Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  After just now reading a post-speech interview of Roy Costner, I believe there is ground to say he was dishonest in that he confirms knowing he was not to say anything religious in his speech and that by implication of his submitted manuscript he agreed to this stipulation.

  Here’s something else said by Costner in the same interview:

  “Let me first say that every person, regardless of their religious affiliation – whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or any other belief – should be allowed to say what they want because of the First Amendment. I felt that my free speech was being encroached upon, because I wasn't allowed to say what I wanted to say or acknowledge who I wanted to acknowledge.”

  I agree with that wholeheartedly. Wholeheartedly.

  Going down a path of having people give speeches that are not wholly owned by them turns effort to learn into a rabbit hole.

  Watchtower apologists brand folks like me as dishonest because of my choice to stand up and say things Watchtower does not want me to say, and particularly things I learned that Watchtower might consider confidential. If this is an act of dishonesty then so be it. But I don’t think it immoral or otherwise wrong.

  I don’t consider my action any more immoral than the action of Roy Costner as immoral. I applaud the lad for saying what was his and owning it.

  In the end I think Costner was making a political statement more than anything else. He didn’t like how non-local influence was affecting his community and he did something non-violent about it. And, in the end, there’s nothing anyone can do to penalize Costner because all he did was use the free exercise and free speech clauses of the US Constitution. He was not speaking of or for his school system. He spoke for himself, and he was willing to answer for himself. That’s my kind of person.

  I accept there is evidence Costner was deceptive in his action. Now what?

  Marvin Shilmer

  ______________

  PS: AndDontCallMeShirley I appreciate that when asked you provided information in an effort to support statements of yours. In each case I tried to explain the problems I saw using those piece of information as evidence. That said, as stated above in this very post, today I found what I was looking for by way of solid evidence supporting an assertion of deception/dishonesty by Costner. This evidence does not depend on presupposition. So for me that question is settled.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  “Let me first say that every person.... should be allowed to say what they want because of the First Amendment. I felt that my free speech was being encroached upon, because I wasn't allowed to say what I wanted to say or acknowledge who I wanted to acknowledge.”

  Marvin: I agree with that wholeheartedly. Wholeheartedly.

  ---

  Well, Marvin, free speech still does not allow a person to yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

  And, here we go again. The 73% majority Christians still feel their rights are being "encroached on". Poor babies!

  How does this man's forcing his audience to listen to something they may not want to hear, and violating policies he agreed to abide by, do any good for his religion? Steam rolling people and selfishly asserting his "rights" just because he can is not as persuasive as showing respect for his audience and doing his sermonizing on a more appropriate occasion.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Marvin: PS: AndDontCallMeShirley I appreciate that when asked you provided information in an effort to support statements of yours. In each case I tried to explain the problems I saw using those piece of information as evidence. That said, as stated above in this very post, today I found what I was looking for by way of solid evidence supporting an assertion of deception/dishonesty by Costner. This evidence does not depend on presupposition. So for me that question is settled.

  ---

  Thank you, Marvin.

  I respect that you said that.

  p.s. I posted my previous comment(#739) after you added your "PS". The observation, in my view, has validity and I'll leave it as-is.

  However, I'm also posting this comment with the context of yours in mind. Thanks again.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “How does this man's forcing his audience to listen to something they may not want to hear, and violating policies he agreed to abide by, do any good for his religion? Steam rolling people and selfishly asserting his "rights" just because he can is not as persuasive as showing respect for his audience and doing his sermonizing on a more appropriate occasion.”

  AndDontCallMeShirley,

  The answer to that question is why I said “I think Costner was making a political statement more than anything else.”

  If we accept as true his post-speech statement that persons of all beliefs should be able to do the same as he did then his act was a political one, which means his civil-disobedience was, in his view, for the interest of everyone in his community and not centric to his personal religious preference.

  - I don’t think what Costner did does anything for his religious preference.

  - I think what Costner did does something for individual rights.

  - More importantly, I think what Costner did does something for our ability to learn, which is at the top of my priorities.

  I think Costner did precisely what anyone giving a speech should do. Say what they wholly own rather than what someone else wants them to say that they do not wholly own. This sort of freedom offers tremendous advantages to education, and acting otherwise is a detriment to education. When people say things they do not wholly own as though they wholly own it, it only frustrates effort to learn.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Simon

  Going down a path of having people give speeches that are not wholly owned by them turns effort to learn into a rabbit hole.

  Marvin, you are missing the point. Getting or not getting approval does not mean what you say is not yours.

  If I want to say 10 things and 1 of them is against the established rules, this is not at all the same as me being given a completely different 10 things to say by someone else and doesn't mean that the other 9 things I can still say aren't mine.

  The rules were simple, they obviously believed he was going to deliver the speech that was approved and when he didn't he therefore lied or was dishonest with his intentions.

  Not something that reflects the Christian mantra he then claims to represent so he's also a hypocrite as well.

  Hardly worthy of applause.

  Let me first say that every person, regardless of their religious affiliation – whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or any other belief – should be allowed to say what they want because of the First Amendment. I felt that my free speech was being encroached upon, because I wasn't allowed to say what I wanted to say or acknowledge who I wanted to acknowledge

  Given that we've established he's a lying hypocrite, why should we believe these words when he has already failed to adhere to his own belief system?

  Noble words that make someone look good are easy. What is harder is actual actions and standing up for the things you don't actually believe in - someone reciting from the Koran or wearing a Burkha for instance.

  Would all the ones applauding still be applauding if that had happend? Isn't the truth that they would have been filtered out of the possibility a long, long time ago and not given the same 'trust' that the token-Christian was?
• 

  Simon

  When people say things they do not wholly own as though they wholly own it, it only frustrates effort to learn.

  You think he wrote the lords prayer now?

  Now you think its not about his personal motivation but was a political statement?

  Please make you mind up what it is and whether it's worth anyone listening to. It was not a political rally - it was just as out of place as a religious sermon was.
• 

  fakesmile

  jesus, no wonder religious people have a history of persecution. could he not have said a prayer in private? yes he could. instead he went against the rules to throw his beliefe in everyones face. fortunatly, the majority of the audience have the same imaginary friend so it is ok.
• 

  Dagney

  It was not a political rally - it was just as out of place as a religious sermon was.

  Exactly. Very simple.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Given that we've established he's a lying hypocrite, why should we believe these words when he has already failed to adhere to his own belief system?”

  Simon,

  I disagree that Costner acted hypocritically.

  I also don’t think he acted contrary to his belief system. As I understand it, though he was willfully deceptive he thinks he was acting wholly within his belief system by prioritizing ideals. Basically, his act was to advance a compelling interest—as he saw it—of his community to have and exercise certain freedoms above his own compelling need to be honest. Afterward he was honest about what he did and why.

  You and I act contrary to a belief system we once held. I don’t think that makes either of us hypocrites or otherwise immoral as though we did something wrong, so long as we are willing to honestly answer for our personal actions and have sound reasons for those actions. Do you?

  “What is harder is actual actions and standing up for the things you don't actually believe in - someone reciting from the Koran or wearing a Burkha for instance.”

  In his post-speech interview Costner advocated precisely as you suggest:

  “Let me first say that every person, regardless of their religious affiliation – whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or any other belief – should be allowed to say what they want because of the First Amendment.”—(Roy Costner)

  Costner said the above knowing he had a national audience.

  “You think he wrote the lords prayer now?

  “Now you think its not about his personal motivation but was a political statement?

  “Please make you mind up what it is and whether it's worth anyone listening to. It was not a political rally - it was just as out of place as a religious sermon was.”

  That’s needless and misplaced sarcasm.

  Of course Costner did not author the lords prayer!

  In his case Costner repeated the lords prayer because he wholly believes it* and he wanted to advance the idea that each person in his community should be as free to say what they believe as he did during his speech, as he did during his speech, and without regard for a particular belief system whether his or another.

  Marvin Shilmer

  ___________________

  * Just what Costner believes the lords prayer means is unknown to me.
• 

  mrsjones5

  Oh yeah national attention is a good hook for theocratic warfare.