Topic: News, politics and Activism
Ken and I have always been political minded people, and though we agree on most issues, occasionally we do find ourselves on different sides. Unfortunately for Ken, we often find ourselves debating when he would rather be sleeping because he has work the next morning, but I'll take whatever edge I can get (grins evilly).
Last night, Ken and I watched a video on "YouTube" from the RutherfordInstitute's Channel on the lack of free speech for young people in the school system. Here is the video:
Because Ken and I feel very strongly about constitutional rights, I was surprised to find how different our point of views were on this topic.
Before beginning to share my opinion about the stance Mr. Whitehead takes on the first amendment, I want to talk briefly about proselytizing.
All of us have, at one time or another, found ourselves at the other end of a conversation that usually starts with something akin to "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" and eventually leads to "burning in hell". I admit, that as a Pagan, my teeth are on edge when I find myself in this situation as I have no desire or motivation to turn my back on what I believe in, no matter what scare tactics are used against me. Depending on my mood or their attitude, I am either polite in expressing this, or down right rude.
Christians and those who follow similar religious beliefs have a right to tell me their opinion about their God, his associates, and his book because they have the right to free speech. A right that is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. On the other side of the coin, I too have the right of free speech and can tell them my opinion about their religion and the evident pompous hypocrisy that I feel exists within their churches.
Now back to the video.
Where Ken and I found we had a difference of opinion was at around 2:47 seconds in the video where Mr. Whitehead discusses an incident that happened at a school sponsored public assembly, more specifically at a commencement ceremony, involving a student named Britney McColm in which her school asked her to give a speech about what was important to her to her fellow classmates.
Before the planned event, students who were to address the assembly were asked to submit their speech to the education board. When they saw the word "the Lord" and other spirituality based dialogue, they edited out those portions and she was told that she could not discuss her religious beliefs in her speech.
Aware of her first amendment rights, she ignored the education board the night of commencement and the moment she uttered the words "the Lord" her microphone was immediately shut off by one of the school faculty members and she was not allowed to continue.
Ken, much like I imagine many Pagans and Heathens, has the opinion that the school had a right and should have censored Ms. McColm. He believes that religious ideals have no place at a school sponsored event, most especially in regards to public schools which are considered government institutions. The word "government" being the key in that sentence since the first amendment also guarantees that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (see also the "Establishment Clause"). Hence the reason that religion is neither endorsed nor taught in public schools.
However, the way things have been rewritten in history, this portion of the first amendment has become muddied in my opinion and can fall into a sort of grey area. Most evidentally in the re-wording of the "Pledge of Allegiance" in the 1950s to include "under God" after "one nation" and the addition of "In God we trust" on our national monies and now on license plates here in the state of Indiana.
How can government claim that it prohibits the creation of a national religion through the first amendment and yet let Christian religions have such strong influences in national policies created by government officials, our national pledge, and monies circulated the the government body of the United States Treasury? I'm sure political intimidation and sizable monetary donations/endorsements had a great deal to do with it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out. But, I'm rambling, so let's get back to the topic of Ms. McColm's commencement speech.
My position is this: So long as the speech was about how her spirituality has influenced her personally in the choices she's made in what direction to follow in regards to her education and not a sermon to her fellow students proselytizing that they should give themselves over to the God that she believes in, I don't see a need for censorship.
So what if she believes that the God she follows guided her to make the right choices for her in her life? Don't we Pagans feel that our many deities have watched out for us in times of adversity?
I find it amazing sometimes that most of us who fall under the category of "Pagan" have no difficulty accepting and embracing our own spiritual differences in beliefs, deities, or culture (I mean, let's face it, no two Pagans/Heathens are completely alike), and yet become so adversarial when it comes to Christians and there sets of beliefs. Whatever happened to the concept of "Namaste" which loosely means that "the divine in me, recognizes the divine in you"?
Yes, it is monumentally annoying to be preached at by a Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian about God, Jesus Christ and their often over dramatic concern of the damnation of my mortal soul and the assumption that I am ignorant of the teachings of the bible. Believe me, there are much more productive uses of my time. But where is the harm? What does it hurt, besides maybe my ears, figuratively speaking?
We have become so lost in the sea of "political correctness" that we now risk drowning, in my opinion.
Hearing the words "God", "Lord", "Jesus Christ", "Bible", "Devil", and "Hell" will not shatter anyone into a million pieces. They're just words. They don't have that power. I don't condemn these words or fear that they will seductively influence me to change the course of my life either spiritually or intellectually. No word, verse or individual has the power to change what I believe. The only one with the power to change what I believe, is me.
Any Pagan or Heathen that has a fear that anyone proclaiming to be Christian has the power to influence what they personally believe when they proselytize, doesn't have faith in or an emotional connection to their chosen path or spirituality to begin with.
I don't believe that there is anything wrong in any individual expressing to those around him/her what has personally influenced them to stay straight and true to themselves; be it religion, spirituality, a deity, a person, a motto, a book, a movie, or even a song. If it has positively effected their lives and made them happier people for it, why shouldn't they share it or talk about it with others? I can celebrate that they have found a path that gives their life a sense of fulfillment and peace, and can do so even if their path is different from my own, without feeling threatened.
Yes, yes, I know. I'm a hippy. I probably always will be. I make no apologies.
Finally, I want to discuss the constitutionality of the speech Ms. McColm was denied in giving at a school sponsored event, since that is what is really at the heart of things.
Although she attended a public high school which is a governmental institution or entity and the commencement ceremony falls into the realm of a school sponsored event, Ms. McColm's first amendment right of free speech was unequivocally violated.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was put into place to prevent our government from recognizing any one religion as our country's national religion. The clause is as follows:
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.
James Madison's early draft of the amendment addresses the issue further in saying, quote:
"The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
Due to the fact that public schools are governmental entities, the Supreme Court in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) supported banning prayer in classrooms, and prohibiting the teaching of religious beliefs as it constituted governmental endorsement of religion.
A presiding judge, Hugo black, who supported the ban wrote:
“… the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government."
To put it bluntly; public school teachers and faculty are considered representatives of a governmental institution. As such, they cannot lead students in prayer, or teach the beliefs or ideals of a specific religion.
However, neither the Supreme Court's 1962 decision nor the Establishment Clause can be attached to students attending public schools as they are not governmental representatives/employees.
Therefore, when Ms. McColm attempted to give her speech in which she uttered the words "the Lord" at her commencement, she was not violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and had every right to execute her right of free speech guaranteed by that same amendment.
So then it becomes a matter of what is or isn't "appropriate". I hate subjective arguments.
Had the microphone been turned off after some kind vulgar obscenity like perhaps an "f-bomb", after a personal attack against an individual or group (religious or non-religious) motivated by racism, homophobia, hatred or ignorance, or after some other type of hate mongering/divisive espoused opinion, I wouldn't protest the school's decision. That kind of speech is unarguably inappropriate for a commencement speech.
However, that's not what happened here. She was censored because she said two words that revealed that there were Christian overtones to her speech that might possibly offend someone who doesn't share the same philosophy or ideology as the Christian church.
Was this inappropriate for me personally, as a Pagan? Hell no. Unless the words "may you smite down the non-believers into the bowels of hell to burn forever!" came after the words "my Lord", would I give a damn, to be brutally honest.
If Ms. McColm had proselytized her beliefs during her speech and I had been in attendance, you can be damn sure I would have expressed my disagreement to her personally once the ceremony was concluded. After all, I too have the right of free speech.
I have absolutely no problem in telling a bible-thumper why I have no interest in his God or his religion and I have no problem in turning my back and walking away from someone that asks me "Have you been saved?". I have that right, and he has the right to speak freely. If you take away that right, however, then I have a problem.
This is sure to be an unpopular view, given that I am a Pagan defending the rights of a young Christian. But, I stand by my opinion and the rights guaranteed to all under the Constitution.
Brightest Blessings.
Posted by spiritiger
at 8:18 AM
Updated: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 5:51 PM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 5:51 PM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post