Posted on 09/08/2007 9:17:46 AM PDT by rhema
So according to the wisdom of the public education establishment, a high-school valedictorian should lose her diploma for – not cheating, not plagiarism, but 30 seconds of telling her classmates about her faith in Jesus.
The U.S. Constitution compels them, you see. It's clearly there under the Separation Clause that everyone in education knows about. Funny thing about that, though...
But first, here's what happened. There were 15 valedictorians in the graduating class of 2006 at Lewis-Palmer High School in Monument, Colorado, and Erica Corder was one of them. With so many top students and so little time, the school decided to allot them 30 seconds apiece of condensed remarks at the graduation ceremony. When her time came, Corder thanked her teachers, parents, and peers for their support and encouragement, and then she said:
"We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don’t already know him personally I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice he made for you so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with him."
Heathen forfend! Corder, showing the lively spark of mind that helped her to achieve so highly in high school, had purposefully neglected to include that portion of her remarks in rehearsals so as not to disobey the inevitable order to shut up.
School officials responded typically, immediately meeting with Corder and demanding she apologize or not receive her diploma. They were most insistent that she include the phrase "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Corder buckled before the pressure, issued the demanded recantation, and received her diploma. But she was quite upset about this trespass against her First Amendment rights, and she obtained representation by Liberty Council, who wrote on her behalf to Lewis-Palmer High, demanding an apology. This request went unheeded, so Corder brought suit.
School officials insist that their actions were "constitutionally appropriate." Well, they may have been in keeping with the present-day interpretation of the First Amendment, but were they really appropriate?
Here's the test: Follow the coercion. The First Amendment protects individuals' rights of religion, speech, assembly, and petition. Religious freedom is the very first freedom it secures against government interference. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (sealing citizens against the fear of a State Church), "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It should not escape anyone's notice that the Free Exercise clause is immediately followed by the prohibition against Congress (and by application, all government) "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These all proceed in logical order. A free individual is free to believe, follow, and express his faith, and it follows that he is free to speak and publish as he pleases, meet with whom he pleases, and not be hindered even from airing grievances with the government.
No "Separation Clause" there; that phrase hails from Pres. Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between Church & State" to describe what the First Amendment had accomplished, so that the Baptists need not fear state governments' declarations of days of prayer and fasting as abridging their religious rights. The First Amendment protects religious expression even by individuals in government, and even in public halls and government buildings – an idea Pres. Jefferson solidified by concluding his letter with a reference to "the common father and creator of man."
And this is true liberty – allowing all manner of religious expression. It is the cardinal opposite of the current teaching on the First Amendment as it pertains to schools and government; i.e., forbidding all manner of religious expression. That, of course, is tyranny.
Follow the coercion. If a teacher or administrator forces students, regardless of creed, to hew to his religious beliefs, then that would be an unconstitutional abridgment of their religious rights. If a teacher or administrator cited a personal belief in God -- or a personal disbelief in God -- without any response forced upon the students, then no First Amendment rights would have been violated. The former involves coercion, the latter doesn't.
Where was the coercion in Monument? Was it used against the audience hearing a student's declaration of belief in Jesus Christ and encouraging her listeners to join her? Were they prevented from leaving or forced to agree or pledge fealty? Or was it used against the student? Does the First Amendment protect government officials forcing a specific kind of speech – a specifically worded apology – from someone under their power?
Follow the coercion. That's where you can see the tyranny that our Founders sought to protect us against.
Follow the money in a criminal investigation. Follow the coercion in a question of tyranny or infringement of rights. Good rule.
Fifteen valedictorians? The dumbing down of our schools continues.
Tell me about it. :(
bump
I think this gal should get an honorary degree then!
Yeah if there’s that many ppl with the same GPA they probably aren’t testing hard enough.
"Jesus H. Christ! How can you have 15 valedictorians???"
Well, see, there were obviously top achievers in many different areas in this school. Maybe one was the best at making friends, another had the clearest skin, while still another ran the fastest in gym. So not wanting to destroy the self esteem of any of these power house kids, they just did what liberals always do when their fear of offending takes control. In this case they made them all Valedictorians and by doing so made the award totally meaningless.
There was a town in NJ that several years ago stopped having tryouts for cheerleaders. They did this because they claimed the girls who were cut had their self esteem damaged. The results of this? Being a cheerleader, which was always recognized as an affirmation that you were "hot" became meaningless as the cheerleaders became uglier and uglier. The real good looking girls stopped going out for the team because the status of being on it was taken away.
What do you expect of a group of people so unprincipled as to declare that 30 students all came in 1st place?
bump
The ACLU and the educators are apparently reading the Soviet Constitution. It says:
Article 52 [Religion]
(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
Why do they lie every year? I thought Good Christians didn’t do that.
This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't keep score.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I hope she sues the hell out of the idiots. She’s got a sure winner there.
It seems to me that she was to give a speech about her achievements, and Jesus was a major part of helping her achieve her goals. She was just excercising her First Amendment rights to free religion and speech. The school itself was remaining neutral, but as an idividual, she had the right to mention her Christian faith. The leftists have take freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion.
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.