Valedictorian Rips Up Preapproved Speech, Recites Prayer Instead

by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends

  • Simon
    Simon
    The moment we allow government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience we’re inviting Ingsoc to run our lives?

    I disagree. The world needs rules.

    Your argument is akin to people saying "if I can see there is no traffic, I shouldn't need to stop at a stop sign or a red-light". Maybe it is OK for that one instance ... and maybe even the next ... but I can guarantee you that it will not have a good outcome. That's why the rule is to stop.

    You seem incapable of looking beyond the simple and immediate and at the bigger picture of consequence and results.

    Name one specific and inarguable threat to an audience by the mere act of quoting Jesus (or Rama) and stating an agreement with that statement

    This has already been explained to you.

    The separation between church and state is important and necessary for the protection of minorities and the prevention of abuses.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW
    Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
    The moment we allow government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience we’re inviting Ingsoc to run our lives?.....MS

    The government didn`t pre approve Roys Speech.The government has nothing to do with the story..

    If yes, then:
    - Name one specific and inarguable threat to an audience by the mere act of quoting Jesus (or Rama) and stating an agreement with that statement.....MS

    Roy didn`t threaten anyone..He lied..

    All your questions take away from what really happened,in an Attempt to Derail the Thread..

    You lost the debate and your credibility,pages ago..

    You`ve gone from Respected Writer to Half Wit Troll..

    Thats a Big Fall..

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

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Did I swear on a Bible? Yes, the Bible was out. Did each one of us swear individually? No. My focus was not on the Bible but that once I swore, I could practice law. Finally, I was a lawyer. People-pleasing and staying up late into the night for many years was over. I thought a rainbow would appear in the courtroom and angels would sing, "Alleulia,"

    It was no big deal. We all suffered so much for this brief moment. It was a long time ago. Some clerk brought out a massive Bible, we had to something with the Bible that I cannot recall accurately, and then we had to raise one hand and repeat the words. It was very similar to when a Supreme Court justice is sworn-in. So far as I know, even the most agnostic and atheist justices always use the Bible as a prop. I do have a hunch, though, that lesser federal judges may have refused.

    Classmates of mine who were atheists did not object. Hey, after what I endured, they could bring out hard core porno books and I would swear. The only reason I still have a recollection is b/c of my Witness past. Besides, other people knew me. I could not suddenly become a religous spokesperson. It would be unconst'l for a state to make anyone swear on a Bible, esp. with a NT in it. If I recall correctly, they did not even tell us we had an alternative. Nevertheless, I am certain everyone present knew we had other options.

    The people admininstering the oath are not religious nuts. They could not care less what law grads swear on. The Supreme Court allows certain displays of the Ten Commandments in public places b/c they are a prop. They are no longer religious but serve as symbols of good manners and niceness. The Bible was not a Bible bible. It was merely a prop to mark the ceremony. My classmates could not tell you what was in the Bible. My mind was wondering about Witnesses but the Bible's presence served to make our commitment more emotionally based.

    Of course, no one ever asks whether you first have to use all available civil routes before throwing a grenade or exploding a bomb. There is no precise definition of defending. I practice const'l law. What is const'l law today may be unconst'l tmw. I would go with the flow in most cases. Because we studied the justices in Rhodesia, I was willing to swear on a Bible. They did the same thing. In fact, they were British so I imagine they had even cooler history and ceremonies to stress the importance of the oath. Not one of them decided to die.

    If September 11th happened, I would die if I had to do so. Some principles are worthy dying for. Others are not worth your life. We know this keenly. How many of us knows an actual person who chose to die early for the blood doctrine? Heck, my own family lines up to go to prison. They are not bitter. I am. They earned special duper Witness status. Which generation doctrine were you willing to die for? It is funny and so sad. Frankly, I only know a few Witnesses in my generation who paid a drastic price. My mom, though, knew people who sold their assets because Armageddon was coming way before 1975. They had nothing. What about the hemophiliacs and the fractions? My head was spinning that day. Most of all, though, I thanked God that it was my past history. I was in the present celebrating my admission.

    I would swear on the Koran, the Torah, a Wiccan thing, a voodoo doll, the Bhagavad Gita, you name it. I will swear.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    I asked for help with this discussion by attempting to simplify the aspect that’s most important to me. I did this by asking one question and one subsequent request.

    ________________

    My Question : The moment we allow government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience we’re inviting Ingsoc to run our lives?

    The answer I got was: “I disagree. The world needs rules.”

    My comment: Ingsoc is not a for of government that supplies rules but is, rather, a totalitarian government that decides every single feature of how each person must live their lives. People exposed to this form of totalitarianism are reduced to doublethink in order to psychologically accept things they know as false.

    Because my question asked was not of a world with rules but, rather, of a world where individuals are left with no options or choices in life, then the answer given to me above is, insofar as I can tell, either an instance of not understanding the question of dodging the question.

    At face value the answer above conveys this: It’s okay for a government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience.

    In my view, that’s a dangerous and untenable perspective.

    ________________

    My subsequent request : Name one specific and inarguable threat to an audience by the mere act of quoting Jesus (or Rama) and stating an agreement with that statement.

    The answer I got was:This has already been explained to you. The separation between church and state is important and necessary for the protection of minorities and the prevention of abuses.”

    My comment: I did not ask for an explanation. I asked for something specific and that is inarguable. What constitutes separation of church and state is arguable.

    At face value the answer above conveys this: There is no inarguable threat to an audience by the mere act of quoting Jesus (or Rama) and stating an agreement with that statement.

    ________________

    I’m satisfied participants in the current discussion are not interested in examining the question of appropriate government intervention into speech based on what we see in the Roy Costner video, which is an act of quoting a famous religious figure and stating agreement with those words.

    If any reader raises a substantive question of propositions I’ve offered in this discussion or has a serious inquiry of my views, as long as my posting privileges last I’m happy to answer.

    I thank everyone who bothered responding to me in this discussion. I appreciate you all and respect that each has their personal views of the matter.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Simon
    Simon
    the answer above conveys this: It’s okay for a government to prohibit speech that presents no threat to the audience.

    That's it Marvin - you decide what our answers are as well. Is that how it works? You don't get the answer you like so you assign one to us?

    Ingsoc is not a for of government that supplies rules but is, rather, a totalitarian government that decides every single feature of how each person must live their lives. People exposed to this form of totalitarianism are reduced to doublethink in order to psychologically accept things they know as false.

    Nice black/white mindeset you have there: if the government is allowed to place any restriction on what is said then we're instantly in an Orwellion world where they can control what we think, yada yada.

    Doesn't the same logic apply to your pet cause too?

    As soon as we allow one utterance of religion then religion is all controlling and all must worship and obey.

    When it comes to matters of religious freedom and control, I actually trust the government more than I trust religion - it has a better track record by far.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    “The government didn`t pre approve Roys Speech.The government has nothing to do with the story..”

    In the Roy Costner incident there was governmental involvement in the form of the Pickens County School Board whose members are duly elected and the county’s governmental leadership responsible for its school district.

    “Roy didn`t threaten anyone..He lied..”

    I agree with both those assertions.

    “All your questions take away from what really happened,in an Attempt to Derail the Thread..”

    If by “what really happened” you mean that Costner lied, I agree Costner lied and have said so.

    If by “what really happened” you mean that Costner attempted to push Christianity on people, quite possibly that’s precisely what he was doing, and despite his later statements to the contrary. I have said this too.

    My attempt in this discussion was to get past the boy named Costner and talk purely about what we see happen in the video of his graduation speech, and whether an act like that should be prohibited by government intervention.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    “That's it Marvin - you decide what our answers are as well. Is that how it works? You don't get the answer you like so you assign one to us?”

    No.

    You would have no idea what I gather from what you say unless I articulate how it’s understood by me. That is what I did.

    If you mean something other than how I understood it then all you have to do is say so and then clarify by re-articulating your answer to the question asked.

    “Nice black/white mindeset you have there: if the government is allowed to place any restriction on what is said then we're instantly in an Orwellion world where they can control what we think, yada yada.”

    No.

    I agree there is proper governmental reach in the form of rules. I have said this and have not changed my mind. But when the question is of appropriate reach you have to start somewhere in the examination, and in the case of my request of Ingsoc I started on the end of a totalitarian society of people whose speech had been entirely removed. If you want to re-articulate your response to this particular request regarding Ingsoc you can. It doesn't matter to me at this point.

    “Doesn't the same logic apply to your pet cause too?”

    Logical is always equal. It knows no bias and has no care.

    “As soon as we allow one utterance of religion then religion is all controlling and all must worship and obey.”

    I don’t follow what logical connective you make with that question.

    I believe a government can have and enforce a given rule without that rule needlessly impinging speech of its citizenry.

    “When it comes to matters of religious freedom and control, I actually trust the government more than I trust religion - it has a better track record by far.”

    Essentially my question goes straight to what you allude to with that statement. If we’re going to trust the government with our freedoms where do we draw lines that impinge on our ability of speech.

    My comments have not been about religion.

    My comments have been about government.

    I don’t like religion and religiosity any more than you do!

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Marvin,

    Let us rent out Madison Square Garden. All apostates will be invited. You and I will debate. We can sell tickets and the profits can go to a mutually agreed upon JW charity. You may think your thoughts are valid. This is my profession and my personal interest. Your ideas sound ok on the surface but experience proves them wrong, wrong, wrong.

    True conservatives would not argue from such a basis. I suggest you stop a mammoth thread and read the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The cases are always 5-4 but if you read all the concurring and dissenting opinions you might learn a thing about this topic. These cases are readily available at several websites. The U.S. Supreme Court site, FindLaw,Freedom from Religion, and one Jewish group whose name I forget at this moment. Thousands, literally, thousands of journal articles address this subject.

    If you would stop arguing to argue, you would find what I found long ago. There is a general principle of separation between church and state called the Establishment Clause. The broad terms are clear. Distinguishing one case from another is almost impossible. It has more to do with lifestyle than hard law. No one is correct on the hard cases b/c it is a matter of opinion.

    Most former JWs would definitely want separation of church and state. Utter fools can understand that a prayer is religious by its very definiton. Long, long before you were born, Americans separated church and state. If this kid wants to pray at graduation, he can attend private school. I am a product of public schools until college. When I can pray a JW prayer at graduation, this kid can. When "F.....you can be a graduation prayer, this kid can pray. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far my way for a while. The solution is not to impose a religion on all Americans. We can all board a plane or ship back to Britain for that. In fact, watching royal weddings and funerals, I see great tolerance in official Church of England services. Hey, Prince Charles will turn Roman Catholic. Just wait.

    Move to a narrow-minded country where everyone robotically thinks alike and pray. This is the United States of America. We have freedom of religion. If I had my way, there would also be Freedom from Religion.

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW
    In the Roy Costner incident there was governmental involvement in the form of the Pickens County School Board

    whose members are duly elected and the county’s governmental leadership responsible for its school district.....MS

    The School Board is no more the Government..

    Than the Garbage Collectors..

    Who are hired by Government to Pick up Garbage..

    Are the Government..

    The School Board is Responsible for Students..

    Garbage Men are Responsible for Garbage..

    It doesn`t make them the Government..

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

  • Simon
    Simon
    In the Roy Costner incident there was governmental involvement in the form of the Pickens County School Board whose members are duly elected and the county’s governmental leadership responsible for its school district.
    If by “what really happened” you mean that Costner lied, I agree Costner lied and have said so.
    If by “what really happened” you mean that Costner attempted to push Christianity on people, quite possibly that’s precisely what he was doing, and despite his later statements to the contrary. I have said this too.
    My attempt in this discussion was to get past the boy named Costner and talk purely about what we see happen in the video of his graduation speech, and whether an act like that should be prohibited by government intervention.

    If you believ it is wrong for the elected representatives to prevent it, then it means you think people shouldbe able to lie in order to push their religion on people.

    Yes or No Marvin, if you're capable of focused thought for a second.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit