It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UCLA Prohibits Student from Saying 'Jesus' in Graduation Speech

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Oh really?
And what exactly makes her faith any less different than the other faiths?
She has every right to thank the one who made it possible for her to succeed!
I guess when there are differing cultures Christianity doesn't count as a differing culture?!
What hypocrisy!!!




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
After she gets through saying her thank you's, she should say "I do not thank Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, because UCLA has mandated that I not do so." Or, something to that effect.

In the end she has to ask herself what is more important to her, her faith, and her freedom of speech, or the college diploma.

Freedom is not cheap. Freedom often requires much sacrifice. Many gave everything including their lives to attain the freedoms we enjoy. A college diploma is nothing. Someone who truly believes in the ideals of freedom and liberty would be a fool to trade even a small amount of their liberty for a piece of paper saying that they are smart.

If you do not exercise your rights from time to time, what good are those rights to you?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So she is not entitled to free speech and freedom of religion? People like you are a large part of the problem in America today. We have tolerance shoved down our throats and forced on us so long as it is tolerance of aberrant behaviour or no-christian religions, but otherwise as far as you are concerned, this girl has no rights.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neves49
reply to post by Annee
 


So she is not entitled to free speech and freedom of religion? People like you are a large part of the problem in America today. We have tolerance shoved down our throats and forced on us so long as it is tolerance of aberrant behaviour or no-christian religions, but otherwise as far as you are concerned, this girl has no rights.


Who is WE?

I am expressing my right of free speech. Please be tolerant.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I see many childish, emotional nonsense in the objections here.
Some of you are stretching your comparisons to the point of idiocy.
This has little to do with any freedom.

Why exactly does this girl have to thank her god out loud so that everyone can hear her?
Surely if he is really omnicient he will hear her thoughts.
She must have thanked him many times already.
Isn't this a personal thing between her and her god?
Why does she feel that she must do it in public where all can hear her?

Talking about your own personal god to an audience of mixed beliefs is not socially acceptable.




[edit on 8-6-2009 by OhZone]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Talking about your own personal god to an audience of mixed beliefs is not socially acceptable.


That is exactly the problem.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Dude, please stop. you are wrong. And the masses agree. She was allowed to say what she wants.

In the real world, separation of church and states is not defined as eliminating church and only having the state. The right to liberally say words on one's or another's faith is a fundamental right of man. If she wants to thank Satan, you have to STFU and let her thank Satan. It is no different for God, Jesus, Buddha, Alla, Muhammad, or FSM. If you do not like this, then too bad, because you lost. She can say it, and the media agreed, the students agreed, and the masses agreed. you have lost. No one cares what you think.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
I see many childish, emotional nonsense in the objections here.

Wow, what a surprise that you believe this about those who have a different opinion.



Why exactly does this girl have to thank her god out loud so that everyone can hear her?

Umm...because she can and has the right to do so.

So I guess that means nobody can thank their parents, teachers or anyone else they believe helped them. Why do I want to hear you thank your parents right?


Surely if he is really omnicient he will hear her thoughts.

Irrelevant and moot.


She must have thanked him many times already.

Irrelevant and moot.


Why does she feel that she must do it in public where all can hear her?

Why do people thank their parents or teachers.

Besides, what is the big deal besides you not wanted to hear it? Will your ears bleed? Will your head explode? If not, then mind your own business please.


Talking about your own personal god to an audience of mixed beliefs is not socially acceptable.

That is your twisted, liberal, intolerant and wrong opinion. You are the typical liberal who has no tolerance for others and hatred to those who don't think like you. You believe in freedom of speech only when the person speaking shares your point of view, otherwise, you want them silenced. Sad and pathetic.

[edit on 6/8/2009 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
If she wants to thank Satan, you have to STFU and let her thank Satan. It is no different for God, Jesus, Buddha, Alla, Muhammad, or FSM. If you do not like this, then too bad, because you lost. She can say it, and the media agreed, the students agreed, and the masses agreed. you have lost. No one cares what you think.


Great! One of these days maybe a Satanist will have that opportunity.

I can't wait to see what happens.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I haven't LOST anything. This is just a discussion board. And yes I know the whole story on separation of church and state.

As I've said: "I" - "ME" - as an individual - 100% supports Separation of Church and state. There have been court decisions that have moved it closer to being a reality.

I will continue to stand and fight for my rights as a citizen - not to be forced to hear any form of Prostelitizing in a public/government social event. UNLESS - it is originally planned as such and advertised as such.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
As I've said: "I" - "ME" - as an individual - 100% supports Separation of Church and state.

To bad that 'seperation of church & state' is NOT in the Constitution.

Anyway, keep trying to suppress the right of free speech ONLY when it conflicts with your beliefs.


[edit on 6/8/2009 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Good!

Her personal religion doesn't belong at a graduation of multi-cultural students of various beliefs.

I find it incredibly hypocritical that anyone would advocate censorship in the name of multiculturalism. How can other cultures be OK, but not her's.

She should protest the censorship, by saying it in Spanish!

"Gracias Jesús!" is multicultural!



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Good!

Her personal religion doesn't belong at a graduation of multi-cultural students of various beliefs.


Since when, Annee? Since when is Christianity a taboo subject just because a venue is multi-cultural?

I strongly suspect that if the student in question had chosen to praise lord Buddha or Allah, that the professor would have been much more circumspect in censoring her speech.

Multiculturalism USED to strongly embrace ALL religions, and was not used as an excuse to suppress SOME of them. When multiculturalism ceases to be about tolerance and becomes a tool of selective attack on citizens' cultural and religious expression, it ceases to be true multiculturalism and becomes a form of left-wing fascism.

This professor should have his or her consciousness raised to the fact that the First Amendment does not prohibit speech about religion in governmentally-funded venues; it DOES, however, prohibit the State (in this case, the professor in question) from taking action aimed at the public expression of religious views. The professor violated the student's First Amendment rights TWICE - once by infringing on her freedom of expression, and another time by doing so because the expression was about religious matters, specifically.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
I see many childish, emotional nonsense in the objections here.
Some of you are stretching your comparisons to the point of idiocy.
This has little to do with any freedom.


Actually, very few of these comments were childish - until you opened your caketrap.


Why exactly does this girl have to thank her god out loud so that everyone can hear her?
Surely if he is really omnicient he will hear her thoughts.
She must have thanked him many times already.
Isn't this a personal thing between her and her god?
Why does she feel that she must do it in public where all can hear her?


You know, the sort of sugary-sweet slobbering all over the shoelaces of the God whose followers presume Him to be four-square for one type of sexual, political and cultural expression nauseates me, too.

Not that I automatically assume this young lady's praise of Jesus to fall into that category, but my mother-in-law has honed the art of projective bull# spewing for Christ (as circumscribed carefully in my mother-in-law's self image) to a black art.

And even so, I will defend these people's right to spew meretricious crap to the death, because their rights are also MY rights to hold their beliefs up to ridicule.


Talking about your own personal god to an audience of mixed beliefs is not socially acceptable.
[edit on 8-6-2009 by OhZone]


According to who? YOU? Who died and made you Stalin?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by neves49
reply to post by Annee
 


So she is not entitled to free speech and freedom of religion? People like you are a large part of the problem in America today. We have tolerance shoved down our throats and forced on us so long as it is tolerance of aberrant behaviour or no-christian religions, but otherwise as far as you are concerned, this girl has no rights.


Who is WE?

I am expressing my right of free speech. Please be tolerant.


That's the point many of us are trying to make - we DO defend your right to speak your mind - and the student's right to speak HERS.

YOUR freedom of speech is also OUR freedom of speech - but it is also THAT STUDENT'S freedom of speech, which the state (in the office of that professor) had NO business infringing, ESPECIALLY not on religious grounds.

Nowhere does the First Amendment state that the government must be hostile to religious expression. The university certainly must either refrain from an invocation of prayer to one particular deity or sect or invoke them all and include the views of those of us who believe no deity exists.

But the university, in allowing graduating students to speak at all, cannot censor their speech of references to a deity, because that crosses the line from separation of church and state to official hostility toward church by the state. Such hostility to religious expression is directly forbidden by the First Amendment - read it carefully if you disagree. The government is explicitly forbidden from acts governing exercise of religion.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Freiken Commies Im so sick of your insolence. Your very existence is an insult to all. Keep with your Hedonism you shall be judged!



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
This thread brings up a good point for further discussion on another thread perhaps? The point being is that I don't like the control the far right (Generally Christian conservatives or more to the point Christian fundamentalists) has/have on the republican party and politics in general. However, those same Christians are on the front lines in the battle for freedom of speech.

This makes for an unusual friend in the fight for oppression don't you think?

The liberal left who you would think would stand more freedom is actually one of the worst enemies we have.

So where does that leave me? As an independant of course and one who will take what help and reinforcements I can from whoever is offering. It's not a case of sleeping with the enemy but more of "If you are an enemy of my enemy you are my friend." Later I can fight you about youre oppressive religious views and how that infringes on my rights but for now those who want to suppress my freedom of speech and my other freedoms take the priority.

Amen!



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
As I've said: "I" - "ME" - as an individual - 100% supports Separation of Church and state. There have been court decisions that have moved it closer to being a reality.

I will continue to stand and fight for my rights as a citizen - not to be forced to hear any form of Prostelitizing in a public/government social event. UNLESS - it is originally planned as such and advertised as such.


I think you SHOULD stand and fight for your rights as a citizen, Annee. EVERYONE should.

But what the student in question WASN'T doing was proselytizing. She was simply expressing gratitude to her God. Proselytizing is standing there and exhorting us all to believe in her God as well, something the student wasn't doing.

As I've said before, much of what passes for open expression of religious belief (regardless of whether it's Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist) is nauseating to me. But I recognize that as a personal issue, not a Constitutional one. The right to praise God without imposing your views on others is solidly protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to cover that speech with vitriol in public.

The student didn't mess up. The professor (who was acting as an agent of a State-supported university) did mess up by presuming to be the student's censor, in open and direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Censorship of religious expression is something we'd better damned well be up in arms against; if we're not vigilant against censorship when it's directed at speech we don't like, it'll apply to our own speech and views some day because we didn't oppose it when it would have been easy to stop.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Murky]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
This thread brings up a good point for further discussion on another thread perhaps? The point being is that I don't like the control the far right (Generally Christian conservatives or more to the point Christian fundamentalists) has/have on the republican party and politics in general. However, those same Christians are on the front lines in the battle for freedom of speech.


When I married, I was a Libertarian. I basically allowed myself to be arm-twisted into registering Republican just before Reagan was elected so my wife's parents could look good at their local Republican Party - I signed my party card at a literal party held at the home of the parish (=county) head of the Republican Party.

I burned my Republican Party voter registration card and re-registered as a Libertarian when it became clear (during the administration of Bush I) that the Republican Party was no longer the One Big Tent under which the coalition that gave us Ronald Reagan could comfortably assemble. It broke up into a bunch of squalid, smoky, narrow teepees inhabited by control freaks from the various ideological wings of the Republican Party.


This makes for an unusual friend in the fight for oppression don't you think?

The liberal left who you would think would stand more freedom is actually one of the worst enemies we have.

So where does that leave me? As an independant of course and one who will take what help and reinforcements I can from whoever is offering. It's not a case of sleeping with the enemy but more of "If you are an enemy of my enemy you are my friend." Later I can fight you about youre oppressive religious views and how that infringes on my rights but for now those who want to suppress my freedom of speech and my other freedoms take the priority.


The problem with not being very careful WHICH right-wing Christians you take as ideological allies is that you wind up risking not being able to express support for people who for whatever reason don't fit in the very narrow window of acceptability defined by right-wing Christian politics. And these people only have a very limited passion for individual liberty and won't go far out of their way to protect it, once their own freedoms seem secure.

If the right-wing religious zealots had not chosen to waver in their support for the Republican Party to get their social agenda made law, as it pretty much was under Bush II, the Republican Party would have been strong enough that we'd never have had to deal with the continual attacks on individual freedom under Clinton, and which are already starting under the current administration.

I'm a Libertarian. Not a Republican. When I support Republican candidates, it's usually not from a community of interest, but to protect the bad from the worse - ham-handed socialist destruction of individual liberties.

I agree - we need another thread in which to discuss how liberty might best be defended. Perhaps we can get the religious right wing to accept that their own interests are best defended when both they and the socialists are forbidden to trample on individual rights, and when people now marginalized from taking full advantage of individual liberties and being protected in their relationships and property rights as gays now are have equal protection under the law. People forget that the Reagan campaign accepted and welcomed support from gays in the Republican Party.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Murky
 


Good points but I don't want to over think this or become embroiled in ideology. For example: I'm not a christian but, If the college, is censoring a speech about Jesus, and I lend support then I help all who want freedom. If a government agency is stopping a friendly meeting in someones house because it's technically considered a religious event or some such nonsense and I advocate for them, I'm not really helping Christians take over the world, I'm helping my own freedom and those of every single citizen of the free world.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
reply to post by Murky
 


Good points but I don't want to over think this or become embroiled in ideology. For example: I'm not a christian but, If the college, is censoring a speech about Jesus, and I lend support then I help all who want freedom. If a government agency is stopping a friendly meeting in someones house because it's technically considered a religious event or some such nonsense and I advocate for them, I'm not really helping Christians take over the world, I'm helping my own freedom and those of every single citizen of the free world.


I agree with you. I would join with you in defending the rights of Christians to speak and worship whenever those rights are about to be trodden down by the state - and this happens with sickening frequency in state-supported schools and universities.

I am just, going from past experience, not very sanguine about the prospects that these folks will remember that libertarians (small "l", not party members, but people like you and me who believe in the sanctity of individual rights) helped them in their hour of need.

The left has been able to triumph as much as they have because their opposition is fragmented, and often mutually antagonistic. I am a straight married man, but I don't appreciate it when people say that conservatism should mystically exclude people from enjoying equal support under the law because they are not as I am in their gender or other living arrangements.

I believe that we ought to live and let live as much as possible, and not give the left more allies than they deserve. "Social conservatism" may well have cost us the last Presidential election, because people who ought to recognize that the left would take much more away from them than they gain under a left-wing Presidency were basically told to go away... vote for the other guy.

If allying with right-wing Christians allows me to remain a consistent advocate for ALL Americans' individual liberties, fine and good. But going from history, that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Murky]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join