UCLA Prohibits Student from Saying 'Jesus' in Graduation Speech

reply to post by Annee


Your not getting it. Your right not to hear something is reserved in your freedom of movement. Don't want to hear it? leave/change the channel/alter your friendships/do not go. Your dislike of something does not justify the banning of it for all. If that was true, than someone who doesn't like pink could sue a pink-based store. Your position is not a valid argument in legal terms.

I will give you an example of what we do in New York City. The Ferry boats often have preachers. They are annoying, extremely annoying. But the city reserves them the right to go on the ferries and preach their religious viewpoints. It's public transportation, but the city allows it because it is public. all the hundreds of people hate to hear it, but the fact is it is freedom of speech. You want to preach? you can. Just don't bother or harass the people and the boat guards leave you alone.

That's an exact example of this student. The government reserves her right to say what she wants, even if you do not agree with it. Unless there is physical aggression or calling physical violence to another, there is no justification for stopping it.


This is the US. If you don't like it, there are hundreds of other nations.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

Your not getting it. Your right not to hear something is reserved in your freedom of movement. Don't want to hear it? leave/change the channel/alter your friendships/do not go. Your dislike of something does not justify the banning of it for all. If that was true, than someone who doesn't like pink could sue a pink-based store. Your position is not a valid argument in legal terms.

I will give you an example of what we do in New York City. The Ferry boats often have preachers. They are annoying, extremely annoying. But the city reserves them the right to go on the ferries and preach their religious viewpoints. It's public transportation, but the city allows it because it is public. all the hundreds of people hate to hear it, but the fact is it is freedom of speech. You want to preach? you can. Just don't bother or harass the people and the boat guards leave you alone.

That's an exact example of this student. The government reserves her right to say what she wants, even if you do not agree with it. Unless there is physical aggression or calling physical violence to another, there is no justification for stopping it.

Exactly. And as far as I can tell, the student in question wasn't even asking for permission to preach - just to mention Jesus ONCE during a graduation speech.

Hostility to that tiny degree of religious speech to the point where a woman is forbidden to utter it on government-owned property is the same thing as imposing agnosticism on Americans as a state religion. The hostile act is itself setting up a religion from which the student was not allowed to dissent.

The hostility, not the religious speech, is what the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids flatly. The professor who censored that student's speech of the word "Jesus" should have been punished for illegally restricting another American's freedom of expression. If this sort of thing isn't caught and corrected in small cases, soon we'll have an all-powerful State shushing all of us up.

Originally posted by Murky

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.

Perhaps some day when one specific religion stops trying to run my government - - I will feel differently.

Perhaps some day when there is truly a balance and acceptance of all believers and non-believers - - I will feel differently.

Just curious - do you support the ACLU.

reply to post by Annee


"Be the change you want to see in the world."

Not allowing any religious expression is a testement to your unwillingness for you to accept the very acceptance you want everybody else to. Now how are you going to justify that? Because there's more Christians than anybody else. This is this single solitary persons belief. Jesus was an important factor for this person! To the student, he was a guiding strength. In a land where people fled religious persecution, I find it hard to swallow that people want to deny people the right to believe what they want to believe and praise who they want to praise.

I'm glad UCLA had finally taken their head out of their ass and let this student say what they wanted to say. It's only right.

Separation of church and state is only about keeping the state out of the affairs of the church according to the man who wrote it, Thomas Jefferson.

I see a violation of separation of church and state in this case. The state is involved in the affairs of this person who is practicing her religion.

According to Jefferson, UCLA is in violation of the separation of church and state, not this young woman.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Whats Jesus got to do with a college course anyway?

He didin't sit there and help her revise or anything.

It was her and her hard work, possibly her parents helped with love and support, but at the end it was down to her and hard work.

Imagine how life would be if we we'ren't wrapped up in primitive little worlds, would be a damn bit harder for globalists to pull the wool over our eyes and sneek in a new world order.

Religion is good for keeping people trapped in a little world, war, controlling people and making money.

Why can't people have faith and belief in themselves? If we have to thank and worship anyone then what about Mother nature!?

Come on sheeple wake up, smell the coffee and snap out of the poxy little world.

Do you really think "god" is up there going, you can die, you can live, you can pass your college course but you can't, I think you can live after that accident but you didn't kiss my arse enough so you can die...C'mon.

Wouldn't it be mental if we we're genetically engineered by the Annunaki.

Just think, if you take a heroin supply from somebody that depends on it to get through life, then that person becomes a bit of a mess, same with religion.

Are humans weak and silly?

Then why do we still need 2000 year thoughts and books telling us what to do and how to do?? Please god help wih this, help with that, please god i'll kiss your arse more.. It's weakness.

It's not about what god does or doesn't do. ITS ABOUT WHAT HUMANS DO!

I really didn't want to offend anyone, if I have then I apologies, at the end of the day, truth hurts. Wake up and grow a pair, get some minerals.

We have to grow up and put faith and belief in ourselves for once and learn to work together no matter what religion or skin colour.

Where have you heard something like this before?- The Nommo was crucified and resurrected and in the future will again visit the Earth, this time in human form. Later he will assume his amphibious form and will rule the world from the waters.

It came from- meta-religion.com... and was written and researched by a university.

How comfortable would you feel if it turned out that we we're created by the Annunaki and taught by the Nommo.

It would explain the missing link and where we got our knowledge from.

It makes so much sense!! At least when governments bang on about how evil and blood thirsty the aliens are you'll be able to think, hold on a min, if they we're that evil wouldn't they have had their wicked way with us a while ago? Whats the government trying to cover up and why???

If they did create us then they wouldn't want to destroy us, fingers crossed they deem us worthy and help rid us of the evils that are destroying the planet!

Chin up and rock on.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Annee

 

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

Not allowing any religious expression is a testement to your unwillingness for you to accept the very acceptance you want everybody else to. Now how are you going to justify that?

That is not what I said. Read it again.

My opinion is only directed at government facilities - not private. UCLA being a public school - makes it government.

I said - if religion is involved and advertised as such prior to public display. This gives those who object to avoid being there or right to protest.

Also - in an earlier post I said - - - the college could allow a person from every religion to offer something. So that all beliefs are recognized and honored.

She could say something like - I would like to thank my god - and I offer all of you this time to thank yours - - for non-believers please take this time to reflect on what is important to you.

Specifically thanking Jesus makes it Exclusive and alienates many who will be in attendance.

reply to post by Annee


actually, by your standards, nobody should be allowed to say anything about God, and everyone should be allowed to say something about God. Because you have agnostics, atheists, pagans, jews, Christians, Muslims, heavens gate, scientologists, etc..

so by your "please everyone" approach, you only defeat yourself. What you need is a logical argument and it's called a common sense approach to reason.

I remember when i was in school, there was one single parent who protested erecting Christmas tree's in the lunch room (i think i was in 6th or 7th grade)

one single angry at the world for everything kind of parent.
The kind you just want to go live in another country somewhere so she can see how easy she has it.

Anyways, the school board voted, and guess what? They kept the Christmas tree's and public face because they said the Christmas tree's represented the Christmas shopping season and reasoned that it has become it's own holiday that is void of any religious aspect.

They reasoned that a Christmas tree appears no where in any Christian bible, therefore only has a suggestive association with the birth of Christ.

the woman who was offended? She can bugger off. She can pull her child from the school if something as mundane as a tree offends her.

You have the right to your religion. But you also have the right to be offended as well.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Fremd]

Originally posted by Fremd
reply to post by Annee

 

actually, by your standards, nobody should be allowed to say anything about God, and everyone should be allowed to say something about God. Because you have agnostics, atheists, pagans, jews, Christians, Muslims, heavens gate, scientologists, etc..

Government ONLY.

Absolutely! When it relates to government - a government facility or related function.

Unless - - prior arrangement is made - and announced - - - giving equality and fairness to those that oppose it - - to speak their mind.

Because IMO - government (any kind or relation) - - - belongs to ALL and EVERY citizen.

I personally - - do not want God of any kind in my government. It creates inclusion and exclusion. There should be no division in government based on faith belief or even non-faith.

Originally posted by Fremd

I remember when i was in school, there was one single parent who protested erecting Christmas tree's in the lunch room (i think i was in 6th or 7th grade)

one single angry at the world for everything kind of parent.
The kind you just want to go live in another country somewhere so she can see how easy she has it.

And when I was in school back in the 50's - there was a Jewish family that had NO VOICE at all in how ALL schools celebrated Easter & Christmas.

It was wrong then - and it is wrong now.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Annee]

reply to post by Annee


there's nothign wrong with having a voice.
But why should my Christmas tree be chopped down simply because someone is too full of themselves to look the other way?

I've never been offended by a menorah. I simply look the other way.

All your pandering (and those who crusade with you) is good for is for you to be able to justify telling someone else how to live their life.

If you don't like my Christmas tree, look the other way.

Don't piss in my sandbox, and i won't defecate in yours. It's called "living together".

People like you scream 'respect my differences' but you never respect anyone else's. Can you please tell me why?

Originally posted by Fremd
All your pandering (and those who crusade with you) is good for is for you to be able to justify telling someone else how to live their life.

If you don't like my Christmas tree, look the other way.

Don't piss in my sandbox, and i won't defecate in yours. It's called "living together".

People like you scream 'respect my differences' but you never respect anyone else's. Can you please tell me why?

You are obviously Christian.

I was raised (assimilated) Christian from childhood and continued into my adult life. I spent more then half of my life as a Christian. At some point - I began thinking for myself - and realized I didn't believe any of it.

But that is not the point. The point is I know what it is to be Christian. I know what it is to think Christian.

I am not finding any of your arguments relative to my points. I find your attitude dismissive if anything.

reply to post by Annee


No, you know what it is to be saturday morning cartoon christian.

Too many "christians" mix the messages and give the whole religion a bad name. The modern Christian has absolutely nothing in common with Jesus Christ or his teachings....they just think they do.

Again, that's not the point.

You avoided the point entirely.

So i'll ask it again.

You are all about "respect everyone's differences" on one hand, but on the other, you're about no respecting my differences.

What is wrong with my Christmas tree that you can't turn your head?
Why is it in your existence to try and tell other people how they should run their lives?

i'm speaking in general of course, not literally.

The one thing i keep seeing from some minority groups is a constant "it's not fair" approach, regardless of the fact that they themselves have the same opportunity to do the same thing.

Go ahead and petition for a menorah in the cafeteria.
Go ahead and petition for the Christmas tree to be taken down.
Those are your rights. Just don't claim discrimination if they don't happen.

I'll give you a perfect example on a less touchy subject of what im talking about


I live in Champaign, Illinois. The home of the University of Illinois. We have a mediocre basketball program for the men on a national level (the local support is HUGE, but nationally we're not that great)

Anyways, just recently, our school mascot was retired because a few "holier than thou" white people complained that Native American Imagery was offensive (our mascot portrays an extinct native american tribe, how can it offend anyone that it doesn't portray?)

That argument aside, the thing that made my blood boil was the women's basketball team.

You see, the local news decided it was a good idea to interview the womens team to see what they thought of the Chief retiring.

But instead of giving their opinion, they moaned and groaned, whined and complained that "the chief" (our mascot) would not be having his final performance at one of their basketball games (it was a mens home basketball game)

But the problem is, mens basketball games fill the stadium. Womens basketball games can't even fill a gym.

So what "right" does the women's team have to the final performance? Why? So it's "Fair"? Well how is that fair to the mens team whose performance is so great that they fill the stands?

Why should the women be GIVEN a foot up simply because their performance lacks so much they fail to attract a crowd? It's not the mens fault.

That's what i can't stand most about the movement you so openly support:

You choose to reward those who refuse to do things for themselves, and punish those who have initiative.

You'd be really surprised what could happen if you actually got off your butt and did something, instead of setting around complaining about it all the time.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Fremd]

reply to post by Annee

My opinion is only directed at government facilities - not private. UCLA being a public school - makes it government.

Public School

1. An elementary or secondary school in the United States supported by public funds and providing free education for children of a community or district.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

1.☆ in the U.S., an elementary or secondary school that is part of a system of free schools maintained by public taxes and supervised by local authorities

www.yourdictionary.com...

: a free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority

www.merriam-webster.com...

UCLA does not meet the definition of a public (government) school, because it is not a free school, students must pay fees, and pretty high ones at that.

University registration fee,
Resident , Non-Resident
$ 864.00 $786.00
Education Fee
$ 7,122.00 (R) $ 7,434.00(N-R)
Total Annual MPP Program Fees
$14,210.50 (R) $26,767.50 (N-R)

There are other fees included in that total, however i didn't want to use the space to post all of them.

I did want to point out this one though...

MIP (Mandatory Medical Insurance) also known as Graduate Student health Insurance Plan; $1,338.00 for both residents and non-residents (GSHIP)

They even force the students to carry medical coverage Also...

Non-Resident Tuition 12,245.00

www.spa.ucla.edu...

So total annual fees for residents-$14,210.50 and for non-residents-$26,767.50

So you see UCLA is far from being a public (government) school, therefore your arguement is not valid for this thread topic.


Edit to add; Even if UCLA was a public (government) school your arguement is still a moot point as UCLA is not endorsing religion, they are not even referring to any religion.

[edit on 6/9/2009 by chise61]

reply to post by Annee

She could say something like - I would like to thank my god - and I offer all of you this time to thank yours - - for non-believers please take this time to reflect on what is important to you.

So now you've gone from attempting to tell her what she can't say, to attempting to tell her what she can say You are really into cencorship aren't you.

She would be wrong if she said what you suggest she say. She has no right to offer anyone time to thank their God, by doing so she would be doing exactly what you are attempting to accuse her of. She is not in a position to offer anyone time to do anything, she is not running a school function, she is simply giving her graduation speech, during which she wishes to take a mere 4 seconds to say "I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," . Who in this world has a right to take that away from her ?

reply to post by Annee

You are obviously Christian.

And how do you know that ? What did Fremd say in his/her post that led you to that conclusion ?

I was raised (assimilated) Christian from childhood and continued into my adult life. I spent more then half of my life as a Christian. At some point - I began thinking for myself - and realized I didn't believe any of it.

You continue to attempt to derail this thread and turn it into a dicussion about religion, more specifically your animosity towards Christians. If you wish to discuss religion, here's the place to do it....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont see if a problem with someone thanking jesus if they believe in jesus. Its not even a big deal. Does this go just for Jesus or does everyone have to abide by this new little rule no matter who they believe in?

reply to post by Annee

Perhaps some day when there is truly a balance and acceptance of all believers and non-believers - - I will feel differently.

and perhaps one day, you and those like you will realize that the only way everyone can truly coexist with each other is to simply "keep on walking" when they find someone like a Christmas tree or "Jesus" that offends them.

If one person says "i'd like to thank Christ for my success" fine, let them. Nobody (except you) gives a flying rats behind what anyone else thinks of it (especially those whom get so easily offended)

To parents who are offended by it: Pull your children from school if it bothers you that much - OR - encourage YOUR student to do well in school so that they are invited to give a speech at graduation - and then they can thank ALLAH, or Jupiter, or Joe Peshci if they so choose.

Whatever you choose to do - stop complaining about things don't DO NOT EFFECT YOU and get a life.

reply to post by Annee


Religion is not a finite set of thoughts that can only be expressed in home or church. Religion is part of a persons entire fabric of who they are, what they believe and how they see the world. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say I believe in my religion. How dare you try to limit that freedom.

I can say I love the color Green..it saves me from depression, I believe frogs will rule the world...or I can say I and grateful to know Jesus Christ. If it can not be said in public it must be dangerous. What are you afraid of? Where is the danger? Only dangerous things are prohibited. I do not think you would be offended id a Hindi thanked one of his Gods or is a Buhdist thanked one of his teachers. It is strictly Jesus which i presume who makes you cringe.

reply to post by WHOS READY

That was one long winded post and totally irrelevant. You are missing the point entirely.

It does not matter if YOU believe religion is nonesense. The point is that a person has the right to thank anyone they please whether it is their God or their pet frog. Some thank their parents and some thank their teachers. It is NOT up to you to decide who a person should thank because you believe it's silly. Only the person talking knows who gave them their inner strength.

Bottom line: People need to mind their own business. If you are offended, TOUGH! Why should I be muzzled because you are hyper sensitive. Good Grief!

[edit on 6/9/2009 by WhatTheory]