Brittany McComb Uncensored
As promised, here is my phone interview conducted on Friday with 17-year-old Brittany McComb. McComb is the Las Vegas valley high school valedictorian whose microphone was cut off by school officials when her graduation talk departed from the approved text and became what public school officials considered to be too evangelical.
Thanks to all of the Buffet readers who sent in questions for me to ask her. I only had a 15-minute interview with McComb and did my best to ask as many of your questions as I could. Let me add that one of her lawyers, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute was on the line the entire time. This required a conference call situation that offered less than ideal sound quality. There are some inaudible portions of the tape and clearly McComb was having a hard time hearing my questions at times. This proved more an inconvenience than a disaster. A lot of questions and answers had to be repeated. In the end, as you can see from what follows, McComb had a lot to say and is quite candid in answering your questions and mine.
Q: Religious faith is not the most common stereotype of a young person in Las Vegas. I wonder if you have any sense what impact growing up here has had on you?
A: I've never lived anywhere else. So I can't say for sure. I think living in a big city impacted me somewhat compared to living in a small town. But I think people get a bad view of Las Vegas and think it is more corrupt than any other place. But there are bad things going on in a smaller town too.
Q: So, you haven't found it hard growing up as a religious person in Sin City?
A: No. I have faith. You can have your faith anywhere. So I think it would be the same anyplace else.
Q: How familiar were you with the Constitution before your valedictorian speech? Did you study it in high school?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you think at all about the Constitution when school authorities cut out part of the text of your speech?
A: Of course! You have authorities revising and editing your speech. There is part of me that knows they are the authorities and they must have something to back up what they are doing. But another part of me went to government class and just learned about my free speech and my rights. This didn't seem congruent with them. This seemed like they were violating them.
Q: Had you put a lot of thought into free speech issues before this incident?
A: Yes. I actually wrote an article for my high school paper on school uniforms: whether or not we should have them. I wrote about what the founding fathers' ideas of freedom of expression and speech were. People will argue that having a uniform violates my freedom of expression. But that is not what they were fighting for. It was for our ability to express ideas and not what we wear.
Q: So you thought the school should be allowed to require a uniform?
A: I thought that wouldn't be a bad idea.
Q: Let me ask you some questions from readers of the Buffet. This is a question from Crazymonk: "Were you surprised when the school cut off the microphone, or were you expecting that would happen when you went off the approved script?"
A: I would have been more surprised. But right before the ceremony started, I ended up talking to a teacher, and he told me exactly what he had to do, which was that if anyone deviated from the script he had to turn off the microphone. So because of that conversation right before my speech I was aware that was probably going to happen. But by that time I had made my decision and it wasn't like I was going to reconsider it.
Q: That leads to another of Crazymonk's questions: "Why didn't you take legal action when the school edited your written speech? Couldn't this be handled without showboating at the commencement?" Leaving out the value judgment of 'showboating,' did you think of doing something before the incident?
A: Oh yes. My mom called the school board lawyer and his secretary promised to call right back and didn't. We tried numerous times to get in touch with the [school] district lawyer. From the moment they gave us the revised speech we began calling. It was like he was avoiding us and not returning our calls. We tried so many times and graduation was nearing. School was already out. We didn't know what to do. I think people get the impression that this was set and done and all premeditated. But things just came to place the way they did. It was never like beforehand I was like, "Oh, they are going to cut off my mike and I am going to have a lawsuit." No. I never thought about media. I just thought about expressing what was in me and that was Christ. It was the knowledge I gained from His words. There was a set of guidelines they gave us for writing the speech and I followed them step by step. Everything about their editing violated my logic and my principals. I was kind of shocked by it. I was like, "Why are they doing this?" I've been a good kid. I've done everything they asked of me in every aspect of school life.
Q: A reader named Rex Riley wants to know: "Do your actions represent the student body consensus opinion at your school?"
A: Most of the response I've got from kids from school has been very positive. There are a lot of kids who profess Christ, kids who profess nothing or kids who profess Mormonism. There are different religions. But I think the majority of them think passionately that I should have been allowed to say what was on my heart since it was nothing to hurt anybody.
Q: A reader named Benjoya wants to know, in a slightly more snarky way than I am going to ask you, was President Bush and his religious views an influence on you?
A: Not at all. I had my beliefs way before George Bush became president. I have been a Christian for a long time. I think the people who influence you the most are the people around you. I see President Bush on television or hear about him giving a speech or hear about his policies but it doesn't really influence me religiously.
Q: A reader named Tripsitterjon writes: "Given all the negative attention you've received, do you wish you could hit rewind and just do the speech you agreed to do without all the religious grandstanding?" Would you do it all over again?
A: You know I've received a lot of attention. And, there has been a lot more encouragement than negative. But it seems the negative hits me the hardest. But truth be told, I would do it all over again because I stood up for what I believe in and I am still very convicted that it was the right thing to do.
Q: How do your parents feel about what you did?
A: They are behind me 100%.
Q: I think the one question readers feel most focused on is why you at first agreed to give the edited speech and then did not do so? There is a sense running through many of the comments left on my blog that you were deceptive in doing that. When you said you would give the edited speech did you mean it or were you fibbing?
A: You mean when I said I'd give the edited speech?
Q: Yes. Did you at first agree to give the edited speech?
A: Yes. The actual situation was that the my assistant principal confronted me in the hallway and demanded to know what I was going to do. My parents were out of town. We still had not contacted the lawyer. Everything was chaotic, and I was like "What am I going to do?" I had no idea. So I had to say something and I was at my wits end. I was very intimidated. So I kind-of said, "yes" and I regret it. I wish I had stood up right then for myself.
Q: So you did agree to give the edited version at first?
A: I didn't know what I was going to do. I did say I would give the revised speech. I regret it. But it wasn't malicious. I wasn't thinking, "I'm going to stick it to you to get my free speech." Christ has abundant forgiveness. I really just wanted to tell my classmates about this light and love in my life and it tore me apart that they (school officials) did not want me to be who I am. It was like they wanted me to lie over who I am. In hindsight I regret not standing up for myself right away.
Q: Looking back, how do you think this controversy has changed or impacted you?
A: It has made me more curious. I had an interview with someone recently and I wound up asking all the questions. He was like, "Why don't we switch seats?" I am going to major in print journalism in college.
Q: Are there any lessons you are taking away from this experience?
A: Oh my gosh. I've learned so much. Everything is not as peachy keen as I thought. I've learned how people are manipulative and also how people will stand behind you. I also learned no one is too small to make a difference. I am amazed by that. I am absolutely astonished by this one action and how big a difference it made. I feel like I just need to encourage people to live passionately and not sit around the house and watch television all day.
I have a perfect solution for Julie and the rest who feel that - and I’m quoting Julie here, “Somehow everyone else's rights at that graduation ceremony were forgotten, in all this "grandstanding" for attention. Freedom of Speech is guaranteed, yes, but so is the separation of Church and State. And since those who do not share Ms.McComb's religious beliefs were, so to speak, a captive audience, they had the right not to have to listen to a ‘testimony’!”
My solution is - The number 2… as in 2 fingers - one for each ear - as plugs - until the speaker sits down and you can conclude that the speaker is no longer speaking something that you - possibly you alone - do not wish to hear… should you not have 2 fingers then I suggest 2 legs and get up off your NOT CAPTIVE BUTT and walk out until the speech is over then walk back in – no one is holding a gun on you keeping you there to hear such vial and nasty things as “I thank Jesus for who I am and how I achieved … “ I seem to recall numerous sports celebrities who thank God and or Jesus on a regular basis and they don’t get hacked to bits.
Oh – - how stupid of me - that is different right – this is the separation of church and state thing Right?! Right! It is easy to see why many were not asked to speak at their commencements and which classes they slept through… WRONG! Seperation of church and state is NOT the issue here!
Stop letting other people tell you what to think, and when to whine – it makes you and the rest just look dumb. Go educate yourself in your own history and in what God’s Word says. I do not suggest reading God’s word to convert you but if you are going to have all the tools you need to speak on a subject with any kind of intelligence much less wisdom then you need to know the material - that requires studying it – not having someone tell you what to think. When you have done that THEN you would know what “separation of church and state” and “freedom of speech’ really mean.
Then you would understand that what you "think you want to shut her up for - in this case pushing Christianity" would also shut you up in the long run - every time we limit our "rights" in one way it is NEVER just that one way! It always bits huge chunks out of our rights in ways we never began to imagine! WHY ham string ourselves when we can just stick our fingers in our ears for 5 seconds! I mean really - If Jesus is really a myth then why does just hearing His name or someone saying thank you to Him offend you? Apollo, Athena, Cupid, Santa, Satan - do those names offend you? If someone said thank you to one of them at a commencement would you be offended? We study Greek and Roman Mythology in School - it is mandatory - that too was once someone's religion - is that offensive?
Then you would also understand that if you are - in all honesty - truly offended by someone uttering Gods’ name and saying thank you for all you’ve done God - it would NOT be at a commencement speech but rather at that NFL Football game– NBA Basketball game – Nascar – Major League Baseball – game –etc that you really did pay for with your hard earned cash (Actually it probably got put it on the credit card and will be paid for indefinitely with interest). Now THAT would offend you! If it doesn’t and your only reason for not being offended is the “separation of church and state” issue then either you still haven’t bothered to educate yourself – keep talking everyone will soon know you’re “brilliant” or you are just a plain old hypocrite.
Either way – you’re just dust in the dust pan – swept up, dumped out - long forgotten - Unlike the Ms. McComb's who know in Whom they are and have chosen in love and faith to “educate” themselves and others His way – without shame or fear – she and others like her will not be and are not soon forgotten.
Posted by: SAM | August 10, 2006 at 09:08 PM
Cant give a talk in school graduation. first ammendment censorship maybe.
but can't get sex flyers and prostitution off the strip. another first ammendment issue.
Rules and laws in Las Vegas really aren't rules and laws at all; just suggested guidelines.
Every traffic cop in any other state has to love Nevada drivers; as they are nothing but cash cows, because none of them drive according to the law or traffic signs
Posted by: Billy BUBB | August 10, 2006 at 09:10 PM
look at the mormons. a person cannot get a pass to the temple and their nirvana without being in good standing with the IRS.
to be saved in that church, and be with god in his eternal home, you have to be a good citizen and honor caesar- how's that for a new government church. Why even Mormon missionaries have to fill out a w-2, even though they are spending mostly their own money to preach worldwide. This applies to any US missionary in any foreign country and any US and foreign missionary 'working in the USA and it's posessions.
Posted by: Billy BUBB | August 10, 2006 at 09:16 PM
"The bloodlust for Christians here makes me uncomfortable"
I wonder exactly how many non-Christians are actually posting on this site? I'm a christian myself, one whio just happens to understand that politics is inherently a corrupting force of the world, and Christ specifically said that His Kingdom was not of this world, probably for that very reason....
Posted by: Michael | August 11, 2006 at 12:09 AM
Dear Brittany, I say Go Girl, because Jesus is with you. We wonder why the world is in such a BAD CONDITION, It's because we are becomong a nation of ATHIEST'S!!!!!! and we wonder WHY things are happening the way they are. If we don't want anything to do with God's SON, then GOD won't hav anything to do with us... I LOVE JESUS for what HE has done for ME... ON THE CROSS, and I will be QUIET NO MORE about it... THE WORLD NEEDS HIM AND WEATHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT,HE IS THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS.... aLL THEY NEED TO DO IS ask. jESUS SAID" if my people,who are called BY MY NAME, will HUMBLE themselves and PRAY, and seek MY FACE and TURN FROM THEIR EVIL WAY, then I will HEAR THEM FROM HEAVEN, and will HEAL THEIR LAND! BUT, ARE WE listening?????? THAT IS THE QUESTION...
Posted by: Loretta | August 11, 2006 at 05:52 AM
I already did, What happened to it????????
Posted by: Loretta | August 11, 2006 at 07:00 AM
If the orig. docs are read, referred to by one blogger previously, the separation of church & state was not to keep church out of the state, but to keep the state out of the church.
A valedictorian has earned the right to speak at their graduation. What is there to be afraid of? What is really the right response to this situation? If one is asked to speak about one of the most significant achievements of their life & what conttributed to accomplishing it, what is lost or gained by censoring that content? Yes, it is the entire student body's graduation, but it's the valedictorian that has EARNED those few moments on the mic.
It's a matter of situational ethics...when & what to censor. Where to draw the line. Are pre-established guidelines actually a form of censorship?
Bottomline? We're a society of no absolutes.
I don't think the lesson here is what was said, nor the turning off of the mic. It's the absence of appropriate discussion between administrators, legal counsel(as requested), student & parents. Perhaps in the future all speeches s/b reviewed by an open panel, incl. the student & not by an individual, using apparently arbitrary guidelines.
Posted by: sue b | August 11, 2006 at 07:28 AM
I'm sure it was okay for anyone to thank their family in the speech, what people don't realize is that Jesus is family to us that love him. He is a guiding force in our lives that cannot be denied. Even the early Christians were told they could heal the sick or even preach as long as they didn't use the name of Jesus.The one thing I thank him for the most? Is that He loves even those who hate him. He forgives those that try to kill him. BUt, he cannot be killed, he has been raised from the dead, no matter what they try to do, he will never die, and there will be many who will never stop saying His name...never. They will shout it, they will proclaim it and if you kill them, they will utter it on their dying breath. JESUS!!!! JESUS!!!! JESUS!!!! YOu are the one who rules this Earth. You are the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!! We love you, Darling of Heaven that was crucified for our sins.
Posted by: Vicki | August 11, 2006 at 08:22 AM
It's obvious that many people have been misinformed on this subject. Several courts have upheld students' rights to talk about God and Jesus in a public forum, including school functions. But some public-paid ACLU lawyers (that's right, public-paid) keep spreading lies about that so they can get rich while they continue to trample on the rights of some for, ostensibly, the benefit of some other person who's rights have been "violated." Do a little research before you form opinions (yeah, including you proud pagan). Ignorance may be bliss, but please enjoy it responsibly.
Brittany - more power to you sister!
Posted by: J-rad | August 11, 2006 at 12:44 PM
First I want to say that she shows alot of guts to go ahead and stand up for what she believes in, even though it is not allowed in the public schools. Of course, she will be treated differently by some and out of those that disagree and are rather rude in there comments they are also the ones that say, its OK if you teach my children that they came from APES, and they would probably say its OK to teach young people that HOMOSEXUALITY is ok , or ABORTION doesn't kill a BABY its just tissue, but those things ARE against what I believe. Yet those same people that are FORCING there beliefs in our schools and every other outlet they can seem to have a severe problem when a CHRISTIAN pushes back!!!! So job well done Brittany, your reward might not been in this world but God will say well done!!!! ALWAYS keep him first in your life no matter what the world throws at you.
Posted by: Angela | August 11, 2006 at 01:12 PM
"there are no Atheists in fox holes." perhaps a metaphore to some, but
Ohare who started this mess, her son converted to christiananity, later Ohare ran for her life,, later slain, i wonder did she remember God in her last moments. As a reasonable Christian, i believe a person has the right to speak, but if preaching is involved it belongs in the Pulpit, to deny a child the right to pray in school, or one to thank God for their accomplishments, is an attempt by society to tell us what to think, that hope does not exist, and when we take a test,when we are in danger of losing our lives,when we are alone and frightened, there is no recourse why not ask the Soldier, or Marine in Iraq, and tell them not to pray and see how many teeth you will lose.
Posted by: alvan St Jacques | August 12, 2006 at 02:39 AM
Those who believe seperation of church and state means one cannot express religiuos views on public property are sorely mistaken. They may wish to acctually read the Constitution at some point. And it is Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. Had Miss McComb stated views of Islam, Paganism, Wicca, or Lesbianism School officials would have lauded her instead of censored her. It seems our country, especially the "left" coast is saying all religions are fine Except evangelical Christianity and fundemental Judiasm. I respect your right to believe or not believe in your gods or goddesses, please respect my right to believe you are incorrect and facing the eternal fires of hell You may want to pray that you are right, not me.
Posted by: AJ Ketchum | August 13, 2006 at 06:58 AM
The issue isn't expression on public property, the issue is the boundaries of official speech as part of an organized event. She was not entitled to speak, she was granted the privledge and knew in advance the bounds of what she could and could not say. Ha dthe school not set these boundaries and made abundantly clear that she shouldn't have said what she did in advance, or had she been punished in any way greater than having her mic cut off, I'd likely be siding with her.
But, we're not talking about an individual spreading pamphlets in a park, speaking out at an open forum, or even speaking in a similar situation where the school held a completely neutral position and didn't guide the speech content in any ways. She knew the rules, she broke them. Her first amendment rights were no more broken than anyone else who may have wanted to comment on something and didn't get to in that venue. If the school had restricted people from making political comments about the war, either way, they'd be right to cut the mics on that to, so long as they made it clear in advance. Her speaking at this event and her being granted the podium to speak was a privledge, not a right, and form one Christian to another such action and then crying false persecution after the fact only makes you and Our Lord look bad.
Posted by: Michael | August 14, 2006 at 12:03 AM
There seems to be a lot of confusion here about what the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Founding Fathers say about our rights. I suggest that before anyone states anything about our rights as Americans, they should go to the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Founding Fathers.
What happened to being informed on the facts before commenting?
It would solve a lot of the chaos if more people were informed about our nation's history.
Posted by: concerned citizen | August 15, 2006 at 12:51 PM
I am more than sure that Concerned Citizen read the part where any lawyer was forbidden to hold any public office; elected or appointed. Part of the original constitution, and meant that the 'spirit' of law had more meaning than the 'letter' of the law.
However, after Abe Lincoln was elected, the public office became a haven for lawyers, and we have what we have now, only because we let the knaves in, in the first place, and not everyone pays dearly.
Why no one can even run or hold office in many jurisdictions now unless they area a lawyer, and it is why a criminal runs free, and the victims have no rights
Posted by: Charlie | August 15, 2006 at 01:15 PM
I read the entire Constitution, memorized the Bill if Rights, and the Declaration. But I don't remeber that reading that part of the Constitution. Could you please state in what section of the Constitution that was, Charlie?
"However, after Abe Lincoln was elected, the public office became a haven for lawyers, and we have what we have now, only because we let the knaves in, in the first place, and not everyone pays dearly.
"Why no one can even run or hold office in many jurisdictions now unless they area a lawyer, and it is why a criminal runs free, and the victims have no rights"
Speaking of lawyers holding office, Thomas Jefferson, the third President, was a lawyer. So lawyers holding office goes back to at least 80 years before Abe Lincoln.
Before I end this post, I must point out that you made a sweeping generalization of lawyers. I know many lawyers who are honest and upright citizens who do their job well, working for the victim, securing the victim's right to get a just ruling in the court of law.
Can you clarify for me what you meant when you wrote, "...the part where any lawyer was forbidden to hold any public office; elected or appointed. Part of the original constitution, and meant that the 'spirit' of law had more meaning than the 'letter' of the law." And while you're at it, can you define for me what you mean be "spirit" and "letter" of the law?
Thanks for your comment, and I would really enjoy researching what you said in your post.
I just want to encourage everyone to be informed on all facets of Miss McComb's case, both sides of the issue, because this is a multi-faceted issue that will establish what the next generations will think and do on similar issues if this case ever reaches the US Supreme Court (probably it will still have a lasting impact even if it doesn't, though). I, for one, do not want ignorance of the different sides to decide this issue within the media. Media is an important tool that molds our society. Ignorance within the media of all the different sides results in bias that will have ill consequences that will be lasting till the tide is reversed.
Posted by: concerned citizen | August 15, 2006 at 03:39 PM
The responses here seem to have taken a nasty turn of Christians vs. liberals. This, to me, has become more of the real issue rather than First Amendment rights or free speech issues.
It is disappointing to see that so many of you draw the line down the middle and choose one side over the other. To think that you should do this is to destroy the concept of American democracy. Christianity is a religion; liberalism/leftism is a political ideology. In the United States, you can be one, both or neither, and the government can't tell you to be otherwise. You don't have to choose a "side," because you are free to practice what you believe.
Loretta said, "We wonder why the world is in such a BAD CONDITION, It's because we are becomong a nation of ATHIEST'S!!!!!!"
Besides the terrible spelling of atheists, it's insulting to me that she equates atheism with the terrible condition of the world. There are plenty of atheists who are good, moral upstanding citizens. And I promise, there are plenty of atheists who are conservatives too (though probably for economic reasons).
The problems of our world, Loretta, do not stem from atheists or liberals. Nor do they stem from Christians. They stem from our growing resistance to the acceptance and respect of other people, other religions and other ideologies.
I applaud the those of you who are making concerted efforts to provide thoughtful insights (on both sides!) and using McComb's case as a stepping stool to discuss important issues regarding free speech and religion (not homosexuality or evolution or abortion, as Angela posted earlier). For those who still think it's an us versus them issue, or those who want to rant about how they hate the ACLU or how they hate Christians, please grow up.
Posted by: Realist | August 15, 2006 at 08:30 PM
"The problems of our world, Loretta, do not stem from atheists or liberals. Nor do they stem from Christians. They stem from our growing resistance to the acceptance and respect of other people, other religions and other ideologies."
Realist, I couldn't agree more. The problem lies deep within each of us. In response to a newspaper editor asking the readers what was wrong with the world, British author, G.K. Chesterton wrote, "Dear Sir, I am." Each person has a bias, a pet prejudice. We need to overcome those things, and learn to have an intelligent discussion without all the us versus them or Christians versus liberals.
We do need to respect each others' views. All this ranting and raving does not help. It only makes things worse between the different interest groups.
Posted by: concerned citizen | August 16, 2006 at 07:03 AM
i think brittany has the right to talk about god and jesus christ in her speech. i think its a good thing. All of the speakers at my graduation talked about god at one point in the speech. no one had a problem with it at all. the government should look at this and redefine the first amendment of freedom of speech. she is thanking somebody for getting her through high school. just like someone would thank their parents.
Posted by: Nathan K | August 22, 2006 at 02:01 PM
I think Brittany should have been able to finish her speech. The first amendment is freedom of speech. Who knows if she will win the case but the point is she stood up for what she believes in and that is christ. She should have not been cut off for what she believes in. Everyone has their beliefs from aportion to gays to war in iraq. It is freedom of speech.
Posted by: Melanie Lawson | August 22, 2006 at 08:53 PM
I posted on August 7, and came back to see where the discussion had gone. All I can say is, "WOW!"
That's for the absolutists (on both sides of the question) who are *certain* of the outcome of this case. The point I tried to make is that it really *isn't* all that certain, regardless of your point of view. Case law over the last couple hundred years makes it rather complex. Heck, read the 16 simple words at issue:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Moving forward, we'll be hearing a lot more about case law than the above words. Regardless of how strongly we hold our personal opinions, there are just nine people on the planet who can decide the issue now -- and I didn't see any of them weighing in here.
I was also disappointed by the number of people ranting over Brittany McComb's personal ethics. I read the interview, and it seemed pretty clear that any promise Ms. McComb made to school administration was the result of feeling intimidated. The author already commented on that (as well as on the unanswered efforts by the family *prior* to graduation), and he was clearly in a better position than any of us to make that judgment. That includes the teacher who chose to personally blast Ms. McComb in the local paper. Having a personal opinion is one thing; accusing a student of an ethical violation (when it was pretty clearly the other way around) is something else again.
Ultimately, it seems to me a valedictorian *should* be proselytizing in the true sense of the word -- pointing to themselves as a personal example to others about what it took for them to succeed; what internal motivations they had, and what external forces had an impact on them at the end of the day, so that story might make a difference in the lives of other students.
For some, the story might be about supportive parents. Others might say they were successful because they were motivated by teachers to get ahead. That would be their personal testimony wouldn't it? Ms. McComb tells us her mentor was Jesus.
Avoiding that or arguing it into the ground ignores Ms. McComb's personal formula for success. Had she said her mentor was Deepak Chopra, and the practice of meditation made the difference, would this have ever made the news? Would so many have reacted so angrily? Or would we just have seen a few "right on" and "hogwash" comments -- and would it have really been any big deal?
Rather than reacting in distaste, disgust or fear of Ms. McComb trampling on our rights, let's rejoice that we live in a country where people can follow any recipe they choose -- and that there will never be anyone there to force you to follow the path that Ms. McComb chose to follow. You can march to the beat of any drummer out there if that works for you. There are enough places in this world where you simply don't have that freedom.
If we can't be big enough to do that; to understand and accept a variety of opinions and ideas (even those with which we fervently disagree), we might as well skip the graduation altogether. Just pop those diplomas into the mailbox.
In the meantime, I say "right on" Brittany, and thanks for stirring up the pot.
Posted by: David McKnight | August 24, 2006 at 04:05 PM
Learn to be offended.
It is time to learn to be offended and deal with it. Being offended is not all that BAD. So you are offended SO WHAT>. be offended. write an article opposing what you hear. but when we start banning speach or prayer or whatever soon we are going to have to ban EVERYTHING and there will be nothing to ban.
The real point is that truthful things are always offensive. The longer you live the more you will see that people that speak truth to you are hard to listen to, offensive even.
STOP BANNING and start just dealing with it people.
thank you
Posted by: Kent J | August 25, 2006 at 12:44 PM
The U.S. Constitution says absolutely nothing about total separation of Churh and State (Read it aloud to me!)Everyone has been duped into accepting that by the infamous ACLU. The Amendment VERY CLEARLY addresses one, and only one issue in this regard, and that is of Congress enacting a law that would establish a national religion, and these "free speech" issues and "freedom of religious expression" issues are absolutely fabricated. Congress, nor passage of ANY law is involved in these cases! Read it again for yourself instead of accepting the ACLU version!!!!!
Posted by: Wayne Starnes, M. D. | January 15, 2007 at 05:29 AM
This young lady was NOT giving a sermon. She simply wanted to talk about how she got to where she is. Why in the world would that offend anyone?! An outcry against her citing someone as having motivated and encouraging is absurd. Would there be a problem if one were to cite and identify their father or mother, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luthor King, their 3rd grade teacher, a bout with some terminal disease, a tree outside their childhood home, ... anything!?! The point, (and perhaps more accurately) the observation is that credit may be given to any"thing" except her Jesus. The young lady was not presenting her faith as one that should be embraced by all (though it might be what she feels, otherwise why would she adhere to it - as is her right beleive) , she was not saying that. She, as would any human being would have the right to do so, credited her strength and accomplisments to whom she beleived deserved it.
Regarding faith, however, all of us practice one. Whether or not we admit it is something else. Even a faith in science is still faith, for it teaches the existence of great unknowns. And what has been "scientifically" accepted and believed in by one generation often gets disproven or discredited by the next - ask Albert Einstein, Gallileo, Isaac Newton or Chistopher Columbus. We all attribute a "trust" to something and then, thereby exercise faith. Our reasons for embracing one faith over another are our own, but to get angry for somone citing in any forum what they beleive to be their own motivational force is shameful and unjust. Keep in mind, SHE was asked to speak, not me, not you, not anyone else. "She" was sought to share "her" opinion and perspective. Perhaps there would not have been such an uproar had she cited her 3rd grade teacher as being that motivational force, it wouldn't have been the truth, but for some, the lie tastes better. Is that where we are now, editing the opinions and thoughts of others to suit our own? And by the way, science has yet to disprove the existence or the historical integrity of the young lady's Jesus. She cited someone who has historically been regarded as a person of great character.
Posted by: Kathy | September 08, 2007 at 08:21 PM