Posted on 06/19/2006 1:33:47 PM PDT by BradtotheBone
She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.
But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her -- Christ -- her microphone went dead.
Advertisement
The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb's speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That's why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
"I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb said. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."
In the 750-word unedited version of McComb's speech, she made two references to the lord, nine mentions of God and one mention of Christ.
In the version approved by school officials, six of those words were omitted along with two biblical references. Also deleted from her speech was a reference to God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, had read the unedited version of McComb's speech and said district officials did the right thing by cutting McComb's speech short because her commentary promoted religion.
"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."
Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003.
Both cases involved graduation ceremonies and religious speeches given by commencement speakers. In the 2003 case, Lichtenstein said, the plaintiff even petitioned the Supreme Court to have the decision reversed, but the request was denied.
In 2003, the Clark County School Board amended district regulations on religious free speech, prohibiting district officials from organizing a prayer at graduation or selecting speakers for such events in a manner that favors religious speech or a prayer.
The remainder of the amendment allows for religious expression during school ceremonies.
Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, however, that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content," it states.
"To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored."
District legal counsel Bill Hoffman said the regulation allows students to talk about religion, but speeches can't cross into the realm of preaching.
"We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," Hoffman said. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."
McComb, who will study journalism at Biola University, a private Christian school in La Mirada, Calif., doesn't believe she was preaching. She said although some people might not like the message of her speech, it was just that, her speech.
"People aren't stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn't advocating my ideas," McComb said. "Those are my opinions.
"It's what I believe."
Already posted and discussed to death:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652034/posts (428 posts)
"If Allah and Mohammad were substituted for God and Jesus in her sermon, you would be outraged...Be careful what you wish for."
I highly doubt it. I would expect a Muslim to praise Allah. If this were the case, anyway, I'm sure the school leadership would have applauded.
It's only the mention of Jesus Christ that drives the christophobic left into hysterics.
LOL!
I'm not a secularist but can't go along with a culture war either. Guess I'll end up keeping that armadillo company.
Both sides are turning the Constitution into toilet paper.
Hit me.
You wrote it; I'm challenging you on it. Let's hear 'the dirt'.
....and don't ever pretend to talk to me that way again.
"Your point is a good one, but the hysterics are based on fear. This "culture war" was concocted by televangelists and the public fears the rise of Christian extremism. Many well remember the violence in Northern Ireland and the Baltics and fear we are headed in that direction.
Culture wars have brought down most of the great civilizations of history."
I agree with you the hysterics of the christophobic are based on fear. The christophobes are terrified that there is a power greater than the god of "self." How dare anyone offend one's self?
It's also interesting that fundamental Christianity is now called extremist. It's kind of like "Jew" is supposed to be a dirty word.
I also agree there is a culture war going on, and that televangelists could very well be a part of it--although I don't have a TV so I don't know who in particular they are. I've seen this conspiracy brought up before and would like to know more about it. What exactly do you think is happening? Unscrupulous televangelists whipping up fears to collect offerings? I'd be interested if you could "name names."
Keep an eye on the jihadis. They are the ones who pushing "convert or die." Is this considered a cultural war? I see Christians around the world reaching out to relieve suffering.
Should people protect themselves against jihadi aggression? Isn't that what happened in the Baltics?
Back to the original argument, the real outrage in this whole article is that a student's first amendment rights are violated.
Why don't you take your liberal arse over to DU. You have certainly hijacked this thread.
"I've never heard anyone mention conspiracy...Where did you hear that?"
I've read some things before of what you mentioned. I remember it being called a conspiracy. Sorry, I can't remember where I read that.
Thanks for the name. I will look into Herbert Armstrong. There are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing on the prowl.
"But, lets get back to the real issue that caused you to challenge me."
I wasn't challenging. Just interested in what you had to say and wanted more details. Thank you for providing them.
"If Christianity must use misinformation, lies and deceit to demonstrate its point, what does that say for Christianity?"
Christianity by its very nature is not based on any form of deceit. If you see a "christian" using misinformation, lies or deceit, you can be sure this is a counterfeit. There is a lot of that going on these days--including those phony televangelist crooks you mention .
Me, too. There are lots of false teachers out there, promoting false gospels, under the banner of Christian. The only way to discern them for what they really are is to be familiar with the Bible, so anything that rings false will raise a red flag.
By the way, I did read up on Herbert Armstrong and Armstrongism. Lots of red flags going up there. This man had a cult in a Christian wrapper. They believed that parts of the Bible were Satan-inspired, that there is no person of the Holy Spirit, and that we are all little gods. So how could they be truly Christian? Lots of good articles here:
Herbert Armstrong and Armstrongism
"It really peeves me when I see quotes from these scoundrels being used as 'credible' sources by some FReepers."
Yeah, I know what you mean. Christians really need to be vigilant in order to expose the wolves prowling in sheeps' clothing. Satan is extremely clever. I'd be interested to know some more of those sources you mention, if you can recall the names.
You may be passionate, but mind your manners in this forum, sport.
I agree with you 100% on that. The prophecies have warned us that we move closer to Christ's return, many false teachers will appear. I refute them, too, as I see them, and am always trying to learn more. Many people are good Christians who just don't know the backgrounds of these "preachers." Benny Hinn gives me the creeps--yet I know people who passionately follow him.
The problem is always an unsound message hidden by biblical window dressing. A good metaphor is a beautiful glass of water with a single drop of sewage in it. If you drink it, you could die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.