.

    I am not attempting to dumb down anything. My attempt was to gain a more precise understanding of where participants stood in relation to concerns I’ve raised on the subject.

    Your answer is very much appreciated. It helps me better understand how you see things.

    It's a lot easier to understand people when they answer questions for what they ask at face value. A lot easier, not to mention less time consuming.

    Thanks.

    If you have some question of where I stand on issues at hand in this discusson please feel free to ask. You won't offend me and I don't mind answering.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    AndDontCallMeShirley,

    You did include questions in your answering of my earlier question. I do not want to neglect your questions asked toward me so I answer them here.

    “What else is [Jesus] known for other than being the originator of one of the world's major religions- Christianity.”

    Being an influentual though fictional personage who espoused love, and particularly love for fellow humans.

    “Would you argue that it was not a religious act if Costner had quoted a prayer by Muhammed from the Koran?”

    There is an argument to be made Costner (or anyone else) could quote Muhammad from the Koran for purposes other than a religious act, such as the religious act of pushing the Islamic faith.

    “What else could it possibly be?”

    An effort to use a famous and widely influential piece of ideology to help people have greater tolerance or love among themselves.

    “So, what does that say about the effect, if any, his religion actually has in his life, if he's willing to lie (four of the seven sins god hates involve lying) to promote his beliefs?”

    If Costner’s act was purely religious in nature then his actions would betray him and his religious belief, which would make his actions an object lesson to abstain from Costner’s religious belief.

    If Costner’s act was political speech then his deception would still be deception but it would have some ethical and moral justifiability.

    I’ve not answered these questions to add fuel to any frustration. I’m only trying to be honest and respond as I would ask to be responded to myself.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    2. Costner chose to recite a prayer by Jesus- something he explicitly agreed not to do.

    Did he have any choice but to agree? If he hadn't agreed...would he have been allowed to speak at all? Not much of a choice really.

    What would that be called if it was a christian institution not PERMITTING someone to say what they want because they didn't LIKE it?

    I'm guessing that he only did a full prayer in protest of not being able to say what he REALLY wanted to.

    GOOD ON HIM!

    I agree with Marvin..... Mostly.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    And I still would have gone... ...... listening to the prayer...LOL

  • *lost*
    *lost*

    Still thinking - oooh, your brave, lol.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit