For what it’s worth, I don’t really disagree with the idea that people are often too sensitive, but I don’t really think that applies here.

This is about a school allowing a blatantly Christian speech at a public school graduation. Nobody’s whining about being offended. They just want what is Constitutionally right.

This speaker went so far as to say that people without Jesus in their lives would have no stability. In another setting that’d be no big deal. Just tell the guy to get over himself and go on about your business. But the public school setting makes this a whole different thing.

The hate crime bill of 09′ (now quietly tucked away in the Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010) is a perfect example of how free speech is under attack. Some point out it would make it criminal for preachers to quote the parts of the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong, whether it is or it isn’t is beside the point here. I personally am not against homosexuality by the way, each to their own I say, -but remember: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Though my point, it legislates against peoples thoughts and motivations rather then their actions alone.

And what about this new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein’s proposal to ban “falsehoods”.. vaguely defined at the presidents discretion?

I don’t know man, you keep saying “checks and balances make democracy work” in context to a free and just society? -I’d like to hear it.

As far as official sanction, from what I know, school administrators have to allow the first volunteer to address the audience in prayer. And heads would roll if anyone thought of coaxing a resident Buddhist or Muslim student to be the first to volunteer.

Some of these students who volunteer to do the prayer make a mockery of the meaning of the word invocation. Its purpose is to seek blessings for the group, not to serve as a call to the altar.

However, educators are required to allow students to say whatever they want, lest their freedom of religion be denied. Too bad the students graduate without learning a lesson in creating an inclusive, positive speech full of goodwill that exudes decorum and graciousness …

People being “too sensitive” is NOT the real source of the trouble. The real source of the trouble is that inappropriate messages are being delivered at public school functions. Worship Jesus at church. Worhsip Jesus at home. Do not worship Jesus at school, and do not tell our children that they should likewise worship Jesus.

Amen.

On the other hand, I think that these stupid know-it-all children just want to create conflict. Which I can’t actually disagree with either. I did a bit of rabble rousing as a young one.

Everyone is far too sensitive. That’s the real source of the trouble. I can stand beside someone praying their asses off and not feel an ounce of awkwardness. If I were at a school that was Muslim by the majority I wouldn’t exactly feel alienated by their prayer. I would just suck up. But I’m tolerant.

Sorry to see that you don’t care for our free speech law either. Most civil libertarians consider our free speech law to be the model of the world. The only real limitations are libel and slander, both of which are notoriously hard to prove in court, with good reason.

It may not be perfect, but it stacks up pretty well against any other nation’s free speech law. We don’t even prosecute holocaust-denying neo-Nazis like they do in some European countries. Everyone here is free to believe what they want, and publish those beliefs if they want as well. Not perfect, but I wouldn’t trade it.

I have to disagree with your assessment that this is somehow an assault on democracy from me. I think you’ve misread things a bit. The fact that these kids were able to hold a rally despite the fact that their views are so unpopular–”assembly” in the 1st amendment– is a testament to democratic rule. The fact that groups such as theirs–small committed groups–are so often able to affect change is a wonderful example of minority rights in a democratic system.

Our system isn’t as simplistic as “majority rule”. If it were, we wouldn’t have had an end to Jim Crow back in the 60’s. Take a look at some of the polling data from back then. It’s pretty eye-opening as far as how few people actually wanted equal rights for African Americans.

Majority rule must be tempered with checks and balances. While not perfect, our constitution set up a government that does that pretty well most of the time. Are there blind spots? Sure. When it comes to protecting civil liberties and minority opinions though, our system does a pretty good job if you ask me.