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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.