Read if you Like

[Jwife22]

This is a story about a high school valedictorian whose speech mentioned God. She was censored by her school and by the ACLU

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...tanymccomb.htm

[angelgirl]

Thanks L for the post..

It's so, so sad isn't it, what this world has come to? When our children can no longer talk about God in school.. I know I have many, many examples of this type of censorship going on in the school system in the little tiny district my children attend. It's all about the FEAR of upsetting someone, and getting then the school district getting sued. That is crazy!!

I know this is a bit different than that, but yet the same. My children have this History teacher, and this teacher has been experimenting with different religions. Well last year he was following a different religion, and had a statue on his desk, and he spent his free time in his class room, with the door closed, meditating. He also mentioned little bits of info. here and there about this religion, to the kids during classes.

This man got away with it, at least so far. I don't know how long he will get away with it though because my sons girlfriend's spent alot of time debating religion with him, in the class, and from what my kids told me, ( I have twins that are in that class) a bunch of the kids would actually stick up for the teacher!!! But, my son's girlfriends dad is a lawyer, and I don't know if this is legal, for teachers to be talking religions in class.? So far he has gotten away with it, but it really upsets me, because these kids are 13 years old, and that is a very vulnerable age.. I fear that he could influence some of these kids.

This teacher was a different religion one of the other years, and I am hoping that the kids will see that he is not stable.
But kids can be easily influenced, especially while in school..

This article made me think of this teacher, especially with school starting again soon here. I pray that this teacher will find his way to the Lord.. That would be a real blessing. Imagine, since he has gotten away with talking about that religion, and what ever other religion he was, if he found the Lord, just think of what type of influence he could possibly have on these kids??

Thanks L, for sharing.. It's an important subject. Our founding fathers wrote the constitution, and based things on the bible, but our children aren't allowed to talk about God in school? Doesn't make sense!!

I bought my daughter a shirt recently, and it is deep red, and it talks about Jesus, and how he died on the cross to save us from our sins. My daughter WILL wear this to school, but I am pretty sure, that within the first few hours, if not the first hour, some teacher will have "caught' her for wearing this shirt, and will make her turn it inside out, and wear it inside out, as to not "offend" anyone.... We'll see. I do believe she should be allowed to wear this in school.. I will let you all know. She is in 8th grade..

Prayers friends..
Becky

[Don S]

Graduations are school-sponsored events. So this case raises interesting constitutional issues. But more to the point, how do you think non-Christian graduates would feel listening to a sermon at this important time of their lives? There's a time and place for sharing your religious views. An event you share with peers and their families from other religious or non-religious viewpoints is NOT the time or place.
This wasn't just a passing reference to her faith.
"Her speech included scripture references, nine mentions of God, two mentions of the Lord, one mention of Christ, and a phrase, according to the article, that talked about 'God's love being so great that he gave his only son to suffer an excruciated death in order to cover everyone's shortcomings and forge a path to heaven.'"
What she did was rude.

[best]

What she "tried" to do was share what she believes had gotten her to the place of honor that the school bestowed upon her.
I see nothing rude about that.
The school bowing down to the ACLU to interprete the laws of this land is an issue we all should be concerned with.
This is the Untied States of America. It is not the United States of the ACLU.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by best

...
This is the Untied States of America....

There's a lot of people that would agree with your typo!
lol

[best]

*LOL*That was funny.

Who said it was a typo.

[Don S]

My grandmother, who was very religious, taught me that it was rude to talk about religion or politics with people who you didn't know well, because you might inadvertantly offend them.
Some people don't believe the name of god should be uttered in public. Some people of minority religions feel uncomfortable in such situations. Some people in the present environment feel that they need to play down or hide the fact that they are Muslim.
I actually think a lot of the squabbles about the right to express religious beliefs in public would be reduced if people didn't try so hard to 'take a stand' about it. Thank the God of your faith discreetly. 13 references and a description of crucifixion? That seems like a sermon.

I was once asked by the school administration to give a speech at commencement on the topic of 'my future'. The US had just invaded Cambodia. My brother and cousin had faced the draft. I fully expected to be facing it 3 years hence. There had been riots, assassinations. They were turbulent times. So my speech made reference to my opposition to the war and my pessimistic view of my future. The administration told me to modify it. I tempered it somewhat, but didn't change the basic gist of it. They rejected it as being 'too negative' and I wasn't allowed to speak.
Were my rights violated? Maybe my parents should have sued. I'll bet the ACLU would have taken that case. But back then (the dark ages) we tended to accept that the school administration had the right to determine the format and content of graduation ceremonies.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by best

...
The school bowing down to the ACLU to interprete the laws of this land is an issue we all should be concerned with.
...

I agree that taking it to the ACLU for prior approval is just plain weird. School districts have their own attorneys for things like that, and there's plenty of case law on this subject.

[BigSis]

Thank you.

You guys just demonstrated what I think we often miss... a discussion about a possible volitile subject in an adult manner.

Thank you.

[Jwife22]

My issue was with the ACLU. I do believe that she should have been allowed to thank God because that is what she believes got her to where she was and who is her inspiration in life.

The ACLU has just gone to far. Currently in our area, you aren't allowed to pray at a football game, they are trying to have the Pledge of Allegiance taken out of schools because it says One Nation, Under God among other things.

I am just tired of this stuff. I am tired of the ACLU trying to change the way things have been for decades upon decades.

[best]

Originally Posted by Jwife22

The ACLU has just gone to far. ....

I am just tired of this stuff. I am tired of the ACLU trying to change the way things have been for decades upon decades.

Many people are starting to see the same and not just Christians either.

[cmc]

When we begin to lose our hard won freedoms it is frightening.
I see these graduation speech situations as a means for people to stand up for what they believe in. I for one would never desire to offend- but need I censor my own thoughts down to every word in order to make someone else more comfortable?
Giving a speech is not harassment, it is a speech.
Whenever social changes are desired there will be those who have to ''press'' in order to bring attention to it. This is what happened in the early years of our nation... it happened in the 60's for various causes and even on personal levels.
Hopefully it will continue unless our freedom to object is taken away!!!
This may be a bit of a stretch to share as an example, but I am reminded of when fathers were not allowed to be in labor rooms- many fought for change in that area. There were men who had handcuffed themselves to their wives during the late stages of labor- when it was too late to call a locksmith!
Extreme measures have been used in regarding so many things- ie peaceful protests. Sit ins and tree huggers come to mind here. Many great leader spoke out for social change when it was not popular to do so, and died for their causes.
On a much smaller scale when I was 16
I was ridiculed by a teacher in the public school! I was not preaching my faith, forcing others to listen. They asked me and I shared what I thought and believed- in fact I had best friends of other faiths and non-faith. This was in the '70's and the teacher did it because he wanted 'change' - he did not like the cross I wore on my hippie beads! He did like my legs though. (what a jerk)
In recent classes in my university I have been told by more than one prof that certain views related to class subject/discussions could NOT be expressed in class!!! These were not religious but more political-partisan.
Talking about Jesus in a speech, on the playground or at naptime as my son used to do.....is not screaming FIRE in a crowded room. Well, it is screaming fire in a way... lol... how to avoid fire that is. The problem people have with these grad speeches is that they are captive audience to it... IMO.
If a person of another faith were to credit his belief system... that is fine by me.
In public school a teacher may not share their faith on school time....outside of class they should be and legally are allowed. A student who wants to share should be allowed, as they face their peers, but should also be respectful of who their audience is.
As I ramble on here I just want to add that judges are to interpret law not create or alter it. The ACLU is a good idea, it is not implemented in a fair manner- and has an partisan agenda.

[Don S]

Originally Posted by best

Many people are starting to see the same and not just Christians either.

ACLU and Orange County Buddhists Challenge Discriminatory City Ordinance (08/09/2006)
ORANGE, CA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today sued the city of Garden Grove for using an unconstitutional city code to prevent local Buddhists from expanding their congregation.

ACLU of Virginia Defends Federal Law Guaranteeing Religious Rights of Prisoners (06/12/2006)
RICHMOND, VA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals defending the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

ACLU Wins Open Access for All Visitors to Martin’s Cove National Historic Site in Wyoming (06/07/2006)
CHEYENNE, WY – The American Civil Liberties Union today announced a settlement granting unfettered access to the Martin’s Cove National Historic Site, which had been leased to the Church of Latter-day Saints by the federal government. Prior to the settlement the only way to reach the area was through the church’s privately owned and operated Visitor’s Center.

ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (06/05/2006)
NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

Federal Judge Rules Against School-Mandated Prayer at Kentucky High School Graduation Ceremony (05/19/2006)
LOUISVILLE, KY – The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky announced today that U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. has issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Russell County High School from including prayer during its graduation ceremony tonight.

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit (04/19/2006)
ATLANTA -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church, charging that the city of East Point, Georgia violated a federal religious discrimination law when it denied the church a zoning permit needed to establish its house of worship.

NYCLU Challenges Coast Guard Ban on Religious Head Coverings in License Photographs (03/28/2006)
NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union, working with the New York University Law School Civil Rights Clinic, filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan today challenging a Coast Guard regulation that withholds merchant marine licenses from people who do not remove their religious head coverings.

ACLU of Virginia Defends Fredericksburg’s Decision to Ban Sectarian Prayers at Open City Council Meetings (02/16/2006)

[Don S]

Religion In The Public Schools:
A Joint Statement Of Current Law

The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools "religion-free zones" or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter, while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. It is also unfortunately true that public school officials, due to their busy schedules, may not be as fully aware of this body of law as they could be. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not being observed.

The organizations whose names appear below span the ideological, religious and political spectrum. They nevertheless share a commitment both to the freedom of religious practice and to the separation of church and state such freedom requires. In that spirit, we offer this statement of consensus on current law as an aid to parents, educators and students.

Many of the organizations listed below are actively involved in litigation about religion in the schools. On some of the issues discussed in this summary, some of the organizations have urged the courts to reach positions different than they did. Though there are signatories on both sides which have and will press for different constitutional treatments of some of the topics discussed below, they all agree that the following is an accurate statement of what the law currently is.
Student Prayers

1. Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive. Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other willing student listeners. In the classroom students have the right to pray quietly except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g., students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them). In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations. However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate.
Graduation Prayer and Baccalaureates

2. School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation, nor may they organize a religious baccalaureate ceremony. If the school generally rents out its facilities to private groups, it must rent them out on the same terms, and on a first- come first-served basis, to organizers of privately sponsored religious baccalaureate services, provided that the school does not extend preferential treatment to the baccalaureate ceremony and the school disclaims official endorsement of the program.

3. The courts have reached conflicting conclusions under the federal Constitution on student-initiated prayer at graduation. Until the issue is authoritatively resolved, schools should ask their lawyers what rules apply in their area.
Official Participation or Encouragement
of Religious Activity

4. Teachers and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, are representatives of the state, and, in those capacities, are themselves prohibited from encouraging or soliciting student religious or anti-religious activity. Similarly, when acting in their official capacities, teachers may not engage in religious activities with their students. However, teachers may engage in private religious activity in faculty lounges.
Teaching About Religion

5. Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said, "[i]t might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion, or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization." It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.

The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects. It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries. One can teach that the Pilgrims came to this country with a particular religious vision, that Catholics and others have been subject to persecution or that many of those participating in the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements had religious motivations.

6. These same rules apply to the recurring controversy surrounding theories of evolution. Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including "creationism," although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student's religious explanation for life on earth.
Student Assignments and Religion

7. Students may express their religious beliefs in the form of reports, homework and artwork, and such expressions are constitutionally protected. Teachers may not reject or correct such submissions simply because they include a religious symbol or address religious themes. Likewise, teachers may not require students to modify, include or excise religious views in their assignments, if germane. These assignments should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance, relevance, appearance and grammar.

8. Somewhat more problematic from a legal point of view are other public expressions of religious views in the classroom. Unfortunately for school officials, there are traps on either side of this issue, and it is possible that litigation will result no matter what course is taken. It is easier to describe the settled cases than to state clear rules of law. Schools must carefully steer between the claims of student speakers who assert a right to express themselves on religious subjects and the asserted rights of student listeners to be free of unwelcome religious persuasion in a public school classroom.

a. Religious or anti-religious remarks made in the ordinary course of classroom discussion or student presentations are permissible and constitute a protected right. If in a sex education class a student remarks that abortion should be illegal because God has prohibited it, a teacher should not silence the remark, ridicule it, rule it out of bounds or endorse it, any more than a teacher may silence a student's religiously-based comment in favor of choice.

b. If a class assignment calls for an oral presentation on a subject of the student's choosing, and, for example, the student responds by conducting a religious service, the school has the right -- as well as the duty -- to prevent itself from being used as a church. Other students are not voluntarily in attendance and cannot be forced to become an unwilling congregation.

c. Teachers may rule out-of-order religious remarks that are irrelevant to the subject at hand. In a discussion of Hamlet's sanity, for example, a student may not interject views on creationism.

Distribution of Religious Literature

9. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates, subject to those reasonable time, place, and manner or other constitutionally- acceptable restrictions imposed on the distribution of all non-school literature. Thus, a school may confine distribution of all literature to a particular table at particular times. It may not single out religious literature for burdensome regulation.

10. Outsiders may not be given access to the classroom to distribute religious or anti-religious literature. No court has yet considered whether, if all other community groups are permitted to distribute literature in common areas of public schools, religious groups must be allowed to do so on equal terms subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
"See You at the Pole"

11. Student participation in before- or after-school events, such as "see you at the pole," is permissible. School officials, acting in an official capacity, may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event.
Religious Persuasion Versus Religious Harassment

12. Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics. But school officials should intercede to stop student religious speech if it turns into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. While it is constitutionally permissible for a student to approach another and issue an invitation to attend church, repeated invitations in the face of a request to stop constitute harassment. Where this line is to be drawn in particular cases will depend on the age of the students and other circumstances.
Equal Access Act

13. Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce their meetings, if a school receives federal funds and permits any student non-curricular club to meet during non-instructional time. This is the command of the Equal Access Act. A non-curricular club is any club not related directly to a subject taught or soon-to-be taught in the school. Although schools have the right to ban all non-curriculum clubs, they may not dodge the law's requirement by the expedient of declaring all clubs curriculum-related. On the other hand, teachers may not actively participate in club activities and "non-school persons" may not control or regularly attend club meeting.

The Act's constitutionality has been upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting claims that the Act violates the Establishment Clause. The Act's requirements are described in more detail in The Equal Access Act and the Public Schools: Questions and Answers on the Equal Access Act*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.
Religious Holidays

14. Generally, public schools may teach about religious holidays, and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holiday and objectively teach about their religious aspects. They may not observe the holidays as religious events. Schools should generally excuse students who do not wish to participate in holiday events. Those interested in further details should see Religious Holidays in the Public Schools: Questions and Answers*, a pamphlet published by a broad spectrum of religious and civil liberties groups.
Excusal From Religiously-Objectionable Lessons

15. Schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual students from lessons which are objectionable to that student or to his or her parent on the basis of religion. Schools can exercise that authority in ways which would defuse many conflicts over curriculum content. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student's free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance the school would be legally required to excuse the student.
Teaching Values

16. Schools may teach civic virtues, including honesty, good citizenship, sportsmanship, courage, respect for the rights and freedoms of others, respect for persons and their property, civility, the dual virtues of moral conviction and tolerance and hard work. Subject to whatever rights of excusal exist (see #15 above) under the federal Constitution and state law, schools may teach sexual abstinence and contraception; whether and how schools teach these sensitive subjects is a matter of educational policy. However, these may not be taught as religious tenets. The mere fact that most, if not all, religions also teach these values does not make it unlawful to teach them.
Student Garb

17. Religious messages on T-shirts and the like may not be singled out for suppression. Students may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, and they may not be forced to wear gym clothes that they regard, on religious grounds, as immodest.
Released Time

18. Schools have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage or discourage participation or penalize those who do not attend. 20. Schools may not allow religious instruction by outsiders on premises during the school day.
Appendix

Organizational Signers of "Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law"

American Civil Liberties Union
American Ethical Union
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
American Muslim Council
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Seperation of Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
Baptist Joint Committee
B'nai B'rith
Christian Legal Society
Christian Science Church
Church of Scientology International
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs
Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
Guru Gobind Singh Foundation
Interfaith Alliance
Interfaith Impact for Justice and Peace
National Association of Evangelicals
National Council of Churches
National Council of Jewish Women
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC)
National Ministries, American Baptist Churches, USA
National Sikh Center
North American Council for Muslim Women
People for the American Way
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society

[upanddownjj]

I don't Consider myself a Christian although I grew up in a Christian Church..I believe in a God of my understanding and am open minded that all persons have the liberty to persue their own faith.

Things have changed so much in Canada now tho - that Shopping Malls, Department Stores and all Advertising does not even mention Christmas anymore....(It is now "Happy Holidays)

We have a Department Store in our city that has been famous for it's Marvelous Mulit-Window Christmas displays that have been part of most children's childhood....

I guess what bothers me is that we have had a lot of immigration in my area that have been welcomed with open arms..Encouraged to celebrate their religious ceremonies completely supported by our community.....
I have attended quite regularly.

Why do people think that we need to "Hide" Christmas...Why can't we all just co-exist and appreciate our different views and celebrations...

[Autumn]

I'm all for backing the 1st amendment (as if it weren't obvious!).

Certainly this girl and others should be permitted to speak of a god as pertains to having achieved one's goals. If she achieved her goals by way of not having practiced religion - say reading encyclopedias on Sundays - then that seems justifiable for suitable speech content as well! And yes Don, you should have been permitted to read your speech also.

Our freedoms of speech and press should be defended at all costs. It's the principle of defending a crucial mechanism of the foundation our country is built upon.

Who would want to someday end up being shot on sight for having publicly issued some kind of anti-governmental sentiment, as in communist countries?

Sometimes these discussions go above my head, so I apologize if I'm off
track or otherwise out of line. Just my .02, fwiw.

[cmc]

Checking the facts- here is 'the story' from the perspective of the student:
It also proves that there are many versions to a story.

Rutherford Institute Press Release
Rutherford Institute to Defend Brittany McComb, Sue Nevada High School for Pulling the Plug on Christian References in Valedictorian's Speech
HENDERSON, Nev. - Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany's constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

"This is yet another example of a politically correct culture silencing Christians in order to not offend those of other beliefs," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Brittany McComb worked hard to earn the right to address her classmates as valedictorian and she has a constitutional right-like any other student-to freely speak about the factors that contributed to her success, whether they be a supportive family, friends or her faith in Jesus Christ."

This past spring, graduating senior Brittany McComb was chosen to give the valedictory speech at Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada. After composing her remarks, she submitted them to school administrators according to standard district policy. School administrators, upon the advice of their district legal counsel, proceeded to censor her speech, deleting all three Bible references, several references to "the Lord" and the only mention of the word "Christ."


However, according to the official religious free speech policy of the Clark County School Board, "Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression...that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content."

On Thursday, June 15, 2006, Brittany, who graduated with a 4.7 GPA, prepared to deliver her commencement address to her fellow students, families and staff. Believing that the district's censorship of her speech amounted to a violation of her right to free speech, she proceeded to share her personal beliefs about the role that her Christian beliefs played in her success. When school officials found her to be straying from the approved text, they unplugged her microphone, fearing that her remarks could be construed as a school endorsement of her Christian views, despite the "appropriate, neutral disclaimers" provision of the religious speech policy. Brittany claims that she was not preaching or proselytizing but merely stating her thoughts and beliefs upon graduation, as she was invited to do.

Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to file suit in federal district court in defense of Brittany's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Both articles on the link are incorrect is appears according to this press release. Using one false statement of an event does not logically prove the other one in the link to be fact either. That job is for the courts to prove.
Note; there is no mention of 13 references and a description of crucifixion in this press release.
to put this in perspective- the original thread is:

This is a story about a high school valedictorian whose speech mentioned God. She was censored by her school and by the ACLU

[Don S]

Based on that version her lawsuit would likely prevail. They violated their own policy! I also note that the ACLU isn't mentioned in this account.

[equus]

Growing up with religious parents one thing I found regretful, one thing that urged me to look outside, was their sense of censorship. They were always writing or complaining about someone else's view being shared, it made me very curious and a curious teenager will find a way!

Whatever usual boundaries for this speech are they should be adhered to - if the rule is no religion then it should be adhered to, if the rule is for the writer to speak freely it should be adhered to.

I have no plans to have children, but I'm involved in many lives of teenagers adn children. I wish for them what I would wish for my own and strongly encourage them to listen and think well. My catchphrases are 'try to see their perspective so that at least you can understand it better' 'adults are often wrong if something doesn't seem to make sense think about why it doesn't' 'if you think carefully then argue your case, you'e often right, if you haven't thought carefully be quiet'. I would like the children I've worked with to be able to hear a similar speech, to weigh up whether they felt it was appropriate, to be curious of someone else's standpoint, to ask whether they think it makes sense.

I find that teenagers are very sharp and good at grasping reasoning, I also find them adventerous to try out new philosophies, vegetarianism to an idea picked up off the Big Brother TV show. While they have some distance to go in learning where to inhibit behaviour (perhaps should be taken into account for the speech giver here), while their risk taking behaviour can be erratic, while they may believe things too passionately too quickly, overall I think teenage logic for reasoning is sharper than it looks. It's fun to nurture it and enjoy their travels.

My last comment would be an observation, the above is I believe just as teenagers should be but I observe adults usually enjoy it while it follows their own beliefs and then dislike the exact same quality of passion for ideas when it conflicts with their view. It's a time of abdventure and most importantly I believe is to encourage young people to think well - they will get through it and turn into stuffy awd boggers like us soon enough!