DISQUS

bmenezes · 2 years ago

WWJD? Hmmm, not what you'd call "turning the other cheek." I guess giving your life to Christ can be done in a selective fashion.

Socrates · 2 years ago

So, Christians don't have.... ....First Amendment rights, eh?  Interesting position to take.

Ed · 2 years ago

Speaking of non sequiturs ... ... have you modified your "stance" recently?

Socrates · 2 years ago

Ah, yes, the supposedly subtle attempt.... ....at yet another baseless personal attack.  Not a very successful technique - want to try another?

davebarnes · 2 years ago

As an atheist I totally support her right to say "anything she goddamn wants to" in her speech.

bmenezes · 2 years ago

Yeah, she does But if she's going to use them to proselytize, she should practice what her savior preached.

Cara DeGette · 2 years ago

Free speech is a wonderful thing No argument from me there. But a lawsuit? For an apology? More than a year later?

Anything to keep the lawyers busy...

Athiests are EVERYWHERE · 2 years ago

LOL DAVE Great f@$%king  comment dave....... LOL.

Socrates · 2 years ago

Ah, so she.... ....has First Amendment rights, just so long as she doesn't say anything religious.  I see.

Socrates · 2 years ago

So there's..... ....a time limit on the exercise and defense of your First Amendment rights.  Interesting.

Ed · 2 years ago

Two non sequiters do not a point make OK, maybe I need an analogy for you to see my point.

Essentially, the first poster said "That box is not brown."

You replied with "Why are you saying that box is red?"

Do you now see why your comment did not follow logically from the first?

Success?

Ed · 2 years ago

Wow, someone is desparate to be a victim!

Socrates · 2 years ago

Sorry, nice... ...try, but like most analogies, that is inaccurate.  Which seems, I must observe, to be typical of most of your postings.  You seem so determined to come up with the clever personal slam that it very much gets in the way of any reasoned discussion on your part.  Too bad.

Socrates · 2 years ago

Yet another.... ....attempt at the personal attack.  Just curious - is that the only way you know how to "discuss" important issues?

stealthisbook · 2 years ago

first amendment the first amendment effectively bans proselytizing on the public dime.  This clearly violated that precept since it was a function at a public school.

To step back from the question of religion for a moment-- what if she had stood up and with apparent approval from the school (ie state sponsorship) wished to thank Coca Cola, its wonderful educational benefits, and admonished everyone in a crowd of Pepsi, Dr Pepper and even a significant minority of Budweiser drinkers that they should switch?  What if the reason she did this was because she not only received a sponsorship from Coke, but was promised an immediate pass to the executive board room with a seat at the right hand of the CEO for adding to the company's market share in this way? 


Would it be appropriate at a tax funded function?

Socrates · 2 years ago

How is an.... ...unpaid voluntary speaker somehow violating the First Amendment simply because she says something about her faith and religion at a public school function?  And what court case declares that a person may not, per the First Amendment, speak about religion merely because they happen to be at public functions?

Paul · 2 years ago

Where's her case? Nearly a year ago, my son Matthew LaClair (Google name for his story) became involved in a widely reported case involving religious freedom in public school. Because of my deep commitment to religious freedom under the First Amendment, I have steadfastly supported my son in seeking and finally obtaining a remedy from our local Board of Education. Although Matthew suffered compensable damages, apparently unlike Ms. Corder, our settlement is non-monetary.

I have been practicing law for thirty years, and have a deep commitment to students' religious freedom. In fact, when I first read about this case I was outraged that the school district had shut down the students' expression. Reading further, however, I saw that was not the case. It might have been under other circumstances, but in fact it was not.

Both the student and the school district can be faulted to a point: the student for lying about her intentions and delivering her remarks by stealth and dishonesty, and the school district for withholding her diploma. However, the school's principal was correct in observing that Ms. Corder's remarks were immature. They were also arrogant and presumptuous.

Under the law, what might have happened had Ms. Corder approached the situation honestly no longer matters. She delivered her remarks, and therefore has no ground to complain that her right to speak was squelched. It was not.

The only "damage" done to her has been fully remedied by all accounts. She has her diploma and is apparently attending the college of her choice. The so-called Liberty Counsel's news release makes it quite clear that the only remedy she is seeking is prospective and does not pertain to any rights she presently holds. I predict that her case will quickly be dismissed because she lacks standing; the same reason that Michael Newdow's action was dismissed, only Ms. Corder's case is far clearer because she no longer attends that school. (Mr. Newdow's son did, but because he was not the custodial parent he was denied standing.) It will also be dismissed because it requests a prospective remedy without a present plaintiff who has standing.

There is no case without a legally cognizable remedy. Where is Ms. Corder's case?

My son opened a topic on our local web site to discuss this case. Feel free to visit us at http://forums.kearny.... I post as Paul, which is my first name. He posts under his full name, which is Matthew LaClair.

Rocky · 2 years ago

As an Atheist OR a Believer You are absolutely right Dave. In fact if she had used the name "Jesus Christ" in the context of swearing, the school, I suspect, would have had no problem.

I am in 100% support of her lawsuit and I hope it makes an example out of this school.

The school violated her 1st ammendment rights plain and simple. Any one who states a personal belief in God -- or a personal disbelief in God, is well within their rights as a US citizen. And yes, they can constitutionally make this statement on school property. 

Regarding church and state, we are bound by the words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That did not happen in this case.

Further more it goes on to say...

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

For the school to dictate whether a student can express her faith or lack thereof, is tyranny. Her lawsuit is important.

Rocky · 2 years ago

First Amendment First of all I do not see any proselytizing in her speech.

Secondly the 1st amendment does NOT put a ban on religous speech by private citizens in public places. It does however ban government from forcing a religion upon the people.