Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Shadowfax
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.

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.

146 posted on 06/22/2006 7:26:58 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur

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.


147 posted on 06/22/2006 7:34:18 PM PDT by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
She did not do the honorable thing.

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.

150 posted on 06/22/2006 8:36:50 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson