If you haven’t heard yet, a federal judge has ordered the Medina Valley I.S.D. to prohibit public prayer at the high school graduation ceremony for the Medina High School class of 2011 this weekend.
Castroville, Texas is a charming town a few miles west of San Antonio. Its 3,000 citizens embody everything you would expect from a stereotypical Texas town: a small but strong faith-based community surrounded by farmland and with a Texas Historic Landmark church at the center of town. In fact, the historic St. Louis Church is where I married my wife, and it is the same church where her mother, grandmother and great grandmother were married. The home of Henry Castro, founder of Castroville, is owned by my sister-in-law. There’s also a personal aspect to this story: my niece is graduating this weekend from this very school. This typical example of liberal intolerance has me pretty upset.
Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”
“The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.”
Irreparable harm? Seriously? Can the court please define “harm” your honor? Is sitting through a couple of speeches and perhaps even a benediction prayer that bad? Better yet, is the “harm” caused by doing so more harmful than removing the rights of free speech from the students that have earned the right to speak at the ceremony? Is the negative attention brought upon the school causing pain to far more students than the single student that claims to be suffering?
Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery was the ruling judge. I find it interesting that this anti-religion, anti-free speech decision was made by a man who’s undergraduate degree is from Texas Lutheran University and his law degree was earned at Southern Methodist University. Of course, he was appointed to the position in 1994 by Bill Clinton, a man who has his own definition of free speech.
The ruling bans students and other speakers at the event from using religious language including terms such as “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” or even the words “amen” and “prayer.” Furthermore, he ordered the district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the printed graduation program. The judges order states that the terms “shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks.”
As reported by the San Antonio Express News:
“Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the school has forced prayer on the Schultzes’ sons and other students at other events. She noted Corwin Schultz quit band because he had been forced to stand at events for prayer, which also happens at athletic events.”
Christa and Danny Schultz followed by their son Corwin as they leave the courthouse with a victory. (Photo: Bob Owen/Express-News)
(Note: AUSCS has been run by the highly litigious Rev. Barry Lynn since 1992.)
If I was the judge on this case I would have asked the prosecutors to prove that Corwin was “forced” to stand. I would ask why Corwin chose not to sit. After all, if this is about expressing his atheist beliefs, shouldn’t he own it and remain seated during prayer? Another question I might have asked is whether or not he opens gifts on the morning of every December 25th.
Who filed the suit? Christa and Danny Schultz filed on behalf of their son. They moved from South Dakota to Texas. They claim to be agnostics, but I think they are saying that because it is easier than claiming that they are athiest. If they were truly agnostic, which means they claim neither faith nor disbelief in God, they would not be offended by the time honored tradition of benedictions at graduation ceremonies.
To me this whole situation is about someone making much ado about nothing, and enjoying the attention they are receiving because of it. This family moved from South Dakota to Texas and apparently packed their liberal intolerance with them. Liberals of this ilk are not tolerant, they only want what they want. They couldn’t care less about the majority, or about tradition, or about history. They care nothing about others, they care only about themselves.
What other alternatives did the Schultz family have? If they consider it so difficult to sit through a typical Texas graduation ceremony due to the painful religious content, perhaps they could have asked for a separate ceremony for Corwin and his family that was free of any religious references. But knowing how liberals think, they would have said this wasn’t an option because it would have denied Corwin the chance to walk the stage like the rest of the kids. Of course, if he and his parents had an ounce of tolerance they could have dealt with it.
The could also choose to not attend the ceremony. They could make a stand for their deeply felt beliefs. Why not just skip it? Wait, that might me too hard for them. Hard like remaining seated as a sign of your beliefs while others stand for a prayer. Either own your beliefs at all times, or shut the heck up.
In retrospect, perhaps they could have home schooled, or Corwin could have taken the GED exam and easily set free from the horrible religious torture the poor boy had to endure.
At the end of the day, the Schultz family has tainted one of the biggest days in the young lives of the MVH class of 2012. The beliefs of one family not even from Texas has trumped the beliefs and values of the hundreds of families that have lived here for generations and proudly celebrated their faith and traditions as the constitution allows them to do. If the lawsuit stands, it will be a sad indictment of the state of affairs in America.
UPDATE: VICTORY! Restraining Order Overturned by a three-judge panel on the US 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals.
If you find yourself in a large crowd and want to identify the liberals, fire up a discussion about the faith of America’s founding fathers, and then throw out the concept that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian values. Let the fireworks begin.
Continue reading »
Glenn Beck is under attack. He says things that the left can’t stand, mainly because Beck speaks the truth, welcomes debate and asks for others to prove him wrong. They can’t stand his delivery, his crying and who knows what else.
I find it incredibly ironic that once upon a time liberals fought tooth and nail to support free speech. Lenny Bruce was the king of the hill on that topic back in the 60s. George Carlin too. The Supreme Court sided with Larry Flynt and protected Hustler Magazine. The left considers a crucifix submerged in urine art, but considers a crucifix in a public building offensive. I just don’t get it.
The companies listed below have dropped their sponsorships with Glenn Beck on Fox News. Why? Because liberals, those that are associated with free speech, don’t like what Glenn Beck has to say. Do they try to debate him or contest his facts? Of course not: that requires mental acuity and actual effort. Picking up the phone and screaming like an idiot at sponsors is much more their style. Sounds like community organizing to me.
| Geico | Progressive | Lawyers.com | P&G | SC Johnson |
I urge everyone reading this to contact these companies and voice your concern over this attack on free speech and the sponsor’s willingness to submit to thug tactics. Some day the pendulum will swing in the other direction, but for now we have to make an effort to protect what our Founding Fathers created.
So I’m watching television tonight and I hear that a politician in New York is trying to ban the word bitch. What? The concept of banning words is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard since local politicians tried to make ‘ebonics’ a legitimate and acknowledged dialect about ten years ago.
Don Imus lost his job because he described a few female college athletes in a manner that apparently only black people are allowed to. I supposed nappy-headed and ho are terms of affection and endearment among peeps in the hood. Ann Coulter was lynched by the liberal media for daring to use the word fag when commenting about a presidential candidate. A white assistant was chastised by his black boss and eventually resigned for using the term niggardly and a North Carolina fourth grade teacher had to attend sensitivity training for including the word in a vocabulary list. FYI, the word means stingy or meager.
How far will this go? How far will we let it go? Is common sense deader than a doornail, or is it just in a coma? Free speech is free. There are countless lawsuits that test the concept, but the main point is that speech is protected no matter how offensive it is. Whether someone burns the flag, soaks a crucifix in urine, pisses on the Koran or uses the word nigger, free speech is an inalienable right guaranteed to us by our founding forefathers. All of the aforementioned actions are offensive, yet they are all allowed. You have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to avoid being offended.
In other words… shut the fuck up and grow a pair (balls or ovaries, it’s your call).
I think Michael Moore’s anti-American rhetoric and deceptive movie editing methods are offensive. I think Media Matters is a cesspool of politically blind and uneducated dolts. I think members of the Westboro Baptist Church are clueless, bigoted racists and should be killed before they reproduce. Even Muslim extremists can say what they want in our country. Unlike where they come from, they all are allowed to speak their mind without worry of prosecution, persecution or death. This is one of the things that makes America great.
Trying to ban a word is like trying to legislate taste. I’m sorry sir, that tie does not go with that shirt. Here’s your citation. I’m sorry son, those pants are far too baggy. You’re under arrest. Ma’am, you are not fit enough to be showing your midriff in public. Step away from the ice cream and get into my squad car.
How long before we decide that other words are offensive? I think we have a potential candidate for the next word that gets public attention: Mexican. With all of the angst over our lack of a secure border and the increase in visitors from the south the term is becoming a sore spot. Think I’m crazy? Black has been all but banned from the English language and has been replaced with the stupid term African-American. Not all people with dark skin are from Africa. And shouldn’t the NAACP be renamed the NAAAAP? But, I digress.
Non-colored, non-ethnic, generic off-label people, a.k.a. whitey, is afraid to say anything that might be interpreted as offensive or could end up causing a lawsuit. Wait, did I say whitey? That might be offensive to Caucasians. Actually, I’m offended by the term Caucasian. I’m not from the Caucus mountains, why should I be called something I’m not? Are you trying to deny the promotion and pride of my own European heritage? Are you in effect banning me from calling myself a European-American? Why isn’t the term on job applications and census documents? Oh my god… the term must have been banned!
See how stupid it sounds? Banning words is stupid.
