Posted on 06/22/2006 10:46:58 AM PDT by UnklGene
High School Valedictorian Refuses to Bow Down; Has Speech Censored
June 21, 2006
Brittany McComb was the valedictorian at Foothill High School recently. She graduated with a 4.7 GPA. She earned the right to address the other graduates at Foothill, located in Henderson, Nevada.
She gave a copy of her graduating speech to the school administrators. It contained some Biblical references and even mentioned (one time) the name “Christ.” The school administrators censored some of the Biblical references. They also censored the single reference to Christ.
Then the school officials handed the speech over to the ACLU for approval and/or more censoring. After getting the OK from the ACLU, Brittany’s speech (minus the censored references to the Bible and Christ) was approved. Brittany was warned that if she deviated from the ACLU approved language, her mike would be cut off.
Then came the moment for the big decision. She would not bow down, she decided. She would go with her original version. She stepped to the mike and began her speech. But just before she could utter the name “Christ,” her mike went dead. School officials silenced her. The crowd of 400 jeered for several minutes, angry at the action of the school officials. The ACLU was happy. They had silenced another Christian.
“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech. God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.
Because she refused to bow down to the ACLU’s idol of gold, she did not get her wish. She was censored.
This young heroine deserves praise and a thank you from those who believe in free speech.
And you didn't disappoint. Your attempts to undermine traditional values are as predictable as Bill Clinton's aggravated assaults on women and the truth.
Maybe next time.
"It did, and she agreed to the edited speech, but then decided she'd rather have the attention, especially when she knew that the mic would be cut off."
I wait with anticipation for you to cite a Constitutional principle or a court opinion that supports your totalitarian fantasy. But I won't hold my breath. You've already made it abundantly clear that you don't have such support.
In the meantime, patriots like this young lady will keep fighting those who try to deprive free men and women of their liberty. She's an inspiration. Your defaming her by claiming that she just wants attention is pobably the dumbest thing you've said on this entire thread. And that's pretty dumb.
You obviously believe that lying in the name of Jesus is admireable.
"You obviously believe that lying in the name of Jesus is admireable."
She lied in the "name of Jesus." When? I must have missed that.
Still no support for your position, huh? No surprise there.
This young lady isn't the first person to be forced into agreeing to something when intimidated and then finding that in good conscience she could not follow through with it. Many decent, heroic men and women have felt the same. I can forgive her for having to go back on her word when her freedom to express herself was the price she had to pay for keeping it. Besides, the obvious villains in this piece are the administrators who censored her and their ACLU masters.
Oh, and all those who support them, of course.
Yes. And they almost, to a person, will walk away from the situation rather than lie and go do what they were going to do anyway.
She did not do the honorable thing.
Right. Letting her freedoms be trampled. That would have been honorable.
Examples of decent heroic men and women who stood by and allowed their freedoms to be trampled in the name of keeping a promise extracted through intimidation? (Since you can't seem to support any of your other points in this debate, I won't hold my breath for this proof either.)
If our forefathers believed in your definition of "honorable," we'd still belong to England. After all, they came over here as colonies of Britain. How dare they break their word and revolt? They should have done the honorable thing and stood by the agreement they had with the crown when they settled here. After all, liberty is such a little thing.
I've enjoyed the repartee. Good night.
Glad to hear it. Let me know if I can help further.
She in the end did what was right. Your beloved government overlords lost a round. Get over it. Agreeing not to say it was wrong IF it violated her conscience. How could it be righted? Remaining silent? The girl {woman} had a message to say. It was placed on her heart to say it obviously and was a matter of conscience. At that point their is a thing called repentance. It doesn't mean well OK you're off the hook for the speech it means making the speech {doing what was right to start with} and living with it afterward. You of all persons in here should understand that concept. The school was wrong to censor that message. It wasn't a verbal attack on anyone.
Ahhh...The School Board broke their vow to uphold the Constitution of the US. It was do as we say..., Constitution --Constipation.
I am surprised others here would find her situation in the wrong.
From Wiki,
[...] Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Common Sense (1776):
"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith . . .
The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. It proclaimed:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
In U.S. law, freedom of religion is codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
If a muslim gets to the top of his class, he has earned the right to say "praise Allah" before his graduating class. I may not want to hear it either, but as Patrick Henry said, I will defend to the death his right to say it.
There is a book co-written by Peter and Catherine Marshall's son called "The Light and the Glory" the first of a three part series where the personal letters, official documents, private writings, and speeches, of the framers and founders are explored.
It's an excellent history book showing the moral struggle of an early nation in failures and success. Ironically IIRC the first one was the two authors college thesis. It's also among the banned from school libraries. I didn't read it till my adult life but I had a deeper appreciation and understanding of the founding fathers efforts and intent. Those men would be at personal war with the decisions of our courts and call the judges the tyrants they truly are. They would not have put up with it.
I see, so you accept the point but don't really accept it? You just "say" you accept it. OR you accept it but want to toss an insult in there just for giggles? Very odd comment in my view.
I can assure you I don't live in a bubble.
For the very "few" whom you acknowledge cannot afford private school, what would you suggest be done with them?
Right now? I suggest they send their children to these government "schools" while constantly monitoring each and every thing they are being taught. You must "unteach" them some things, and fill in the myriad blanks left by the imbeciles who choose to spend the precious time filling the kids heads with politically correct BS instead of important life lessons.
Another option would be home schooling, which obviously cannot be done by many.
If not "right now", but in a much better world, government could subsidize the cost for those truly needy in other ways.
Once you get used to the idea that "free" education for all, rich and poor alike, is not the only way to assure that the populace is at least minimally educated, you can begin to explore other options.
BTW, I hope you don't think for a second that I didn't notice this dishonest attempt to change what I said by changing it to "VERY FEW" from what I actually said, referenced below word for actual word.
"I can appreciate that. But many are. Many more than you would think. Of course it would require them to cut spending in other areas."
God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.
Obviously not if you are in public school. If God was really a part of your life as you say, you would be in a Christian school.
Nonsense.
Your point of view is the polar opposite of the good will view of the American people and the understanding of the Constitution for two centuries. Americans never voted free Christian speech out of schools, that was the act of an ignorant court based only upon an ignorant whim. What do you think triggered the Conservative uprising against activist judges. It was the obvious mishandling of the Constitution and make believe justifications at the hands of opportunistic judges who saw political opportunity.
You are a willing victim of deranged ACLU thought and newspeak. You will continue fighting conservatives as a loyal allie of the far left.
Your view of the Constitution never agreed with more than a handful of American citizens and was forced into the first amendment only by some judges who ignored American history. Everyone knows this illogical, unhistorical reinvention of the first amendment is false, even the liberals agreed that is was. For years they tried to justify it on the grounds of a legal positivist approach, now they don't even do that, they just lie about it. That is why the court didn't rule that way for about fifteen decades.
The reason why you like the ignorance of the ACLU viewpoint is because you have a well displayed dislike of Christianity. Of course you want to ignore history and censor free speech of a Christian because it is really just the message you dislike.
The marxist and immoral speech by youngsters in the radical movements of the 1960s was defended tooth and nail by the same ACLU that now attacks Christian speech that was never deemed unlawful for two centuries of American free will. So don't give us any more of your laughing gas, we know better.
I was born long ago and have watched the legal atrocities of the fringe marxists who led the charge to undo the Constitution so it could be soiled by an ACLU scribe. You don't mind their acts of treason one bit because their baseless rewrite agrees with your biases. You know I'm right, just like they know I'm right, but like them, you just don't care.
I just have the feeling that, had this girl been Muslim, and had wanted to get up and give praise to Allah, you would be all for the actions of the administrators.
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.