<p>Durran -- separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious statements are forbidden in public fora. Only state endorsement or suppression of religion is forbidden. If allowing a religious person to state his faith in God is illegal, is it illegal for an atheist to state his opposition to God in the same public forum? Your (fourth grade) interpretation of the separation clause would have it be so.</p>
<p>The speech beginning you propose would be quite legal. While some might be offended, it would not be forbidden by law. Mentioning God in a valedictory address is not inappropriate (considering He is mentioned in each State of the Union address, as part of a personal expression by the President at the time.)</p>
<p>Go study harder in civics class.</p>
<p>P.S. I am pretty hostile to conventional religion, so you should read this with that in mind. I'm not defending lizzard's point because I celebrate every time someone mentions God in a government ceremony. It might annoy me or not -- whatever. That's my personal deal. But the issue of what religious expressions are legal and illegal in public fora is a huge area of caselaw with a rich and complex history, which I have spent a fair bit of time studying. There is broad agreement among the experts from both sides about what the law allows and doesn't allow. Someone marching in with a third grade understanding of it and calling other people ignorant makes that person look foolish at best.</p>
<p>Lol Ben to the rescue! </p>
<p>In all seriousness though Durran I don't think halfthelaw was calling separation of church and state BS... I think he was referring to people who don't understand this separation completely.</p>
<p>I am a Christian but am also a very big supporter of separation of church and state. That being said, separation of church and state involves the government and not any personal statements I have to make. I'm sorry that you don't appreciate my speech because of the word "God", but as Abraham Lincoln once said "You can't please everyone all of the time."</p>
<p>In conclusion, please remember that this forum is generally a very peaceful and cooperative place. I hope that we can keep it that way.</p>
<p>Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love my rabid political debates but I prefer to keep them in more appropriate places. I love this forum mainly for the people I've met and the caring spirit they all share... I have gotten numerous PMs from people and talked to many of them on AIM about Caltech, about me, about them, and I've forged meaningful relationships. I especially love people like Ben and others who disagree with me frequently (especially on faith) but are always willing to discuss it in a respectful and open-minded manner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Durran -- separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious statements are forbidden in public fora. Only state endorsement or suppression of religion is forbidden. If allowing a religious person to state his faith in God is illegal, is it illegal to allow an atheist to state his opposition to God in a public forum? Your (fourth grade) interpretation of the separation clause would have it be so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ben, I know that it is perfectly legal and have never believed otherwise. Believe me, growing up as the only atheist in a school where everyone is Christian (my teachers, classmates, best friends), I understand very well the legal interpretation of "seperation of church and state". That does not take away from my statement. I DO find the mention of God in this manner inappropriate and offensive (personal perspective).</p>
<p>I understand where I was a bit ambiguous in my earlier post. I meant to defend the clause "seperation of church and state" as a whole (as I misinterpreted halfthelaw was attacking it in general as I haven't been carefully following this thread), unrelated to this situation. When lizzardfire replied with the "ignorant comment", I again thought along those lines and replied.</p>
<p>Durran -- </p>
<p>Your opinion about appropriateness is, of course, not a matter of debate. You think what you think.</p>
<p>But consider this. If you think it's inappropriate to defend religion at public (school sponsored) events, would it also be inappropriate to speak against some of its manifestations? (Intelligent design nutcases, for example?)</p>
<p>Answering no would somehow be saying that you think only one point of view should be represented in the public debate. Surely you don't want to be the kind of person who argues that.</p>
<p>Saying yes would forbid us from discussing some of the most crucial issues on the table.</p>
<p>Like it or not, religion is a part of life. Muzzling everyone lilmits the debate on issues crucial to everyone and makes us look like Communist Russia, or something. Muzzling only one side is patently unfair and makes your side look dumb. Note that only one option remains.</p>
<p>To paraphrase Justice Brandeis, the answer to unwelcome free speech isn't less speech, it's more and freer speech.</p>
<p>Oh, and Durran, I forgot to address your question.</p>
<p>"What if I start a speech with, Satan eats your children? You would have a problem with that, wouldn't you?" </p>
<p>Yes, I would have a problem with that... but not because I am a Christian or because it is personally offensive to me. Most people believe that graduation speeches are a time to impart something to your peers... your statement is just an attempt to rile up people. Now, had you started your speech with "It is by the grace of Allah that I am here today" or with "It's taken 100 bajillion years for man to evolve from one celled organisms, but only 18 for this class to graduate" I would be perfectly ok with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"It's taken 100 bajillion years for man to evolve from one celled organisms, but only 18 for this class to graduate" I would be perfectly ok with it.
[/quote]
Where I am from, a statement like that in front of my (old) school (in my hometown) during graduation would get me shot. I guess Ive gotten really defensive on the issue of religion (especially in schools) due to my experiences living in rural NC. And yes, my example is a bit extreme but I meant it to get across the same point as the words quoted above. In any case, I apologize to lizzardfire. From now on I carefully read everything rather than skimming to understand the full meaning before replying. I (mistakenly) thought you were calling everyone who evokes separation of church and state ignorant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you think it's inappropriate to defend religion at public (school sponsored) events, would it also be inappropriate to speak against some of its manifestation? (Intelligent design nutcases, for example?)
[/quote]
In the case of a graduation speech, I do find mention of religion to be inappropriate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Saying yes would forbid us from discussing some of the most crucial issues on the table.
[/quote]
This isnt a debate. This is a graduation speech in which everyone must attend that does not leave room for discussion. As you pointed out earlier, presidents always mention their religious beliefs when giving the State of the union address. Of course, I also find that offensive. The president should not promote his religious views in what should be (opinion) a secular speech. He can promote his views and debate the issues all he wants at other events dedicated such a purpose.</p>
<p>Haha... the "offensive" one minute is cuz we have 22 valedictorians. Of whom I am not one. </p>
<p>On a different random note: I mailed my reply letter to Caltech. Sorry I can't attend Caltech, Ben. Nothing personal, I assure you.</p>
<p>22 valedictorians! That's probably ~1/5 of the juniors at my school.</p>
<p>I thought it was 21 but yea, there's definitely a lot of them. By the way, Hi Treekid!! we need to hang out this summer.</p>
<p>Edit: To Durran: <3</p>
<p>Just to clarify, Ben and lizzardfire have the right idea about what I was saying. I'm just frustrated of the mindlessness surrounding the ACLU-style mentality toward any religious allusion in a public forum (which is not to say that the ACLU hasn't done other worthwhile things).</p>