tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post2254149041182896124..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: MIDDLE SCHOOL SPEECHBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-79190712396906531832013-10-16T14:40:08.799-04:002013-10-16T14:40:08.799-04:00I agree with the decision of the court. The studen...I agree with the decision of the court. The student still spoke at graduation and portrayed the main message of her speech to her fellow students and audience. I also agree with Terry, she was representing her school and this honor does not permit her to represent in the way that she chooses if it violates the Establishment Clause. I know that my school did the pledge of allegiance but there was never an instance where anyone who spoke publicly to the students mentioned God or any specific religion. Overall, the school district was definitley remaining neutral for religions and non religions and the last sentence of her speech did not prove to be essential to how her message got across to the audience.Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13735304430086782666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-37321778482281171512013-10-16T14:26:12.931-04:002013-10-16T14:26:12.931-04:00I have to say that I disagree with the court’s rul...I have to say that I disagree with the court’s ruling on this case. I think this case is different from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier in the sense that the school newspaper can be considered to represent the viewpoints of the school, which should be neutral as to not violate the establishment clause, while a graduation speech represents the viewpoint of an individual. While the establishment clause does not allow public schools to “promote” religion, A.M. is not employed by the school, and is therefore not bound by that rule. Therefore, I think allowing A.M. to recite her speech would not be a violation of the establishment clause, and that not allowing her to recite it is a violation of her right to free speech and indeed does discriminate against her due to her religion.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016723584670728029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-43728518202187796272013-10-16T11:16:28.233-04:002013-10-16T11:16:28.233-04:00I’ll have some fun and say that had A.M. kept the ...I’ll have some fun and say that had A.M. kept the line in her speech it would not have been a breach of the Establishment Clause because they are merely A.M.’s views that are being expressed. I believe the school took the necessary steps to protect it from a lawsuit but the speech is just the views of one person being expressed. I just can’t see how a middle school student’s speech can be a breach of the Establishment Clause.Adam Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16052278338150494609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-90451189605528877352013-10-16T11:04:39.014-04:002013-10-16T11:04:39.014-04:00I agree with the court and the school district in ...I agree with the court and the school district in this case, as well as the other comments. A.M. can believe what ever she chooses, but as Liz pointed out, the students cannot leave. This is not like the Pledge of Allegiance where one can opt out - the other kids must sit and listen to her speech. Therefore she should not be allowed, as an extension of the school, to preach her religious beliefs. Tyler Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12201835260110186685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-64498632162161568472013-10-15T21:18:12.446-04:002013-10-15T21:18:12.446-04:00I agree with the comments made in that it was a go...I agree with the comments made in that it was a good thing that A.M. omitted that final sentence in order to maintain neutrality. If A.M. were to keep that part of her speech it would definitely be a violation of the establishment clause. However, if I remember correctly, almost all my school ceremonies and assemblies began with the pledge allegiance to the flag, isn't that itself a violation of the establishment clause? We have discussed this in class and I do understand that today we are not obligated to say the pledge but if schools want to maintain neutrality, wouldn't be easier to just take the pledge out of all school ceremonies? Again, I want to emphasize that I do agree with the decision but I think we should start looking into other things that are still occurring in our schools that have not been changed. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16446374291496664840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-74756736543466158042013-10-15T20:22:41.737-04:002013-10-15T20:22:41.737-04:00Terry, this was tough call for me but I have to ag...Terry, this was tough call for me but I have to agree with your stance. The student was an extension of the school, therefore it should be the school's responsibility to ensure that religion does not take preference over non religion. If A.M. was giving a speech off school grounds, or had she sent an email, text, etc, her statements would have been protected by our right to free speech. School's must continue to be sensitive to the issue of religion in schools to ensure they remain secular in their approach to public education. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-47517828065401237812013-10-15T14:48:08.815-04:002013-10-15T14:48:08.815-04:00I agree with both Liz and Terry in this case. Had ...I agree with both Liz and Terry in this case. Had A.M. been allowed to include that sentence in her speech, it would have violated the Establishment Clause in prioritizing one religion over no religion, and one religion over all other religions. Because this public school is funded by and represents the government, it cannot set one religion above no/all other religions. While this may be a "burden" to the student to not be able to freely express her religious beliefs, I do not believe the burden is significant enough to prioritize her right to freely practice her religion over the state's interest to maintain religious neutrality.Sayeh Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02819285451257157344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-65158259325852367402013-10-15T00:04:44.316-04:002013-10-15T00:04:44.316-04:00A.M. is acting as an agent of the school district ...A.M. is acting as an agent of the school district in addressing her classmates. Her classmates are not free to come and go as they please but are obligated to attend the ceremony and witness her remarks. Because the school is not considered a public square, A.M. is not entitled to unlimited freedom of expression and must consider the sensibilities of all in attendance who will be subject to her words.Liz L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05437350971379301967noreply@blogger.com