Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the offset, I *do* believe the school overstepped a bit on this regard, but here's the original article told from the local news source that everyone else has grabbed onto and bent to suit the "persecution complex" agenda I seem to be seeing from a lot of people. I tend to trust articles that are written to inform rather than inflame a bit more than the OP's (which frankly, make's it sound like there was a gun to the girls head or something). Most of the time, there are some crucial details left out of articles like OP's.
First of all, nobody "forced" the girl to do anything ...they asked her not to recite the particular line and she didn't; the way they asked is the problem according to the dissenting school board member:
Quote:
“She was told that she was not allowed to say the word God during this program” stated Greene. “Being a six year old, and not knowing her rights, she did what she was told.”
I hear a lot of people saying that the poor girl was "forced" and "denied her rights" and to a certain extent I can agree that her reciting the prayer as she wrote it shouldn't have been an issue. One of the big issues that seems to be overlooked here is that the girl and her parents are not the ones making a fuss about it ...in fact, they refuse to even comment about it at all. The ones with the complaint are a school board member (Greene), his/her father and apparently one other person (Dollarhyde) ...NOT the little girl or her family.
Quote:
“Courts have consistently held up the rights for students to express themselves unless their speech is disruptive to the school,” stated Paulson. “When the little girl wrote the poem and included a reference to God she had every right to do that. The First Amendment protects all Americans. She had every right to mention God, (but) that dynamic changed when they asked her to read it at an assembly.”
Given that the article states she was specifically asked to read it at the assembly rather than blatantly censored when she attempted to read it, and since the parents and little girl aren't the ones bringing forth the complaint to begin with; it kind of begs the question of who exactly is the one being offended here? (I can find NO sources of the many articles on this referencing the girl or her family at all) A clue might be here in this quote from Greene:
Quote:
"... I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.”
Merely conjecture on my part, but I wonder if it might be the person who asked her to read the poem in the first place ...which, as per the above snippet, is tantamount to being "school-led" if she was being told by the faculty to do so. Slight more admitted conjecture on my part, but I suspect from the conspicuous lack of testimony from the girl or her parents, that they probably don't appreciate being turned into a political football ...and probably by somebody with an agenda.
Point is, I hear a lot of hand-wringing about the girl and HER rights, yet she or her family aren't the ones with a problem.
I also find this part of the original article to be somewhat relevant:
Quote:
When asked why the decision was made to remove the word God, Superintendent Gerri Martin said it came about after a serious discussion with West Marion’s Principal Desarae Kirkpatrick and Vice Principal Nakia Carson.
“The discussion (about the poem) occurred between myself, the principal and the assistant principal at West Marion,” stated Martin. “We wanted to make sure we were upholding the school district’s responsibility of separation of church and state from the Establishment Clause.”
When asked why other schools were allowed to hold programs containing poems and student writings with the word God in them, Martin said that was because West Marion was the only one who had asked for consultation about their program.
Once again ...no ultimatums were issued here, the school was concerned enough to ask and they simply followed the advice they were given.
For what it's worth, it's my belief that she should have been allowed to read it as she wrote it; I see no violations. I also see that nobody was forced to do anything, they were asked and they complied. I think a lot of us have been in situations where we've been asked to do something, and we did it only to start thinking about it after the fact and get madder about it as time goes on. I suspect that most of the time if we voiced our concerns up front rather than afterward, it may not have been an issue at all.
I think the whole thing is "much ado about nothing" in any case since it obviously isn't the little girl who has a problem ...if it were, her parents could sue and probably win.
Let me see if I can explain this in terms that a "collectivist" might understand ... employing the concept of "the greater good"
The common sense crowd believes it to make good sense to promote what is beneficial for the greater good, and to discourage what is not. That's why we frown upon teaching safe cracking in shop class ... or how to operate two sets of books in math and finance, or the glory of homosexuality in human biology, with the latter particularly important in the overall successful propagation of our species. We view any move in the direction toward the predictable extinction of our species as an overall net negative, not because we are bigoted or prejudiced, but because when we were in school, we were taught about how humans procreate, which began early on in the education process, because in those days, it was all about Jack & Jill, not Jack & Bill.
We do not consider it reasonable to celebrate genetic abnormalities and malfunctions, by attempting to convince ourselves that such things are normal and beneficial, when they are clearly not. For example, we don't immediately react to the birth of conjoined twins by choosing to create a new clothing line which incorporates two neck holes, but instead draw upon our collective medical knowledge and skill in an effort to safely separate those unfortunates, in the hope of restoring some semblance of normalcy to their individual lives. Of course, we could all agree to reject such efforts, and instead put on a big politically correct show to make them feel better about themselves and their condition, by convincing everyone, including them, to believe that there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with them, and that they are quite normal. But I gotta tell you, chances are, there will be many times in their lives where those forever bound twins will look at each other and say, "this sucks", and realize it was just a ill-conceived lie, and they will ultimately resent the lack of honesty, as well as the lack of effort to offer beneficial help in dealing with their challenges.
Get it?
*sigh* No, sadly, this is what collectivists think is reasonable ..... give them a reality show!
Bull****. I've seen plenty of liberals who defend Christians' right to speak about their God in public. You choose not to see what will not confirm your skewed beliefs.
Please provide us with any cases where the ACLU defended a student's right to Christian prayer or free speech which mentions God or Christ in our public schools.
I would have zero problem with her keeping God in her speech if the assembly where she was to read it was made voluntary. The minute you make religious comments in a public school during a mandatory gathering of the students, you have lost the separation of church and state.
How many conservative folks in NC would be howling in protest if the little girl was a Muslim and mentioned Allah in her speech at a mandatory student assembly? We'd be hearing everyone complain about Sharia Law and jihad and all that stuff. You can't have it both ways.
I would have zero problem with her keeping God in her speech if the assembly where she was to read it was made voluntary. The minute you make religious comments in a public school during a mandatory gathering of the students, you have lost the separation of church and state.
First of all, let's get one thing out in the open here. There is NO language and no use of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the United States Constitution. The premise of such separation is what exists, and it exists SOLELY in the form of a prohibition on the law making body of our country, Congress, in making a law that could be misconstrued as, or lead to, the official creation of a State Sponsored, State sanctioned, national religion. And it wasn't because the framers of our constitution were anti-religion ... it was simply a logical safeguard put in place to protect the freedom of religious expression of the people as they saw fit to practice or NOT practice religious ceremonies and traditions. They realized that should there be the creation of a national religion, that would likely lead to the infringement of that freedom of religious expression for all other forms not part of the state sanctioned version ... to include the potential to coerce participation of citizens in such religious practice against their wishes. The freedom spoke of in the 1st Amendment protects not only the right to express religious beliefs freely by the people, but also the freedom not to. But it does not guarantee or protect you from being exposed to religious terms and symbols and expressions which obviously could not be both banned and freely allowed at the same time. The real problem here is that the founders wrongfully assumed that the Constitution would be read, understood and honored by adults with IQ's larger than their shoe size, which is really all that is required for a human being to note the blatantly OBVIOUS differences between a child reciting a poem, and a damned act of Congress. They could never have anticipated that a certain element of the public would become so drooling stupid as to actually believe that the framers intended to ban religion altogether in order to promote religious freedom. Even typing this gives me a headache .... I cannot imagine how a person's mind could become so damaged as to believe this absurdly insane idea that a freedom is protected by elimination, and still maintain the wherewithal to operate a keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
How many conservative folks in NC would be howling in protest if the little girl was a Muslim and mentioned Allah in her speech at a mandatory student assembly? We'd be hearing everyone complain about Sharia Law and jihad and all that stuff. You can't have it both ways.
Your hypothetical straw man is really no argument at all. Anyone who would object to a child reciting a poem that included Allah would be every bit the equal of the idiot objecting to the use of the term God, because the truth is, the terms are synonymous.
Why is it so important to you religious fanatics to have religion present in school? Are you concerned that absent indoctrination, people will not adhere to your false religion?
No one has said that religion must be present at school. The school was not asked to make any statement about religion in general or about any particular religion. The girls poem was not an attempt by the school to indoctrinate, establish, promote, or comment in any way about any religion. So your question is nothing but an attempt to change the discussion.
Why is the removal of references to god so important to you that you are willing to allow the right to free speech be taken away from a student? Are you concerned that absent suppression, people will not behave the way you want them to behave?
I would actually tend to agree with that, but it's not important. I want to hear from religious people who desperately WANT religion to be put back into schools, and understand their reasoning. I've never, ever heard a good answer to that, but who knows, perhaps I will someday.
Please show us where anyone was trying to put religion back in a school.
I think you might be interested in HOW Islam is being taught to children in our public schools. This goes far beyond mere mentioning of Allah or God in a poem and deals directly with widely distributed textbooks:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
