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.
Hate Glenn Beck? Think he’s nothing more than an entertainer trying to make a buck? I think you are wrong, but that’s just my opinion. I would like you to consider for just a moment suspending your dislike of him to ask yourself “what if he is right?” What if even 1/10th of what he says is true? I happen to think that he’s right nine times out of ten, and I’ve reached that conclusion by doing my own research.
The problem I have with so many liberals is that many of them fail to consider alternative viewpoints. They assume if a story was on Fox News that it was a lie. (If you honestly think about that for a moment you should realize just how stupid that viewpoint really is.) They assume if Glenn Beck said it that it was a lie. They don’t bother checking the fact because they just know that they are correct.
So Einstein, what if you’re wrong? Glenn outed ACORN. Glenn exposed Van Jones. Glenn has called out politician after politician and has been right almost every time. But most liberals just ignore the facts because of the source. Why? Because when you can’t win on facts its easier to ignore them. Its easier to make fun of Glenn Beck. Its easier to blame it all on George W. Bush.
For example: Many liberals love to puff out their chests and claim that the founding fathers were not religious and/or America was not founded on Judeo/Christian values. Why do they think this? Because that is what they were taught in school, or especially in college. Well, here’s a video that dispels many of the falsehoods propagated by liberal professors and factually inaccurate history books. This is a ten minute highlight reel from the April 8, 2010 Glenn Beck television show titled “Faith of our Founders.” Enjoy, and let me know if you find any errors in the content.
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 »
