Comments on: Shame on Lewis-Palmer High School??? No way! Shame on David Harsanyi and Erica Corder! http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/ Occasionally Irreverent Thoughts on Law, Tech, and Politics by Prof. Marc J. Randazza and the Satyriconistas Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:24:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Ryan http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/#comment-5642 Ryan Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:11:13 +0000 http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/#comment-5642 It might interest you to know that this is not the first instance of this happening at a Lewis-Palmer graduation ceremony. I graduated from LPHS in 1997, and one of the valedictorians pulled a very similar stunt, diverting from his speech, thanking Jesus, and encouraging everyone to get to know him. The entire audience erupted into applause and cheers. Considering that the school is just a few miles from Focus on the Family headquarters and a bastion of neo-Evangelical upper middle-class flag-waving, holier-than-thou bible thumping religio-patriotism, this is unsurprising. I personally felt awkward, but did nothing and I am not aware that there were any consequences for this student in this case. It might interest you to know that this is not the first instance of this happening at a Lewis-Palmer graduation ceremony. I graduated from LPHS in 1997, and one of the valedictorians pulled a very similar stunt, diverting from his speech, thanking Jesus, and encouraging everyone to get to know him. The entire audience erupted into applause and cheers. Considering that the school is just a few miles from Focus on the Family headquarters and a bastion of neo-Evangelical upper middle-class flag-waving, holier-than-thou bible thumping religio-patriotism, this is unsurprising. I personally felt awkward, but did nothing and I am not aware that there were any consequences for this student in this case.

]]> By: Isaiah http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/#comment-3139 Isaiah Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:06:29 +0000 http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/#comment-3139 One last thought. She, bye being dishonest, dishonored God and I am not happy with that at all, it gave those who would try to silence Christians more ammuntion to fight with. <strong>Two reactions to this: 1) No matter what the Liberty Counsel wants you to believe, nobody wants to "silence" christians. We do want them to keep their proselytizing within bounds -- meaning don't try and get the government's backing, and don't shove it down the throats of those who aren't interested. 2) Overzealous religiosity and dishonesty come hand in hand. See <a href="http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/holier-than-thou-types-are-full-of-crap-o-rly/" rel="nofollow">Holier Than Thou Types Are Full of Crap? O-RLY?</a> Those who believe in an imaginary friend, and who pledge greater allegiance to him than to their Constitution will always rationalize dishonesty, deceit, cruelty, and any other number of unethical and illegal actions as long as they can say "it was in service to the lord." Give up on your superstitions and mankind will get along a lot better. -MJR</strong> One last thought. She, bye being dishonest, dishonored God and I am not happy with that at all, it gave those who would try to silence Christians more ammuntion to fight with.

Two reactions to this:

1) No matter what the Liberty Counsel wants you to believe, nobody wants to “silence” christians. We do want them to keep their proselytizing within bounds — meaning don’t try and get the government’s backing, and don’t shove it down the throats of those who aren’t interested.

2) Overzealous religiosity and dishonesty come hand in hand. See Holier Than Thou Types Are Full of Crap? O-RLY? Those who believe in an imaginary friend, and who pledge greater allegiance to him than to their Constitution will always rationalize dishonesty, deceit, cruelty, and any other number of unethical and illegal actions as long as they can say “it was in service to the lord.”

Give up on your superstitions and mankind will get along a lot better.

-MJR

]]> By: Isaiah http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/#comment-3137 Isaiah Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:01:59 +0000 http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/shame-on-lewis-palmer-high-school-no-way-shame-on-david-harsanyi-and-erica-corder/#comment-3137 I hear what you are saying and in some part agree with you. But this I know the First Amendment is often times the most misquoted misused and most abused amendment in the Bill of Rights. I agree she should have been forthright and upfront with her little last addition to the speech. This is not something I see as honest or correct. Having said this, I want to point out two facts, and my opinion on one item. My opinion is this, if she had said something along the lines of, “hey all lets party on and get high” or “ lets all have a fun life” or “Bush needs to be impeached!” without the schools consent, she would not have been punished. The mere fact that she was afraid to add this into her speech, shows that something is wrong. What is wrong is that the First Amendment is misquoted and abused. Here is the section quoted from the Bill of Rights “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.” Congress shall not... not government property. Congress. This laws was put into effect to keep the government from forcing a religion on any one person, as they did in England. Who ever was in control dictated the religion, and forced people to believe or die. The term “Separation Of Church and State” is in no legal document written by the nations founders. It is, however, in a Private letter between Thomas Jefferson and a minster friend. In which he was assuring his friend that the church would be protected from government interference. Here is that quote “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties Also notice the freedom of speech is mentioned in the same amendment. Since proselytizing is part of the Christian religion, is it not protected under the first amendment as long as it is done in a non violent manner? So to quote you “....it would find itself at the receiving end of a Federal lawsuit. Given the fact that the school has a policy of pre-screening the valedictorians’ speeches, it could certainly be inferred that the school was unconstitutionally promoting Christianity...” This is simply not the case. I agree the school has the right to screen, even has a duty, to screen speeches. That she lied by default to get her addition in, is not right, and I agree the school has a right to discipline her on this merit alone. But they chose to force her to apologize for What she said. That is against the Constitution. If they had disciplined her because she lied, I would have no problems with that. The school was out of hand, and while doing my own research I have found reference to another out of hand disciplinary choice the school has made. http://www.ztnightmares.com/html/mike_s_story.htm where they expelled a student for smoking pot with out any evidence other the the hearsay from one student. He passed all drug tests, but was expelled because another student said he smoked pot. <strong>A thoughtful comment, and well presented, but I think you miss on two ultra important points. Often those who do not like the First Amendment point to the word "congress" as a limiting term. To boil it down to its most basic -- The XIV Amendment changed that to mean "all government." Also, Jefferson's letter was not a private correspondence. Jefferson's letter was to the Danbury Baptist Congregation. It was intended as a public proclamation. Here is a good point you make: <i>Also notice the freedom of speech is mentioned in the same amendment. Since proselytizing is part of the Christian religion, is it not protected under the first amendment as long as it is done in a non violent manner? </i> Yes, proselytizing is protected - as long as it does not conflict with the other co-equal portions of the First Amendment. And... I would agree that non-governmental proselytizing should be allowed. You may find this surprising, but <em>I even think that Ms. Corder should have been allowed to say what she said</em>. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was buzzed on its zeal to support the war on drugs, so it crushed student speech protections in <i>Morse</i>. Therefore, the school was dead right -- legally speaking. Morally, I think that schools should allow greater speech than <em>Morse </em>suggests. Of course, if they are going to allow christian proselytizing, the next kid should have had the right to stand up and ridicule christianity, no? -MJR</strong> I hear what you are saying and in some part agree with you. But this I know the First Amendment is often times the most misquoted misused and most abused amendment in the Bill of Rights. I agree she should have been forthright and upfront with her little last addition to the speech. This is not something I see as honest or correct.

Having said this, I want to point out two facts, and my opinion on one item. My opinion is this, if she had said something along the lines of, “hey all lets party on and get high” or “ lets all have a fun life” or “Bush needs to be impeached!” without the schools consent, she would not have been punished. The mere fact that she was afraid to add this into her speech, shows that something is wrong.

What is wrong is that the First Amendment is misquoted and abused. Here is the section quoted from the Bill of Rights “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.” Congress shall not… not government property. Congress. This laws was put into effect to keep the government from forcing a religion on any one person, as they did in England. Who ever was in control dictated the religion, and forced people to believe or die. The term “Separation Of Church and State” is in no legal document written by the nations founders. It is, however, in a Private letter between Thomas Jefferson and a minster friend. In which he was assuring his friend that the church would be protected from government interference. Here is that quote “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

Also notice the freedom of speech is mentioned in the same amendment. Since proselytizing is part of the Christian religion, is it not protected under the first amendment as long as it is done in a non violent manner?

So to quote you “….it would find itself at the receiving end of a Federal lawsuit. Given the fact that the school has a policy of pre-screening the valedictorians’ speeches, it could certainly be inferred that the school was unconstitutionally promoting Christianity…” This is simply not the case.

I agree the school has the right to screen, even has a duty, to screen speeches. That she lied by default to get her addition in, is not right, and I agree the school has a right to discipline her on this merit alone. But they chose to force her to apologize for What she said. That is against the Constitution. If they had disciplined her because she lied, I would have no problems with that.

The school was out of hand, and while doing my own research I have found reference to another out of hand disciplinary choice the school has made.
http://www.ztnightmares.com/html/mike_s_story.htm where they expelled a student for smoking pot with out any evidence other the the hearsay from one student. He passed all drug tests, but was expelled because another student said he smoked pot.

A thoughtful comment, and well presented, but I think you miss on two ultra important points. Often those who do not like the First Amendment point to the word “congress” as a limiting term. To boil it down to its most basic — The XIV Amendment changed that to mean “all government.”

Also, Jefferson’s letter was not a private correspondence. Jefferson’s letter was to the Danbury Baptist Congregation. It was intended as a public proclamation.

Here is a good point you make:

Also notice the freedom of speech is mentioned in the same amendment. Since proselytizing is part of the Christian religion, is it not protected under the first amendment as long as it is done in a non violent manner?

Yes, proselytizing is protected - as long as it does not conflict with the other co-equal portions of the First Amendment. And… I would agree that non-governmental proselytizing should be allowed. You may find this surprising, but I even think that Ms. Corder should have been allowed to say what she said.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was buzzed on its zeal to support the war on drugs, so it crushed student speech protections in Morse. Therefore, the school was dead right — legally speaking. Morally, I think that schools should allow greater speech than Morse suggests. Of course, if they are going to allow christian proselytizing, the next kid should have had the right to stand up and ridicule christianity, no?

-MJR

]]>