Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views. If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go ahead,
but public schools are for everyone, just like government is for
everybody. If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.
This is the part that I have the most trouble with. People often spout
about the need to respect other's views by pretty much disrespecting MY
views. If those views aren't the ones they are happy with.
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
I admit that's a tricky thing, and I had to edit my response before I sent
it along <grin>. If I sometimes write too stridently, it's "the heat of
the moment", and no disrespect is intended, except in answer to truly
egregious statements <'nother grin>.
Don't change the subject. We were talking about one "representative" of
a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving a
valedictorian speech or some such. That's totally different from an
individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to
that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those
girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of some
Those may be different. Is the football team public, then any public
utterance should refrain from religious utterances. The BSA is indeed a
religion-conscious institution, in most cases, although individual troops
may be less so.
There was quite a bit to do about this, and the final consensus was a
case of mass hysteria, as published in several places, 60 minutes as an
The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but crude
justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like
It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest.
PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior restraint.
Free Speech must include 2 things to be free
1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses voluntarily to
avoid being offensive
2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others.
PC fails on both counts
PC? what does that have to do with anything?
And I wish that speakers would always choose voluntarily to avoid being
offensive. That would be best. A speech at the end of a school year by
a teenager to a bunch of teenagers may need review to comply with the
avoidance of being offensive. I can't remember whether my daughter's
speech was reviewed, but I was impressed by what she concocted on that
As to your number 2 - since listening to a valedictorian speech isn't
entirely voluntary, I can envision some review. But, as before, I don't
know whether it is practiced.
Er, no. It wasn't until 1946 that the so-called "Establishment of Religion"
clause was imposed upon the states. Until that time, any state could have a
"state sponsored" religion.
For example, the Massachusetts Constitution read, in part:
"...the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature
with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to
time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and
other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at
their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for
the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion
and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.