The ACLU Strikes Back

Let's face it, for all their pontification for civl rights, the ACLU is just the "front-man" or "bouncer" in some cases for the liberal left in this country. If Brittany was from India, Africa, Afghanistan or if she was advancing some chic New Age spirituality or Islam--anything besides orthodox Christianity--she would have been allowed to speak to her heart's content. Freedom of religion for all is a myth in this country now in the educational system. The liberals have decided to begin the forced indoctrination with the young and pretend that they are just looking out for the rights of all U.S. citizens. The fact that they are supporting censorship of speech proves this. What hypocrisy! What deception! What a farce!

Oh, come on, John--have you read the article? I am no fan of the ACLU, but it is clear that they have case law on their side. They quoted two cases where the law has already taken sides "in this context." This is no "forced indoctrination" of the young.

It's too bad the schools are afraid of the one or two non-Christians in the audience who would be offended and the resulting huge legal bills that are sure to follow in this litigious country. We've come a long ways from the past, when our founding fathers had no problem including references to God in their documents and speeches.

I, for one, am glad that I am residing within 9th Circuit jurisdiction and believe what the school did was correct.

There is nothing wrong with Ms. McComb sharing her faith, which seems to have played a tremendous role in her personal and academic achievements. As valevictorian, she deserves to tailor her speech the way she sees fit. However, there are limits, especially at a school sponsored event.

There is a clear difference between Ms. McComb saying God has given her strength and her telling the audience that they should convert to Christianity. The latter is offensive and inappropriate. There is an imbalance in the power structure during the graduation ceremony. Freedom of Speech was meant to permit people to speak their minds in a level playing field. As an audience member, I could not simply leave the ceremony, especially if my son or daughter is graduating nor could I stand up and yell/counter argue with Ms. McComb. There lies the problem.

I also find the comment that there is an explicit bias towards Christianity in the education system completely unfounded and untrue. I am not a Christian, but attending public schools, I had to read numerous literary works that contained and espoused Christian beliefs and religious text. Christianity is so pervasive in our society I cannot comprehend how anyone can say it is being assaulted.

There is nothing wrong with religion or Christianity. All Christians should be proud and have an opportunity to express their view points. I just do not appreciate it when it is thrust upon me.

Since some religious people are all of a sudden so worried about peoples civil rights, let me run this graduation speech by you:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here today under the godless sky, whose explanations begin and end with the mighty atmospheric theories of science, to congradualate and show our pride and respect for these students, who, as the highest product of our mental biological evolution from the apes, are here to show us just what we can do if we truly beleive in oursleves... instead of an empty fictional character from an obsolete mythology."

Might be kind of offensive, don't you think?

I am an attorney who has taught American history and find it appalling how the ACLU has convinced a handful of judges to twist and rewrite American history.

School districts are now "afraid" to allow any student to utter the "G" word in a campus graduation speech and act as if this is the equivalent of someone streaking naked across the stage. The silent message sent is that religion is as bad as pornography and must be equally censored at school. Is that what anyone really intended?
Bad law produces bad, unintended results.

Ironically, Thomas Jefferson, whose cited to support the ACLU's positions, after Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church, in 1801 Jefferson attended church in the Capitol building and used government paid musicians to hold church services there.

1803 President Jefferson used federal money to erect a church and pay a Catholic Priest to teach the Kaskaskia Indians. There are literally thousands of these kinds of examples from our history. Where was the ACLU when we really needed them!

When the ACLU screams: "That's unconstitutional!" Ask them this question:

Unconstitutional according to who? Our founders or the ACLU?

Roger Ellis,
Attorney at Law
Westlake, CA

Citations:

James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 84.

Also American State Papers, Walter Lowrie and Matthew St. Claire Clarke, editors (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832), Vol. IV, p. 687; see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, at 103 (1985), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting); see also, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Richard Peters, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), Vol. VII, p. 79, Article III, “A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians,” December 23, 1803; Vol. VII, p. 88, Article IV, “Treaty with the Wyandots, etc.,” 1805; Vol. VII, p. 102, Article II, “Treaty with the Cherokees,” 1806.

History is replete with religious persecutions by the majority religion. A religious majority, as a rule, does not get persecuted. Christianity retains a mighty majority in this country and that could put minority faiths at risk without a countermajoritarian institution, like judges, to guard against it.

Religious minority groups invariably take great comfort that someone like the ACLU will stand up to the bullying of people like Ms McComb, who would suppose to tell us what to believe using a government podium. As Justice O'Connor consistently warned, the appearence of government approval (endorsement) for a narrow religious message is not an insubstantial threat.

The overwhelming majority of our Congress, state legislatures, presidents (all actually) and government administrators have been Chstistians. Once the levy breaks and government podiums become religious podiums ... well ... God help us all.

The situation is not made better by simply referring to a non-denominational "God" in speeches and official pledges. If you think that we can just all agree on being a nation under "God", then might as well just be a national under Jesus. The percentage difference is inconsequential. Only government neutrality can satisfy the needs of free conscience in a a pluralistic society.

Jon

The first amendment seems to establish the notion that freedom of religion can only be guaranteed by freedom from religion.

In that sense, attempts to inject a specific religiosity into politics or government can be seen as profoundly anti-american.

I am a Stevenson Democrat and over 60, a member of the Ninth Circuit bar and a fervent believer in the ACLU. But I cannot for the life of me see that the Ninth Circuit case law makes any sense. School boards LOVE to stifle controversy because they have a vested interest in avoidance of criticism or public discussion of the miserable job being done by their teachers and administrators. Sanitizing commencement speeches is a totally uncalled-for exercise of government before-the-fact censorship.

George M. Allen
Attorney at Law
Telluride, Colorado

As an "attorney" you should know that the Supreme Court, not the ACLU or even the "founding fathers," ultimately determines what is "unconstitutional".

Had you done your research you would know that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board." (Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675). This principle particularly applies when student speech: (1) is made before a "captive audience, and (2) reasonably bears the imprimatur of the school.

The school made a reasonable decision to regulate the student's speech, and the Court WILL give deference to that decision.

Good luck working on that amicus brief, chief.

Bottom line- its ok to teach and speak of the principles of other religions in our schools, but not Christianity. Check the curriculum of L.A. schools to verify that. And its never ok to tell others that religious principles are the most important thing in your life- if its Christianity you are speaking of. Prejudice and discrimination against Christians reigns again at the ACLU.

Here is the point of view of a non-lawyer, just a regular American.
Faith is fine, but not in public. You may offend other faiths.
Keep faith within your own soul, don't try to sell it. It's then politics.
in other words....

Keep Your God out of My God's Face.

Christianity isn't under attack. Christians are attacking those who don't share their beliefs. Their weapons are their overwhelming numbers, their allies in the government and their complete lack of understanding of the Constitution.

When they complain about Americans who supposedly want "freedom from religion" what they are complaining about is Americans who refuse to accept Christian domination of this country.

let's count the christian liars on here:
1. john s. knox, lying that if brittany were muslim and pitched islam at graduation, it would be ok.
2. roger ellis, self-described attorney and teacher of american history, lying that school districts are afraid to hear the "g-word". if he's really a professional communicator, he would have spelled it out, i was left to guess "god", a word which the district here **permitted** to remain in the speech!
3. jack, lying that christianity is discriminated against in public schools. jack, the first amendment prohibits state establishment of religion, and this prohibition applies to all religions. apparently, you feel that the district's rightful refusal to establish christianity equates to discrimination against christianity. jack, pray to your god to give you the strength to tell the truth and stop whining.
i'm gonna give george allen the benefit of the doubt, he's just unclear on the scope of freedom of speech. school valedictorians addressing a captive audience don't have unlimited freedom of speech. if they did, it would follow that non-christians would have the right to heckle, and graduations would predictably descend into shouting matches about religion, and quite possibly violence too.
christians seem to be putting on the public face of persecution victims to gain a tactical edge in the culture war and bolster their position for a lawsuit against the targeted public entity. the whole "war on christmas" thing we're now treated to every december. christians, you'll know you're being persecuted when we start feeding you to lions.

Roger R. Ellis
Firm: Law Offices of Roger R. Ellis

Address: P.O. Box 3422
CA 91359-0422


Phone: (805) 480-1029

Fax: (805) 480-1059

West Practice Categories:

Class Actions -- Plaintiff


Class action lawyer pontificating on constitutional law? Boy do I feel like your analysis is solid now.

I'm shocked that Sean Korb and others on this blog are claiming a double standard. With the hypothetical speech from the hypothetical atheist, Sean actually undermines his own point. I have never heard any atheist make such a speech at a secular gathering. If an atheist tried to do so, I suspect (and hope) that he would be told to sit down and shut up the same we this girl was blocked from giving her valedictory.

I'm also shocked that anyone can read Brittany McComb's speech and conclude that she was merely giving God credit for her accomplishments. Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/q9ujy. Paragraphs five, six and seven are laced with specific doctrinal elements of Christianity--details that go far beyond its impact on her own life.

If school districts give Christian students that kind of platform, they'll also have to give it to atheists and everyone else. Christianists should give serious thought to whether or not they actually want that. If free speech is all you care about, you can make a make a good argument that all students should be able to do this. But if you care about dignified ceremonies, you'll probably reconsider when that atheist or Muslim student gets as preachy at next year's graduation as Brittany McComb got in her speech. The annual valedictory could end up being a contest of which group can shout down the others. The only reason Christianists on this blog can even think about claiming bias is that no other relgions have been nearly as inappropriate in these contexts as Christians have tried to be.

The difficulty the school has here is in assuming a position that they may edit the speeches. That's probably not right.

The school should have left it alone. Had they done so, there is no colorable way to say that the speech bears the imprimatur of the school and school district, and, consequently, any religious content is acceptable student speech. The cases the Nevada ACLU refers to cover instances where the school district either scheduled a student prayer (this is not a scheduled prayer), or scheduled a prayer by a cleric with explicit instructions on how to pray. Schools cannot do that.

I think the Nevada ACLU is on the wrong side in this case, but if they prevail, it will be because the school undertook the authority to edit all these speeches, and thereby made the speeches official. That's dumb, and I would not advise any school district to do that. Where were the lawyers before the system was set up?

instead of taking parts of the first amendment out of context let's read it in full,

"Congress shall make no law establishing freedom of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government fora redress of grievances."

Although the supreme court makes the high judicial rulings in the country, I believe it would be unwise and disrespectful to ignore the faith and history and lives of our founding fathers, who indeed wrote the constitution of the united states. Their lives and beliefs are as important to the foundation of our country, just as the constitution is. Because of their lives and sacrifice, america exists.

What "other" religions are being taught in the
public schools?

Miss McComb's speech falls into the same category as hollering "fire" in a theatre when their really isn't a fire. Since she submitted her speech for approval prior to giving it before a captive audience, she was hollering "fire." The school was right in their actions and let's give off the band wagon of blaming the "Left" for all of America's faults. If the people who are saying America is on the path to hell, they have to only look in a mirror to see who is really the blame. Religion is not the issue here; the "Real" issue that the audience didn't have the right to rebuttal. I don't remember who said this but I have quoted it many times: "When you have a lot of Laws, you have a lot of outlaws." The lawyers will be the only one's that will benefit from this issue. One last thing: Benjamin Franklin said, "To preserve Democracy, you must hang the lawyers first." Miss McCombs misused her rights under the 1st Amendment.

This is akin to the oft heard parental sanction " If you can't all get along then none of you can play." McComb is hogging the ball. If her religious opposition were given equal time, well, that MIGHT be different, but there is plenty to say about graduation, other than 'Look how bright my halo is!'

If Brittany can't think of anything, her education (sic) was a complete failure, despite her valedictorian status.

The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and the Founders were smart enough to enshrine protection for the minority, against the day when most people, for instance, might want to reinstitute either a monarchy or theocracy.

Thank god the ACLU is there to help us preserve that protection.

To insist otherwise, as do the folks who continually holler that "We are a christian nation!", aligns these proponents of religion with those who in former times, justified pogrom and holocaust.

No one is attacking christianity. That is an obvious red herring for people who want to adopt the label of 'persecuted'. It's bull. If anything, christianity is doing most of the persecuting these days.

Even Jesus correctly counseled that you can tell his followers by what they DO, not what they SAY. He also suggested that worship was to be a private act, carried out in a closet.

Does any of this sound like the religion that Ms. McComb is practicing? Not to me.

More people are led to salvation via footsteps that by signposts, Ms. McComb. Much better people than you have proven it and not had to stand on a podium and pick a fight.

First of all, I feel that Mr. Knox is spot-on with his analysis. We live in a country where politically oriented people of a certain bent will find you "interesting" and want to know more if you are a muslim, hindu, etc..... These same people will show extra interest if you happen to be anything other than a caucasion. If you are a Christian, well these people will treat you with utter discontent. I had to spend my years in public school, particularily my college years, receiving my lessons in history, politics, etc.. through a liberal filter that the teachers imposed on their captive audience. This of course is allowed to not only exist, but thrive in our society. However, the Left believe it would be an atrocity to let this young lady makes references to Christianity as a source of her inspiration. For those people outside the stranglehold of California or Massachusetts, this is absolutely perplexing. The underlying issue here is the need for choice in schools to counter the liberal bias that currently exists in our public education system. The liberals claim to be all for choice.

I showed above that Thomas Jefferson gave federal funds to priests and churches in the early1800’s. Apparently, a blogger was confused by my point when stating: “this is not 1800.”

Do we have the same Constitution today as in 1800? Of course we do. Then what has changed? If it’s unconstitutional today to mention the “G” word in the final hour of a “captive audience” why wasn’t Congress and Jefferson prohibited in the 1800’s when they did far more ‘horrific’ things like actually using federal monies to pay for churches and priests?

I was more “captive” in school by a teacher who didn’t believe in “G” and graded me down for daring to question his ‘dis’ belief in the classroom.

If the Constitution is to be reinterpreted in every generation then why bother having a written Constitution at all? Just let nine elderly people sitting on the Supreme Court make it up as they go along! Jefferson called judges: “[T]hieves of liberty” and believed “the ultimate arbiter is the people.”

When conflicts came about the founders wanted Congress to decide our great disputes. Many founders, especially Jefferson didn’t trust unelected judges.

It should be clear: A handful of radicals have twisted our Constitution into saying something that was never intended by our founders.

Does anyone really believe any of our founders would have pulled the plug on Brittany McComb’s ‘shocking and offensive’ graduation speech?

Roger Ellis,
Attorney at Law

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and probably slept with at least one of them. You want to go back and ask him if he'd have silenced this little Christian proselytizer? When you do, ask him why he did not free his slaves in his lifetime or after his death in his will. Talk about double standards. I am so sick and tired of hearing from the Christian majority how abused and trampled upon they feel. Liberal is not a dirty word. It is about what is right for everyone not just you who feel your are the chosen. Organized religion continues to cause war, grief, death and violence every time it has a conservative re-awakening. Just look at the headlines. See the good that you fundamentalist conservatives do for the world. You make me sick. All you care about is own sickening self and your own sanctimonious lives. Whether you call yourself christian, muslin or jew...the rest of us are so dam tired of you, your wars and your egocentric righteousness. If there is a god...I am sure he/she has gave up on this world a long, long time ago. How appropriately conceited that you conservative believers think that you travel the only path to salvation.

Now we have Christians saying they are "persecuted"? Maybe they ought to try being atheists, and advertising the fact. They'll learn real fast what persecution is.

This may seem unrelated, but I will inject it anyway. As a product of California's public school system I have always been taught the merits of a diverse society. And I truly believe there are many merits to speak of. However, sometimes it seems like ours has gone from diverse to divided. For all of the the 'Founding Fathers' talk I hear I do remember one thing. They knew the power of compromise. If they didn't there would be no USA. And if we don't get it quick we may be in real trouble for the future. From where I see it the greatest threat to American security and dominance are in the hearts and minds us the Americans.

Anger can cloud judgment.

While Thomas Jefferson and many founders did have slaves, the founders were also the first group of rich, white men anywhere who put in the founding documents, “… all men are created equal.” Their words help lead Americans to fight a civil war to free American slaves.

From Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, most leaders who fought against the horrors of slavery and its prejudices were Christians.

While America is clearly not perfect, America has created more freedom and prosperity than anywhere on earth. Why? One reason is that, our founders understood where our liberty comes from: “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Here are some terrific world leaders who believed there is no God and that they were, in fact, God.

JOSEPH STALIN ….. 60 MILLION MURDERED
“One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”

ADOPH HITLER…… 60 MILLION MURDERED

MAO SE TUNG…….. 50 MILLION MURDERED

(Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956, 1973-76 ISBN: 0813332893)

These are just the top 3 murderers. Atheism in the last century alone caused more deaths than all the Christians in the history of the world. Remove the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country and you are destined to repeat history.

Roger

"ADOPH HITLER…… 60 MILLION MURDERED"

AdoLph was a Catholic until the day he died. And don't forget the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, American Slave trade, and the list goes on. Do you REALLY want to compare atrocities?

"JOSEPH STALIN ….. 60 MILLION MURDERED
“One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”

ADOPH HITLER…… 60 MILLION MURDERED

MAO SE TUNG…….. 50 MILLION MURDERED"

Oh and almost completely forgot to mention that your numbers are WAY off. Stalin murdered 20 to 30 million and more recent accounts have that number at more like 10 to 20. Why even bother trying to make a point when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Roger:

I am a Buddhist. I have also read the Bible cover to cover, to compare Christianity to Buddhism. Hopefully, you would come to grips with the following FACTS:

(1) It is true the forefathers of the USA fought against slavery. However, their logic could NOT have been based on Biblical principles. In the Old Testament, slavery was permitted by GOD. The Torah does discuss how slaves should or should not be treated. However, slavery was the way of Old Testament, permitted by GOD. The New Testament also does not teach ANYWHERE that slavery is wrong or to be abolished. The New Testament merely has references on how slaves and their master(s) should behave towards each other. NO ONE knowledgeable of the Bible would use the Bible to argue against slavery. Whatever prompted the forefathers of the USA to abolish slavery, it could NOT have been the Biblical principles.

(2) True, atheists have massacred innocent people. However, this does not mean atheism condones the action! The Crusades were conducted by Christians. The acts also massacred innocent people. However, no one knowledgeable of the New Testament would agree with the Crusades since the New Testament clearly forbids such violence. However, in the Old Testament, this is not so. The Old Testament not only authorizes but only encourages all believers of GOD to eliminate all those who speak against GOD. Buddhism, as a religion, does not focus on “GOD”. Nonetheless, Buddhism forbids violence. Buddhism advocates the separation of church and state, and advocates the freedom of all people to practice their own religions.

(3) The first of the Ten Commandments FORBIDS the worship of other religions. The penalty (in the Old Testament) is death. In the New Testament, it is banishment from the church community. Jesus, the founder of Christianity, proclaims “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father (GOD) but through Me”. Much, much more can be quoted. Can you envision what would happen to the USA if the Christians were in command?

To Roger:

Roger, like a subsequent poster commented to your second post, embracing a Christian or even non-Christian belief and/or practice just because the Founding Fathers did it doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate. The nation was more homogeneous then. Should the upper middle class simply "own" an undocumented immigrant simply because it was acceptable to "own" a slave in pre-Reconstruction America?

Whether you have relevant case law to back your position is irrelevant. The Constitution holds firm and should be the true "Bible" for any American. It is the foundation of civil society.

As a Catholic I believe in Holy Scripture - but because it is the foundation of my moral and spiritual belief - it is private to me. Where Brittany erred is that she used her speech as a tool for evangelization - literally selling Christianity as if it was a commodity that SHE believed should be enjoyed by all. How self-centered and egotistical. Brittany, you had it coming.

Hmmm...There sure is a lot of under-educated talk regarding the bible and the constitution. I am a christian and I will not pretend to know everything about anything.

No one here was alive when the framers of the constitution worre the drafts and what was truly meant by each article and amendment. We can only assume or guess what was meant by reading journals and papers written by the members of the constitutional convention.

As for quoting the bible, one must be very careful in doing so. Whether christian or not, it is very easy to take it out of context or misinterpret it, as many have done. I won't argue or try to defend God, because that is not my place. It is however to desciple to the non-believers in the christian faith as the bible teaches and as I am charged and ordained by the "great commission" to "go out into the world and make disciples of all the nations."

Brittney was just doing that. Following Jesus' command to go and tell the gospel of Jesus Christ.

As for worship, Jesus did not say to keep it quiet and in the closet. He was addressing the priests of that time who would fast from eating and dress up in meeger clothing and dirty up there faces so that everyone would see that they are suffering in worship of fasting for God. Jesus said this is wrong. He said do not show off as they were. Brittney was not showing off.

I do also have a problem with all this thin skinned attitude towards religion. I mean all religions. Yes the ACLU is at fault as much as everyone else who isn't mature enough to be able to sit down and talk to their family regarding what was said from a religious point of view or even a non-religious point of view. You have the power to sit down with your kids and talk about a show they saw and about what's real and what's not. Yet you can't do that when someone offends what your belief is or is not.

I have been offended by both christians and non-christians alike. But, I have never been treated as unfairly by any organized religion (any faith)as I have by non-religious people. If you read the rest of this blog, who is doing most of the attacking and who is doing most of the defending?

Well, that's what I have to say for now. I am not judging anyone, but I think we should do as Jesus said we need to "take the plank out of our own eye, before removing the speck out of someone elses eye".

The ACLU finds cover in the case law of the 9th Circuit, but both are in error.

I would like to ask why the ACLU invokes the “school sponsored event” defense for graduations and football games, but does not invoke it for student newspapers and magazines. Does not the school bear the cost and sponsorship in all of these cases?

I would like to ask why the school could not assert a distinction between its own policies and the thoughts and beliefs of an individual who attended the school using the standard disclaimer ("The opinions expressed by today's speakers do not necessarily reflect the policies of the school district").

I would like to ask the ACLU why it thinks the public is so delicate that it cannot recognize that distinction on its own but needs a court rulings.

I would like to ask why the ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march in Skokie, IL (proselytizing for white supremacy) saying that the remedy for unpopular speech was more speech, but does not defend a student who was selected by secular criteria (highest GPA) by saying that the remedy for unpopular speech is more speech?

I would like to ask the school why, on the day it is sending all of its students into the world, it must, in effect, decide for those students what constitutes acceptable speech? Can't you trust them to act like the adults you helped them become?

I would like to ask why “proselytizing” becomes unprotected speech, when it causes no harm?

Finally, I would like to ask those who do not want to be “offended” during a graduation ceremony why they think that their desire should be elevated to a right, trumping even the First Amendment?

-- Christopher Curzon

Roger, you've got two things wrong. First, I will answer your question "If the Constitution is to be reinterpreted in every generation then why bother having a written Constitution at all?" with another question: Does Brown v. Board of Education mean anything at all to you? How about how black men couldn't vote in the 18th century even though those oh-so-great founding fathers wrote that "all men are created equal" ? And that women can today even though it wasn't written then?

Thomas Jefferson was a theist, not a good little gung-ho Christian like yourself. So don't grasp onto your little straws of "original intent."

Christopher Curzon: the clear difference between a school speech and a newspaper is that school newspapers generally have opposing arguments for a provocative issue. Nor does that matter: your analogy doesn't hold water - no public school newspaper in the country would let Brittany publish what she had said and especially was going to say in her speech (see http://tinyurl.com/q9ujy provided earlier by Chris).

And finally, my favorite, Erik. Thank you for quoting the First Amendment. Now let me quote the Second: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm sure you also believe that Brittany had the right to walk up onto the stage with a gun, or a loaded M16 while giving her speech. Right Erik? Why not?
Here's why not: because as clearly as the Second Amendment gives Brittany the right to carry a gun onto the stage, the context clearly doesn't call for it. And because there are people in society who just might try it, we have laws against it.

Someone Else:
That’s quite a broad statement that you make. “No public school would let…” Please tell me the legal basis for that claim. (Case law?) If the message by a student is suppressed because it is religious in nature that in itself should fail the three part Lemon test which requires the government neither to advance NOR TO SUPPRESS religious interests, nor to be excessively entangled. Schools can easily avoid the entanglement issue by clearly disclaiming “the opinions expressed here are solely those of the speaker …”

As for the opposing arguments rationale, why is this even germane? Free speech (emphasis on FREE) cannot be made dependent on the existence of someone else to propose a counter opinion. If before speaking I have to wait for someone else to appear in opposition, then my speech is hindered and therefore less free. Whoever said balance was a requirement of the First Amendment?

Indeed, if a valedictorian has been selected by neutral, secular criteria (to use Justice Souter's concept) I cannot see how the school can reasonably step in without treading on the student's speech rights. What the school is really saying is "You're free to speak AFTER you leave here, but not yet."

Don't you think that's a funny way to reward academic excellence??