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: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
What the hell ever happened to free thought, free opinion, free will to believe as you wish, and free will to express that belief, opinion and thoughts publicly using your right to free speech?

The Liberal Fascists should put out a book on what we can and cannot think/say/do so as to not ... offend anyone..

I find all of this quite disgusting..




posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Whattheory,
Why are you all screaming that she has a right to do this and therefore it is OK?
She was not told that she didn’t have a “right” to say this.
Would you agree that she likely has the right to say that she is constipated, or that she was on her period, but that is a personal and inappropriate statement.

I don’t think it is a matter of her right to do it, but a matter of propriety.
Considering that possible ¾ of her audience are not Church-going Christians, but non religious and other religions, it is inappropriate for her to make that statement.

Personal matters are not OK in a public setting.
Personally, when I hear such tripe my estimation of the person’s intelligence immediately drops.

Thanking parents and teachers is quite all right.
Everyone there has or has had parents and teachers and can identify with the view.

“Liberal”….I thought they accepted everything.
I’m not a liberal---I am a free thinker. I don’t need the media to think for me and to put words in my mind.
And you will note, that I did not say that she should be silenced. So take back your hateful rhetoric.
You are getting a bit carried away in your emotional storm there, don’t you think?

You all can call this censorship….I see it face saving for the poor naïve young girl. It is time that she learned that everyone does not love Jesus.

And the next speaker gets up there and ends his speech with, “Praise Allah and kill the infidel.”
He has a right to say this.
But should he?
If you were the teacher what would you do?



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone


“Liberal”….I thought they accepted everything.
I’m not a liberal---I am a free thinker. I don’t need the media to think for me and to put words in my mind.


I'm not a Liberal either. I'm actually a 40 year registered Goldwater Republican (except for the Christian part).

But I prefer independent thinker.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
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.


Again - this is ONLY for anything government related - - not private enterprise.

I agree - I am what I believe.

However - she can thank her god privately - - there is ZERO real & logical reason for her to do it in this public arena. As far as I am concerned she is prostelitizing.

My favorite color is green.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by chise61


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....



You continue to try to place it in your arena - with your rules.

Declaring that I was once Christian - - only allows that I do understand both sides - - even if I do not agree.

I find that pertinent.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 




And the next speaker gets up there and ends his speech with, “Praise Allah and kill the infidel.”
He has a right to say this.
But should he?




He has every right to thank Allah during his graduation speech. However he has absolutely no right to say "kill the infidel" as he would be attemptimg to incite someone to commit murder.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




You continue to try to place it in your arena - with your rules.


You may want to check into that a little more, i'm not the one who makes the rules here such as no off topic posts.



Declaring that I was once Christian - - only allows that I do understand both sides - - even if I do not agree.


No it does not allow that you understand both sides, as you understand something called Christianity, you do not understand true Christianity. That's all i'm going to say about that as i am not going to allow you to drag me into an off topic discussion about religion, you'll have to wait till we meet in an appropriate thread for that.



I find that pertinent.


No it's not pertinent at all as this thread is not about religion.

You seemed to have missed my other question, so i'll ask again. What was it in Fremd's post that makes it obvious that he/she is a Christian ?



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I believe you are also supposed to address the subject - - not the poster in a personal manner.

I - Not You - will determine what and how I choose to perceive this subject.

Having been Christian is pertinent to the discussion - as I see it.

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

It is my choice on this specific subject - - to focus on Separation of Church and State - - because that is how I see it.

If you choose to see it in another way - - that is your prerogative.

I will not be dictated to by other posters.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 




This has little to do with any freedom.


Actually freedom is the only thing that this has to do with. And maybe a little reading comprehension (in the case of those that are on this thread). She is a student at a college that she pays to attend, meaning that it's not free and public (i.e. a public school and a "government run institution"). She is merely a private citizen that is being told what they can and can not say when it poses no threat of harm or danger to anyone else.

"Oh no!!! Did she say Jesus!!???" Everyone run, Jesus is coming!!!!!" "Who will save us from Jesus!!???"

Is this really the sort of argument that people are making (as Annee has stated)? That this is somehow akin to a person yelling fire in a crowded theater? Please, this is absolutely laughable!


This is really getting out of hand. The point is that she has the right to say what ever she pleases. She is doing no harm nor is she being vulgar or lewd.

Now had she been a government official or school spokesperson attempting to lead the graduation crowd in prayer before the graduation I might be inclined to agree with you; however, that is not the case so this argument is frivolous at best. Anyone that believes in the constitutional right to free speech has to see this for what it is and put their personal feelings aside. Anything less is hypocritical. Some are applying their personal causes to the issue instead of rational thought and law.

We all must look at this like a judge (that doesn't legislate from the bench) and apply the law whether we like it or not. Similar to my saying that I would agree if it were a school official attempting to lead prayer. My faith tells me to spread the word where ever possible. But, I know that the law says there is to be no government sponsored religion. So I acknowledge the fact that proselytizing or evangelism in that capacity would be illegal for government officials. But as a private citizen you have to concede that she has the right to say what she pleases. She poses no danger to anyone. If you can't see that then you are an extremist that can't think rationally or you refuse to see the law and what's good and right. Instead you choose to substitute it for your version of what is lawful.


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.
This is not a topic of theology, nor is it anyone's place to pass judgment on her views and fashion of thanking HE who she see's as responsible for her prosperity in life.


She must have thanked him many times already.
What an imperious stance to take! Who are you to question such things?



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?
It's not for you to understand, just as if you were graduating in her class and wanted to thank the Sequoia Forest for your success (as a person that worships trees) it would be nobody's place to question or stop you!

Furthermore, I'm almost positive that nobody would have said a word to you at all. It is only because the very name Jesus has become an issue for many and an entire movement has sprung up around that standpoint. Now people are pushing back and defending their faith and their rights. But I digress.




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


America never wanted, nor do we now want to be socially acceptable people! If you enjoy social acceptability and crave it please move to Europe and do not "further" pollute our country with the P.C. CRAP!

A person that has the courage of their convictions and speaks their mind will most often find themselves to be "socially unacceptable!" That's how free speech works.

If you only say what people want to hear than you may as well keep your mouth shut, as it will be of little substance and of less consequence to anyone worth speaking to.












[edit on 10-6-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I choose to focus on Separation of Church and State - - because that is how I see it.

If you choose to focus on Freedom of Speech - - that is your prerogative.

Do Not dictate to me.




[edit on 10-6-2009 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
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 what is that? An affirmative action for religions now????

Besides, she shouldn't have to acknowledge anyone. This is about freedom of speech and she is being denied. PC has no place when freedom of speech comes into play. It doesn't say "Freedom of speech, so long as nobody gets offended."

If you can find that caveat let me know where?




Specifically thanking Jesus makes it Exclusive and alienates many who will be in attendance.
It doesn't matter, It you want to talk about peoples hurt feelings then you should start a thread about how peoples feelings get hurt because of prayer.
Otherwise we need to be discussing free speech.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by falcon


Well if this doesnt get your attention to how bad things have gotten I dont know what will. At the UCLA today and in the New America you can no longer say the name Jesus at this university at your graduation. Everything else is permitted but this women is prohibited from saying thank you to jesus in the america.

Falcon

www.earnedmedia.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


so UCLA is ani-chirsitian or catholic ?????????

They are in Cali which is the testing grounds of the Czars....haha



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





That is subjective.

It is your perspective - - and you have just made a declaration - it is so!

Sorry - - but your declaration has no validity in my world.



Lewd-
1 obsolete : evil, wicked
2 a: sexually unchaste or licentious b: obscene, vulgar

Vulgar- offensive in language : earthy b: lewdly or profanely indecent

There you have it, it's not a declaration on my part it's a fact. As per the English language.

My "declaration" has all the validity it needs.

I have seen you go from fallacy to fallacy in order to prove your point. Yet you never make a logical debate. Thus far they have all seemed to be based upon an emotional viewpoint onthe issue. You have gone fro propaganda, to red herring, to straw man. At some point you must make a logical debate rather than grasping at straws.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I choose to focus on Separation of Church and State - - because that is how I see it.

If you choose to focus on Freedom of Speech - - that is your prerogative.

Do Not dictate to me.




[edit on 10-6-2009 by Annee]


The key point is that you choose to focus on "separation of church and state."

The operative words being CHOOSE and FOCUS. In this board we don't really CHOOSE what we are debating or sharing ideas about. We are supposed to stay on topic. You have made this about religion in order to circle the wagons around the schools anti-Christian standpoint.

But the fact remains that this thread is about freedom of speech being that the student was being denied her's. If you have substandard reading comprehension or you just have no respect for the rules then come out and say it.

From, most of the posts that I have read you are the ANTAGONIST and TROLL that is BAITING others into an argument that is centered around religion. I don't know if you have an axe to grind (actually I do know) but you need to address the thread topic and not what you CHOOSE to FOCUS on as per the T&C.

I have no desire to dictate to you, please stick to the topic. It is very plain to see. You just have an agenda to argue.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Here is the title of the thread: UCLA Prohibits Student from Saying 'Jesus' in Graduation Speech


NO where - does it say she can't give her speech.

Obviously it is related to Religion. Therefore it is about Religion. The problem is Religion.

UCLA is not the first school to take a stance against Religion in a public address.

Again - - - I see it as Separation of Church and State - - above all else.

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

Here is the first paragraph - Notice - GOVERNMENT FUNDED: A professor at the government-funded University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) has prohibited a graduating student from saying "I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," in her own graduation speech.



[edit on 10-6-2009 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




Again - - - I see it as Separation of Church and State - - above all else.


UCLA is not a public school. Just because it receives some govt. money doesn't make it govt run. A public school is something like most of us went to for high school, or grade school. It's FREE because it's PAID FOR by taxes.

As you can see HERE there are tuition fee's involved.

So your charades to try and incite a holy war against Christianity rests on falsehoods.

Separation of Church and State exists only in government controlled domains. Court Houses, DMV's, etc.

UCLA doesn't count. Therefore your entire argument is moot.
So why continue to dig the hole?



Originally posted by Annee
I believe you are also supposed to address the subject - - not the poster in a personal manner.

I - Not You - will determine what and how I choose to perceive this subject.

Having been Christian is pertinent to the discussion - as I see it.

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

It is my choice on this specific subject - - to focus on Separation of Church and State - - because that is how I see it.

If you choose to see it in another way - - that is your prerogative.

I will not be dictated to by other posters.



Who cares? It's a debate forum. meaning we discuss ideas. Your "debating" has gone like this:

"here's my opinion"
"SCREW YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"CHRISTIANITY SUCKS"


Seriously. Chill out. Your arguments are 100% false. They are based on lies, and i'm beginning to think it's on purpose, not out of ignorance.

Are you really going to keep dragging this out?


Nobody is "dictating" to you. Everyone is, however, pointing out that you're wrong about your argument. UCLA is not a public school. You're wrong. 100%. If that pisses you off, then perhaps you should realize that you're wrong and just move on?

Sometimes, discussing the topic involves proving those who are wrong that they, indeed, are incorrect.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
UCLA is a Public School - because it states it is a public school.

UCLA - the University of California, Los Angeles - is a public research university

It receives Government Funding. As it states in the first sentence of article paragraph.

You can "moot" me all you want. In no way am I required to agree with you - - or give up/deny my position on this subject.

The first paragraph makes it clear what the basis of the UCLA decision is based on.

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

Show me where I said "Christianity sucks" or for that matter any religion or non-belief.

That expression is from your own mind - and belongs to you.

Supporting a 100% religious free government is about a secular government - - and really has nothing to do with religion itself.

Now I'm bored - - moving on.





[edit on 10-6-2009 by Annee]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So by your logic, all families who receive welfare are owned by uncle sam?

Any individual who receives a government grant to go to school owes their life to the US government?

and they ALL have to forfeit their "freedom of speech" right?

Where you are purposefully spinning your argument in a false direction is that a public school is free to the public. Meaning everything is paid for by the government.

A private school is one where people have to pay to attend.
There is not a school (public or private) in this country that does not receive funds from the government in some fashion or another.

you need a new pedestal for your argument to stand on. This one defeated its self.


[edit on 10-6-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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.



The ACLU picks and chooses which parts of the Constitution it will defend. It is a HIGHLY partisan group with no real commitment to the Constitution for all Americans - just the ones whose rights it chooses to defend for political reasons of its own.

So, to answer your question, no, I don't support the ACLU, because it has done an outstanding job of ignoring MY constitutional rights. I speak as a pissed-off consumer.

I sympathize with you on the point of right-wing Christians hijacking the United States Government. I don't like it either. But extremism on either side of the political spectrum will lead to no good.

I don't like what is happening now, with Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano and Obama's new Attorney General directing the government's "Fusion Centers" to begin actively investigating and prosecuting opponents of the Obama administration. This is much worse than ANYTHING George W. Bush ever did, and it's happening before Obama's administration is six months old.

Obama has directed his talking seals to begin a campaign of active domestic political repression. Obama is celebrating the "honeymoon" of his administration by raping the American people.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




I believe you are also supposed to address the subject - - not the poster in a personal manner.


Oh do you mean like you did here ?....



You are obviously Christian.


You will have to point out where i addressed you in a personal manner, other than when i was answering something that you yourself posted in regards to a personal manner, leaving it open to be addressed.



I - Not You - will determine what and how I choose to perceive this subject.


No actually the title of the thread will determine what the thread is about, not what one perceives, but what it is actually about......

UCLA Prohibits Student from Saying 'Jesus' in Graduation Speech

They attempted to prohibit her speech, that has nothing at all to do with religion.



Having been Christian is pertinent to the discussion - as I see it.


Oh please do enlighten me as to how the fact that you were once "Christian" is pertinent to freedom of speech




It is my choice on this specific subject - - to focus on Separation of Church and State - - because that is how I see it.

If you choose to see it in another way - - that is your prerogative.

I will not be dictated to by other posters.


I do not choose to see it any way at all, it is what it is, freedom of speech. There is no seperation of church and state issue here at all, as many posters have already pointed out to you on a number of occassions. UCLA is Not a public school, UCLA is Not advocating any religion, Christinia Popa is Not giving her speech as a government, but as a student therefore there is no seperation of church and state here.

I am not dictating to you, merely requesting that you stay on topic. However i see that i was mistaken, you are not misunderstanding the topic, but rather simply trolling in order that you may spew forth your antagonism towards Christians, this is the wrong thread for such an agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join