U.S. War on Christians: High school student barred from mentioning Jesus in graduation speech

Brooks Hamby (courtesy of Brooks Hamby)

Liberal progressives like to say there is a “War on Women” but there is a real war in America the Left is waging which is a “War on Christians” and the Judeo-Christian faith heritage of America.

Many fall upon the phrase “separation of church and state,” yet they cannot refer to that premise as established in any of our founding documents; the Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution. It’s not even mentioned in the Federalist Papers, which formed the philosophical basis for our Constitutional Republic.

The concept of separation of church and state was presented in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention. It advocated that we should not have in America a head of state who was also the head of the church, ala King Henry VIII of England. The letter also advanced the first amendment right of freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof, but not the establishment of a national religion.

However, over time, due to our collective lack of knowledge, liberal progressive socialists have used “separation of church and state” to separate America from its faith heritage in their march towards creation of a secular humanist state. And as sheep being led to the slaughter, we Christians have allowed them to have success, legally and culturally.

And here is the latest example of such insanity by the Left, coming from Brawley California, a town I happened to visit in May during the Kyle Petty Charity Ride Across America.

According to Fox News, the Brawley Union School District said the references to Jesus and prayer in student Brooks Hamby’s graduation speech were “inappropriate” and violated “prevailing legal standards.” School officials rejected three versions of the young man’s graduation address, and one administrator went so far as to redact every religious reference with a black marker – as if it were some sort of top-secret government document.

The response from the school district read, “The first and second draft speeches proposed oppose government case law and are a violation of the Constitution. The district is advising you that reference to religious content is inappropriate and that the two drafts provided will not be allowed.”

You mean to tell me that this young man doesn’t possess the first amendment right to his “free exercise of religion?” So how long before we will be told you cannot speak of God and Jesus Christ in the public square? How did these individuals find this young man in violation of our Constitution?

Let me expose the hypocrisy of liberal progressives. Young Brooks Hamby, an American, is in violation of our Constitution — but young people here illegally are perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, they are “dreamers.” What is happening in America?

So the 18-year-old Christian, who is Stanford University bound, did what any red-blooded, Constitution-loving American would do – he defied school officials and thanked God anyway. “I didn’t want to compromise my faith,” Brooks said. “I wasn’t interested in removing every trace of God or Jesus. I wasn’t interested in conforming to those demands. I did not want to compromise my values. I didn’t want to water down the message.”

The first draft of his speech was written in the form of a prayer. “Heavenly Father, in all times, let us always be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven us.” Brooks was called to the front office, where he was advised by a counselor that the speech had been rejected. So he began writing a second draft that he turned in later that day. That draft referenced the school’s censorship of his original speech. “Certain interpretations of the law, school policies and conditions have stifled my ability to speak freely to you this evening and prohibited me from doing otherwise,” he wrote. “However, if I could pray with you this evening, I would say something along these lines.”

Last Thursday morning, just hours before graduation, Brooks and his parents were summoned to a meeting with the principal. The Hambys were given a notice from the district advising them that if their son “interjects religious content, the sound will be cut off, and a disclaimer to the entire audience must be made explaining the district’s position.” The District Superintendent rejected Brooks’ third draft, time was running down — and so what did the young man do? Here are his words:

“In simply coming before you today, I presented three drafts of my speech – all of them denied on account of my desire to share my personal thoughts and inspiration to you in my Christian faith,” he told his fellow graduates in the fourth version of his speech. “In life, you will be told no. In life, you will be asked to do things that you have no desire to do. In life, you will be asked to do things that violate your conscience and your desire to do what is right.” “May the God of the Bible bless each and every one of you every day in the rest of your lives,” he said.

Brooks Hamby exemplifies that which is great about America — and Americans — principled defiance. In a day when his faith was challenged, he stood. Brooks set an example for others to follow. The question is, will you? Or will you allow the intimidation and coercion of liberal progressives to rule the day, as opposed to the liberty and freedom granted to us by the rule of law?


  1. Well done young man! Be an example and leader to your generation. May God be with you and bless you in your future.

  2. Kudos to Brooks and to you, Col. West, for bringing his story into the light. The muslims in this country are allowed multiple prayer breaks throughout the day, yet we’re not allowed to mention our Lord. Pitiful.

  3. How sad we, as a country, have become. We have let the left take us so far…it is time to fight back, as this young man has. Had he wanted to discuss gay pride, or transgender rights, I’m sure the show would have gone on, no editing required. Our educators, for the most part, have drunk the kool-aid of the left, and are trying to teach our children the same idiocy…I, on the other hand, have taught my son to not heed the cry of the left but to think for himself and form his own opinion based upon right and wrong, not political correctness. Parochial school has also taught him to love God, as he would love himself….well done Brooks Hamby….

    • I know, I feel your pain. I haven’t been happy with America since the commies let the blacks and women start voting. And when the commies stopped the cops from beating the gays.

  4. Unf( )cking believable how rapidly this is happening thanks to the last 6 years of an out of control anti-Christian, anti-America, anti-white, communist administration. Hope and change my ass. America the beautiful, so full of ignorant sheep.

      • Care to explain you logic on how “unf( )cking belivable” is anti-Christian? Because I got to hear how you will try to prove your point!

      • Colossians 3:8 – But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

        Matthew 15:10-11 – And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

        Psalm 109:17 – He loved to curse; let curses come upon him! He did not delight in blessing; may it be far from him!

        Titus 2:6-8 – Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.

  5. He is probably the smartest person in his graduating class and a standout student. That is likely why they chose him to give the speech in the first place. They probably were unaware of his faith in God until now. Apparently the godless educaters were unable to destroy it. Praise the LORD!

  6. “So how long before we will be told you cannot speak of God and Jesus Christ in the public square?”

    I’d say you would need a time machine to look ahead to that time. It just happened. To him! A platform in front of a bunch of students, is by all accounts, the public square. They just have the willingness to play Gestapo on students and not on adults.

  7. I don’t necessarily subscribe to the complete ideologies of the Christian faith – although I was brought up to believe spent my youth heavily involved in the Methodist church. However, even though I don’t completely believe in every thing this young man believes in, I have to wonder, were there any “Christians” in authority or on the school board? And, if so, why did they not speak up?

    I have a very clear view on this – that it was HIS God-given right to speak what was on his mind. I don’t have to agree with it. What I, and his classmates and the leadership of his school MUST do is give him the respect he is due as a high-ranking graduate who worked hard to earn the right to speak at the graduation ceremony.

    We are on a very slippery slope here and we are sliding downward daily as these types of stories are making their way into the public eye. If YOU do not want to hear or read “Christian” messages, it is YOUR right to disassociate yourself from the event/material. It is not rocket science. Do not go to the event, do not read what you do not like, do not listen to that you disdain. NO one is forcing you or any other person to become something you are not.

    However, the school administration WAS/IS trying to force this young man to be/act as someone other than himself. They are wrong. It’s just that simple. They are wrong.

    In this age of PC’ism, there is no one that will not be offended at some point in time, somewhere. I am highly offended by those who find everything offensive. Or those who feel they must strip others of their rights to FREE speech. That, to me, is the crux of the matter – the right to FREE speech. Once it’s gone, people, we will never get it back. And, for those of you that feel that he should have been sanctioned, beware, this stripping of freedoms will come to you in due time. Only then will you step up and realize what you’ve lost.

  8. It’s everybody’s constitutional right to be a LGBTQ and no one can say, do, deny them anything they want. But to mention being a christian is forbidden. This is just sick! I believe in the bible as probably 95% of the people that would hear this kids speech.

  9. It is true, Christians are under siege like never before. But the Bible tell us it must be so. There will come a time, in the not so distant future that Christians will be prosecuted, jailed and even killed for their beliefs, right here, in this country. The Bible tells us to be prepared for this. So, as a Christian, I am fully willing to die for my beliefs and my God. My rewards for upholding my faith will be far greater than anything this world can offer.

  10. This is unbelievable. I’m atheist. The Constitution says nothing about not allowing a citizen to thank God in a school speech. I would have no problem with his speech and even applaud in his faith! Separation of church and state has nothing to do with a freaking speech. America was created on Christian values which so many refuse to acknowledge. He was speaking as a person in his class, and not as a rep. of his school. Liberal censorship at its finest.

    • Thank you, there are many atheists who also agree, but then we get the very few who want to destroy any mention of God in everything we do. And those are the ones who are the loudest and all the progressives fear…

  11. Sounds like a bright lad trying to share a kind word – regardless of his faith- what threat is there in that?

    Mindless, knee-jerk progressives.

    To bludgeon this young man’s rights by misinterpreting the very document that guarantees those rights is utterly reprehensible.
    and BTW – if I were to step foot in a church, it would probably collapse – so no bias here.

  12. The problems may be because of ALL religions, the school has no space to allow ALL to make speeches about their beliefs. This makes it tough to be fair. I certainly would not enjoy a speech about Hindu or Buddism !

    • Why not? If the student who earned the right to give a speech to his or her fellow students happened to be Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim, I would be happy to hear how their faith influenced them to work hard and earn that designation. Actually it doesn’t make any difference whether I (or you or anyone else) would be happy, because that is the very definition of “free exercise” of religion.

      • Kelsey, you have the same ideals that I do, but you know damn well that if a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim was allowed to introduce their faith into a high school graduation speech, the same people PRAISING this kid would be BASHING the Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim for excersizing their right. Especially in case of Islam (looking at you, Allen West).

      • Oh, I know. And the ones who tried to restrict/bash this student would be praising the Muslim student.

        Just because it’s true, doesn’t make it right.

    • George: This young man EARNED the right to speak in front of his classmates. Had an Indian born-Hindu EARNED that right and he chose to include his Hindu Gods/Goddesses and thank them for his achievements, we would be just as “obligated” to listen to those words as well. There is no “fair” in WHO earns that right – it is the individual who worked for the grades and became the top student.

      I personally would have no problem listening to someone give a speech thanking Vishnu or Buddha for his/her accomplishments. I simply would choose to ignore those parts with which I do not identify. I would, however, be respectful of the young person’s faith and sincere belief in that faith and would strive to give him the courtesy of being tolerant of his culture.

      Unfortunately, the administration of this school does not believe in tolerance or the dignity with which this young man chose to make his address. As for being “fair,” as I mentioned, there is no need to “make it fair” for all…. this was an earned position.

      • IN matters of region, I have often equated faith to ice cream.
        Some folks like vanilla, other chocolate, and yet some strawberry. No matter what flavor suits your tastes, who doesn’t get a little smile; enjoy life a little more when having a scoop or 2 on a hot summer’s day?
        So lets all relax, enjoy the day, and listen for the Ice Cream Man coming down the street. – I’m buying!

      • Then there are the people with the ice cream truck coming down the street at all. Those are the ones I really take issue with.

  13. I commend the student for taking a public stand, but I think he should’ve gone even further. Buying a battery-powered microphone so they couldn’t cut him off would’ve been a great idea.

      • Well you can write but do not have a reading comprehension level above 1st grade. He says “Liberal progressives like to say there is a “War on Women” ” nowhere does he imply that the “WoW” relates to the rest of the article, the implication is that the “WoW” is mythical and a silly construct of nental defective progressives.

      • Much like the “WoC” is a sily construct of neo-conservatives attempting to fear monger their way into the presidency. People who truly believe that there’s a war on christianity and will run on that platform are killing themselves, because sane people that actually have smart, fiscally responsible republican ideals on how to get this country out of debt will never vote for a lunatic like Allen West.

      • “nowhere does he imply that the “WoW” relates to the rest of the article”

        So, I guess my original point was, Why did he write it?

      • Yes I do read, do you have a point? Maybe all you have is mockery? Let me guess, you’re a liberal, right?

      • I’m a moderate who doesn’t care for either american political ideology. “Col. West is trying to make the point that liberals make inaccurate remarks”. And conservatives don’t make inaccurate remarks?

      • Joe, I’m not blind. I’m typing and reading on the internet right now. You asked if you could clear it up for me. Why don’t you show me how there is a war on Christians in America? Can I not practice Christianity anymore? Will I be beaten or thrown in jail for practicing Christianity in America? I think you know the answer to that.

      • Obviously you’re not paying attention if you don’t know how there is a war on Christianity. 0bamacare is just one example and Col West just gave you an example and I have read other instances where a school tried to censor a Christian valedictorian. Just about a month ago a kids had their Bible taken from them by a teacher claiming they didn’t have the right to read the Bible in school. There is the short list, there are many more examples, you just have to pay attention, you are not, obviously.

      • Joe, if you think a liberal small public school in California constitutes a nationwide “War on Christians”, it’s you that is blind. I’ve reiterated this plenty of times, but the Republicans will continue to fail unless they drop these social agendas and start focusing on the largest problem for Americans today: Our $17 trillion debt that will send us into poverty unless we cut the fat from our government and military.

      • well, the first sentence says, “Liberal progressives like to say there is a “War on Women”” But he then fails to provide any soft of discussion of whether or not there is any sort of war on women. It’s just a nonsense sentence intended to rile up the reader. They call it an attention getter in 6th grade English class.

      • Well you see, it’s like this. Col. West is trying to make the point that liberals make inaccurate remarks. Guess that went over your head?

      • Hi Jan. I’m having a tough time understanding your statement/question. Could you explain further?

      • Really. It is evident that the statement says that there is no such thing as a War on Women but there truly is a War on Christians.
        I agree.

      • Quite simply because he isn’t writing about the non-existent War on Women he is writing about the factual War on Christians.
        Stick to the topic on hand!

      • The point is that West should stick to the “topic at hand” instead of riling you social ultra-conservatives up with “nothing”.

      • and yet… you are on HIS website why? liberal phelgmwad!!
        BTW… there is a war on Christianity that for the record liberal secularists will NOT win.

      • The “war on Christians” in America is a joke. You are free to practice whatever religion you want in this country.

      • That’s your retort? There is NO WAR on Christianity or religion in this country. You and I are both free to practice our religion, because there is no established religion in America.

      • Here let me respond to you again so you can get paid by whatever organization that is paying you to post on sites like this.

      • What makes you think I’m getting paid to post? My day of actual work is complete, and I’m commenting on the internet, because I’m my right as an American!

    • I think you should reread…LtCol West (the next AMERICAN President) stated there is NO war on women, that it is a war on CHRISTIANS.

    • The only war on women is the left’s continual gun grab keeping us unable to defend ourselves or the open borders philosophy which makes it impossible to get a job or the abortion industry that encourages us to kill our babies when they are not convenient thus creating guilt.

  14. I believe in the God of the Bible and I believe in Jesus Christ His Son. I have the right to believe and to speak and live out this belief and will do so…Because of these facts
    First Jesus Christ gave His life for me,
    Second..many soldiers down though the years who have given their life for me to have this freedom
    Thirdly because God said so.
    Just because someone says I cannot does not mean I will not!

    • Then you must also agree that a Muslim has the same right, because of these facts:

      First ~ Muhammad is the true last prophet sent from God
      Second ~ Many soldiers down though the years have given their life for me to have this freedom
      Thirdly ~ because God said so.

      • Like i have asked on your other posts. Name one time muslims have been persecuted for their beliefs. Oh want to talk about the laws they have broken? Yeah that is not treading on their rights of their beliefs. Moron.

      • SO if we speak of the rights of citizens of the USA….All citizens are given the rights granted by the US Constitution. Period. Can we agree on that?

      • Yes. All citizens of the United States of America have the unalienable rights given in the constitution.

      • Good we agree on that. So if a person is a citizen, then he/she has the right according to the Constitution of freedom of religion. I think the line gets blurred when we insert the word God, because different religions have different
        Gods. From my studies, I believe the founders/writers of the Constitution were writing from a Christian perspective. So
        the God in the Constitution is not the same as Allah. Do you agree or disagree?
        Perspective makes all the difference. Many gods are worshiped in many religions worldwide, so I guess the argument becomes, would Muslims die for the principles of the Constitution if it is based on Christian principles?

      • You missed one simple premise – this society was founded on Judeo-Christian principles not Muslim principles. And while we open our doors to people of all walks to come and partake – the invitation is not for outsiders to come and change us. But rather, if you like what we are about then come and be a part of it. That should be fundamentally basic to ANYONE!

      • That seems to be the problem. People come here from other countries with ideas and beliefs contrary to the Constitution and expect it to be changed to suit them..

      • “the invitation is not for outsiders to come and change us”. Tell that to the Native Americans. This society was formed on Lockean principles, which combined many religious, philosophical, and political principles.

      • How that Christian worded that was very contradictory, but the difference is can the religion of islam assimilate peacefully into society? The answere is no since they have showed and voiced openly time and time again that not only is it not possible, but they just simply will not. The closest display of non peaceful “Christianity” you will see are those Westboro Baptist weirdos picketing at funerals and such. They look like peaceful lambs compared to the gruesome crimes against humanity that islam commits on a daily basis.

      • You should google a few gruesome crimes against humanity committed by Christians throughout the course of history.

      • You can’t be serious. Why don’t you Google them yourself, and then reply with one that occurred in the last century. You can read the newspapers on a daily basis to find the atrocities that Muslims commit today. There are over 100 wars or conflicts going on in the world right now, and almost everyone of them has The peaceful religion of Islam on one side.

      • Do the countries of Northern Ireland, India, CAR, Lebanon, Norway, Romania, Uganda, and the United States ring a bell? Because terrorism in the name of “Christianity” has occured in all of them in the last century.

      • The study of history is very informative, but we live in “today.” While not excusing those weirdos, today’s gruesome crimes are committed by islam

      • So the “weirdo” Christian factions in Northern Ireland, India, CAR, Lebanon, Norway, Romania, Uganda, and the United States that killed thousands of people in the name of Christianity in the past century did not commit gruesome, violent crimes?

      • Please exclude the U.S. Roman Catholics, specifically Rome. Look up their history and the inquisitions till Luther and the reformation. Please do and get it right before spouting ignorance. Please name specifics, time ,events as such?

      • You should google yourself what muslims have commited over the centuries. Your sheep, plain and simple.

      • You should google yourself. Tell us all about those peaceful missions that muslims have done. Oh wait, there is nothing on peace, only death and sharia.

      • Actually It is Catholic history. Rome found it a crime for common people to read the bible. Burned many evangelicals for heresy till luther and the reformation. Roman Catholics are what was referred to as Christians till then. True Christians were considered witches and such. Look up history and the inquisitions. Terrible stuff.

      • I’m aware of the inquisitions, and it was still in the name of Christianity, regardless of which sect of Christianity. I’ve forgiven them for those atrocities, but for people to act like christians have never comitted inconceivable acts of violance is absurd to me. In the past century, there were numerous “Christian” terrorist factions in places like Northern Ireland, India, Lebanon, Norway, Romania, Uganda, and the United States.

      • Please tell me what book,chapter, and verse in the King James Bible I can find that Muhammad was the true last prophet sent from God.I have never seen a prophet named Muhammad in any of the bibles I read. I would like to see it.

      • From the beginning America and Christianity have been intertwined. The founding fathers never entertained the thought that we would have to embrace, in our system of government, all religions. What they meant, was that our government would not advocate one particular religion. It was meant for all people to be able to worship God in any way that they wished, not that our government would endorse any other religion other than the Judeo-Christian philosophy

      • See my comment below. The founding fathers supported Lockean philosophy, which is evident throughout the constitutoin and declaration of independence.

      • Then show us where muslims have been denied their right of free expression of their so called religion. I will be waiting anxiously your answer(not).

      • Not 1 muslim EVER died to give freedom of religion to any person in the USA. Period. End of discussion.

      • Because of their own very words in saying there is no religion, no god above allah. Also not of that which described them is worth capitalization. So do not even go there on that either. You argue like a child by the way.

      • I’m not arguing with anyone. My question asked how he knew that not one Muslim in the US Military has died for our freedoms. If you’ll recall, the Christian God also says that there will be no other God before him as well.

      • I should ask you if you are considering Islam a religion only? That will help me in our discussion.

      • Islam is a religion, yes. It’s one of the major monotheistic religions in the world, and stems from Abraham alongside Judaism (and ultimately, Christianity).

      • It is not, it is a set of laws that advocate murder of non-believers and raping of children.

      • That actually isn’t true. That’s like saying the Westboro baptist church is the quintessence of Christianity.

      • History and from their own admittance….no muslim would die to give a Christian or any other non-muslim religious rights or anything else for that matter. It is in their own holy book that they are to convert or kill the infidel (non-believer/non-muslim),
        not give them rights.

      • Oh really. Can you prove its the dumbest thing posted or said?
        Can you say truthfully that muslims would die to give freedom of religion to any person in the US?

      • Well, no. No I can’t prove that it’s the dumbest thing ever posted or said. I can only comment on posts that I have seen. So, like I said, This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen anyone post.

      • How? They fight for allah and the murdering of anyone who doesn’t believe in their pedophile.

      • Dumb? please look to our history fighting the Muslims in our fledgling years. Marines were formed to fight them at sea. They been at us for a long time. Leathernecks to protect them from attempted beheading during combat. and their song “to the shores of Tripoli”. Please, yes, don’t be so uninformed of history.

      • What are you talking about? he’s not saying we have or haven’t fought Muslims. He’s saying that not one Muslim has ever died to give freedoms to people in the USA.

        There have been Muslims that have been citizens of the USA for a very long time. Many of which fought and died in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other wars to protect and defend those very rights.

      • Show me one time where the ACLU has filed suit against a muslim to stop him from praying publicly, or to stop him from carrying the koran, or from speaking the name of allah in a public place – just one… because I can site numerous instances that the ACLU HAS filed suit against Christians for carrying their bible in school, praying in public, playing christian music on a car radio where non believers could hear it, and speaking the name of Jesus in public…
        Now tell me there is not a war on Christianity in the “progressive” left’s agenda!

      • Islam is not a religion but a set of laws set by a baby raping pedophile. They advocate the killing of anyone who disagrees, muslims are a plague that needs to be exterminated.

  15. There is NO war on Christians in this country. Mr. Hamby has the perfect right to attest to his religious beliefs in the proper venues, of which a high-school graduation is not one. The reason being that it is a government venue, and the First Amendment to the Constitution (note: CONSTITUTION) states that the government shall not favor one creed over another (I’m paraphrasing). Christians would be up in arms if a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist prayed to their gods during a graduation speech. So, fair is fair. Better to have no religious references than ones that offend you. Mr. Hamby can go to church and give a guest sermon and say everything he wants to say, and his congregation will be pleased. That would be a much better solution.

    • Don’t forget it was mostly Christians, that put together that document call the constitution. And Christians fought through the 2 centuries, so people like you wouldn’t be burned at the stake.. Can’t say that for Muslims and Hindus..

      • So, there has never been a Muslim or Hindu or (God forbid) Atheist that has died for your freedom?

      • Can’t say they haven’t. However, I can say Muslims have killed a lot of Christians around the world during the past couple of decades.

      • Atheists I’ll grant that. Hindu I don’t know any. Muslims were our 1st foreign enemies, since independence. And Islam is totally in contradiction with our constitution. Where was Islime in 1812, Mexican war, the civil war,? Where were Muslims in Spanish American war, WW-1 and WW-2? They supported our enemies. And the civil rights struggle? NADA…. And I did said MOSTLY Christians..

      • Do you know where the term leathernecks came from? The same place and time frame the Marine hymn was formed. “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli” Muslims attempting to behead our marines in the early years of our fledgling republic put leather around their necks for protection.

      • Your point is backward. To counter Triangle’s assertion, you’d need to show that Americans are in Muslim / Hindu armies, fighting for the cause of freedom. We welcome them and hope for freedom for all mankind – it’s spelled out in our founding documents. Historically, not so much the other way around.

      • That would be a great statistic to research. To find out if any service member in any branch of the US military over the last 238 years of US history died in a conflict or war that was expressly for the rights and freedom of US citizens, was of Islamic or other religion besides Christian? (hopefully I worded that so it makes sense?)

    • No, incorrect, and backward. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Your paraphrasing is totally inconsistent with facts. The Declaration of Independence states we are made in God’s image and draw our rights from God alone. Further, you assume people would be offended, but offer no evidence.

      Better to have no religious references? No, not in the least! Also, completely backward from facts and history. Religion defines you down to your very core. If you stuff it into a corner, you might as well stop being your race, or hide your accent, I could go on.

    • Nana- The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech… The best solution would be to allow freedom of speech and allow the young man to freely express his heart felt feelings EVEN when it includes his faith in God. It does not appear that he considers himself the “government” nor is he establishing a religion as the official hand of the government. If you think there is no bias against Christian thought you’re not paying attention.

      • The real trouble here is that if you don’t pay attention and you don’t stick up for your neighbors, it won’t be long till you yourself are on the receiving end.

        We think we’re so much better than the Nazis, don’t we? Weren’t they regular German citizens who did their patriotic duty? That kind of crap is why we even HAVE a Bill of Rights. Not to be reinterpreted as we go along.

    • If there is no attack on Christians and their God then why are you worried about what is said and where..and why are all of these comments being made just because I mentioned Jesus and God? you ma’am are attacking this young mans belief in God by stating he should not have the right to say what he wants where he wants.

    • Funny, Obama just had the father of the traitor Bergdahl give a muslim prayer at the white house, but then, when did a liberal ever worry about offending anyone?

      • For the record, I WAS offended due to the fact that it was at the White House and from behind our National seal with the American President standing by. (Which is way and gone beyond the kid’s prayer.)

        But, like you suggest, it’s OK to offend Christians I guess.

    • Perhaps in paraphrasing you got twisted up. You may wish to read the Constitution before opining. The First Amendment states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ Last time I checked, the Congress is in Washington, not Brawley, California. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits this young man from saying anything he wishes. If the school district opts to restrict what he says, it is because they want to abridge his free exercise of religion and his freedom of speech. Indeed, your position is very consistent with the Soviet position, which restricted all religious speech to government-registered churches. Now to really make your head explode, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prohibit Brawley, California, from establishing its own religion. Connecticut, for example, vestiges of the established church system – in that case involving the Congregational Church – remained well into the 1800s. Please don’t cite the U.S. Constitution when looking to shackle the American people and the freedom many of us fought to defend.

    • But the difference is that this is the only Truth in the whole existence…the difference is that the seed planted or watered from this will save their lives possibly!
      Life’s never been about what’s fair…what’s fair is for us to die not Jesus, is it fair to grab a little kid from running in the road and frighten them or maybe take a knife from them. They don’t understand the thing they want will kil them.
      It’s loving grace. Undeserved mercy.
      It doesn’t let me go back and edit so *kill/harm

      I don’t want equality with a lie from satan…I want Gods truth to shine bright like a City on a Hill!
      I say with all joy! <3

      • Doesn’t matter what YOU want; what matters is what the Constitution says. We are lucky enough to live in a country where you CAN worship and believe as you please — try going to Syria or Egypt or Nigeria, and see how far you get with your Christianity. THERE’S where there’s a war on Christianity!! Funny no one’s talking about THAT!

      • Apparently the DNC is establishing a DMZ for Christians and Jews (Muslims will get a hall pass though)

    • Wrong, wrong, SO wrong! You are CLEARLY not a Christian, if you were you wouldn’t sound so ignorant! Christians would accept ANY kid speaking about God, regardless of what his faith was.

      And regarding your interpretation on the Constitution, you clearly don’t understand the laws as they were written: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have never been restricted or relocated to private property or religious centers only!

      Perhaps you should visit the Supreme Court and see the words and symbols on the doors there! It might open your eyes.

    • Disagree! The SCOUS ruled that a student may express his religious preference in a speech. Doing so does not indicate the school nor government is promoting nor endorsing it! Can he not thank his teacher even if he feels it is God?

  16. I’m confused. Can graduates get up and leave their own graduation ceremony if they don’t want to be forced to hear prayers or religious speech that is against what they value themselves? Technically, I suppose. Would probably cause some issues, though. According to the 1995 Federal Guidelines For Religious Expression In Public Schools issued by Secretary of Education Richard Riley that’s been brought up in reference to this, “And the right of religious expression in school does not include the right to have a ‘captive audience’ listen, or to compel other students to participate”. I’d say that counts as a “captive audience”. It’s not because he’s a Christian. It’s because the students were being forced to listen to it.

    • What you are saying is that the religious law hear says you have to stay. It does not say that. You have the freedom to do as you wish just like this young man did. You are only held captive by your own will. Students are not held captive in any sense of the word here. They are obliged to leave and come back if they so feel the need to.

      • Just this past May, students in a graduation ceremony walked off as a protest of the speaker. They were not allowed to come back in. Yes, you can walk away, but then you have to miss the rest of the ceremony? That’s not indicative of a “captive audience”? I’m sure rules are different depending on where you are, though…

      • In that instance the school must have made that a requirement not to leave the ceremony That could have and should have been taken up with the school board. One must understand that the schools will make all kind of “rules” that do not abide by a students rights. The reason for this is that no one will challenge them. Nine times out of ten when a public institution such as a school gets challenged on rules that have infringed on a students rights, they have to back away because the law does not back them up. We see this consistently, more and more students today challenging the system respectfully and winning their challenge, Not because they are being rebellious but because they are standing firmly on their rights as American citizens who for now live in a free country with laws that protect their freedoms

      • Naomi, if you truly believe this, just keep moving oh, and say bbaaaaaa baaaaaa along the way.

    • I suppose graduates can leave their own ceremony if they don’t want to ‘be forced’ to listen. I’m 51 years old, and I remember when I was in elementary school and students in my class who didn’t believe in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance were allowed to wait outside the classroom door, if it was against their ‘religion’ to cite it. Looking back now, I’m guessing it was more a ‘silent’ protest. But I don’t recall ANYONE making snide comments, criticizing or harrassing these individuals for taking a stand for what THEY believed in. How things have changed, huh?

      • I am a very sweet person, thanks. The problem that I have with this is that nobody is going to tell me what to say and how to think. The kid just wanted to thank God for graduating. That’s his prerogative not some idiot school puppet. No body is ever gonna tell me what to say or not say. What’s next?…you cant wear this and you can’t eat that, you, my dear, can choose to live like a puppet, not me! You see to me that’s weakness, and weakness is not what this country is based on. But it’s people like you that are trying to make everybody entitled.

      • The problem is, this school is a public school. Therefore, the “”PUBLIC” gets to set the rules. You don’t like it? Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats who’ll keep the public education system going forever. Vote for candidates who want to end the travesty of big government education.

      • “public” education had nothing to do with it. My constitutional rights trump your political correctness.

      • Political corectness? Oh yes, saying we should abolish the public school system is all the rage with the PC crowd. Get a clue.

      • Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion. Period. The Constitution doesn’t say, “except when cowardly puking educators lack the fortitude to acknowledge real law and decide to circumvent this Amendment to suit their needs…”

      • So, would you be up in arms if a public school “censored” a students’s speech that said we should go out and kill children? Because I’m trying to figure out the lines you’ll inevitably draw on someone who has something to say that YOU don’t want to hear.

      • So you’re comparing a high school kid thanking God to someone advocating the murder of children?! That says a lot about your character and your focus in life right there!

      • That’s NOT what I’m saying at all. Learn to think critically and think in principles. Until you can do that, I’ll go back to debating my 6 year old – because he has better arguments than you.

      • Part of the principle of “freedom” for all means that we will sometimes be expected to endure things that we either don’t agree with or are offended by! Any Christian attending public school, who desires to receive a diploma, is expected to sit through (government sponsored) science classes that advocate evolution and billions of years as the “facts” of creation for many hours throughout the course of a public education. I find this offensive, but my choices were to either homeschool my children or recognize and accept they would be subjected to these alternative thoughts in daily lessons. Don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to them learning the “theories”, in fact I believe everyone should be well versed in all theories, but the presenting them as “fact” is very offensive when clearly there is faith involved in believing of evolution as well as that of Creationism. People need to get real, realize that freedom comes with choice which comes w/differences of opinion, and get over themselves! The student in question of this article was not advocating his listeners DO anything (such as in suggesting they “go out and kill children”). He was simply giving credit where he felt it was due and sharing his opinion of the reason for his successes…and he should have had EVERY right to do so!!

      • It’s a public school. They set standards for what can be be said and what can’t be said. There is no “right to free speech” in this case. Certainly (as I was TRYING to point out) it would be completely fine for the school to NOT ALLOW someone to give a talk about several subjects. And I’m sure if they didn’t allow someone to speak about sexual issues (which I’m sure most PUBLIC schools in Utah would not) you would have NO problem with that school’s decision. As well, they certainly have the right to stop someone from coming in off the street to talk and exercise their “free speech”. GET RID OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS !!! PROBLEM SOLVED !!!!! Also, “theory” used in scientific terms is not the same as “theory” used in general language terms. A “theory” in science doesn’t mean that it could be true or could be false.

      • There is no faith involved in evolution. Just thousands upon thousands of studies that support it.

      • There’s no comparison. It’s literally the exact same situation. A kid is giving a speech that is censored.

      • Nail… meet Mr. Hammer! WEAKNESS = KEY WORD HERE! COWARDS… that’s a more appropriate term though.

    • The operative words are “in school”. A graduation ceremony is not “in school” and no one is obligated to attend. You also cite a document issued by a Secretary of Education. He was not an elected official and this is not a law enacted by Congress. Also note that it is called “Guidelines” for a reason. Give me something that the Supreme Court has upheld.

      • The Supreme court has upheld that students freedom of speech does not end at the school gate! Nor his right to express his faith.

    • They can stick their fingers in their ears if they don’t want to hear, But the truth is there was no student complaint, about the speech, it was just the Administration being politically correct just in case there was somebody that would not be happy, Political correctness is going to be the ruin of our country, along with a complete lack of common sense.

    • How true, kids don’t know how to zone out. Move on. Get over it. etc. I mean foul language they hear and use every day is not an issue, but the worst word is God! Or I like my God. Adult teachers must protect them!

    • I suppose tat if the speech were about say, race, gender, Muslims, drugs etc. all would be OK but God is a foul topic. eh?

  17. In our Constitution you will never be able to find the words “separation of Church and State. The libs through our history have been trying to convince the people that it is there. Our founding fathers addressed God and Christ many times in speeches. If they can have done that, so can we.

  18. It is perfectly understandable that liberals don’t want to hear about Christ. It is offensive to their perverse sin lifestyles.

    • I agree w/ raycom4rt … do it! You will not regret giving your children a solid foundation free from all the dumbing down that occurs now in public schools, not to mention the undermining of the authority of the Scriptures! “Hath God said” was the original lie used by Satan in Genesis and the schools, via evolution, have been perpetuating that lie ever since their inception bc they were the brain child of humanistic thinkers…i.e. Dewey and the like. Do your homework first and see what you will be subjecting your children to in the public setting…at least in their earliest of years when establishing moral & spiritual thinking is crucial! Next/Now on the humanist/liberal agenda is gender neutralization and allowing transgender/cross-dressing males to use the female restrooms! Is any sensible, truly loving parent interested in the protection of their child really OK with that?!!!

  19. In Canada there is no real separation of church and state in our constitution so complainants have to rely on jurisdictional precedents to argue their case. However there is also no state church that is supported by tax payers.

      • Yes, I know. But there seems to a be a stronger perception of state-church separation although skeptics are said to misunderstand what the american constitution says.

      • Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  20. There is a simple fix to this never ending argument on who is right, who can say what in a school setting. First, DON’T just give the prepared speech to the principal. Once the Principal has read it and made sure it is appropriate they need to post it/hand it out so the rest of the student can read it. THEN put it up to a vote. If it wins, he reads it aloud at the ceremony. If it fails he needs to come up with a different speech…or don’t give the speech. True democracy works (even though our republic is broken). Simple. Easy to implement. Majority wins. If the speech offends you and the speaker wins the votes, you don’t have to show up. At least you have the option of knowing ahead of schedule what is going to be said so you can make an informed opinion ahead of time.

      • Free speech is a DEMOCRATIC process. ..it is NOT a natural born right. You are delusional if you believe otherwise. If I walk up to you with a gun and tell you to keep your mouth shut, you have two choices. . Shut up or die. But That is illegal in the United States. . Why? Because you are guaranteed that right by the Constitution. That right is not guaranteed in other countries. .. so where is your vaunted natural born right? It Is not a natural born right if it only exists because of some document that only exists in this country.

      • But I still have the choice to speak my mind no matter the consequences. And you might just be surprised who’s mouth gets shut if you pull a gun someone who carries their own. You are the one that is delusional if you think you need a document to tell it’s okay to voice your opinion.

  21. You see the problem is he wasn’t advocating for Scientology, Islam, Socialism, or some other Cult / radical extremist position. Christianity isn’t ‘popular’ amongst Democraps and thus is socially unacceptable, even though Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press and Freedom of Religion are guaranteed under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You see… dip-shit educators don’t follow actual “law” they follow what I like to refer to as “popular law” which isn’t actually “LAW” it’s what’s been made popular by the secular media. Thus… they waiver and cower like the cowards they are!

    • Of course not , it’s something that restricts their perverted sleaze bag ways. They want to teach everyone the wrong way is right, so they can run rampant without recourse.

  22. The more Democraps contest Free Speech for Christians and Jews, the more I’m grateful to be a Republican! You see, I know I’m a sinner but I also know that God doesn’t care. He loves those that make the effort to seek him out, regardless of your religion, your past or your upbringing. God has many names and I know that regardless of which one he likes to go by, that I stand with him when I see Muslims praying and I know they are praying to the same God. But that’s the problem… they don’t KNOW we are all praying to the same God and many Muslims (like MOST of those that hate on Christians and Jews) are full of fear and feel threatened by people that openly express their faith in a manner they don’t agree with. That’s not love, it’s not compassion, it’s not LAWFUL and it’s not how God intended things to be. So… Am I always right… no… but I know one thing, I am on the right side of God! Because I don’t hate or attempt to persecute others for their faith (or lack thereof)… it would appear these educators can’t say the same!

  23. Keep this in Mind: At the Democratic National Convention a few years back, they argued repeatedly over mentioning “GOD” at the DNC to such an extent, they had to take a vote 3 times before they could agree! That tells me ALL I NEED TO KNOW about their true character!

    • Isn’t it funny how short minded everyone is. Oh, the Democrats would like you all to forget. Keep bringing those topics back as elections are coming. Thank you!

    • Actually they never agreed. He (I think it was the mayor of LA) was ordered for political reasons to call it. I know, I saw it live. The dems booed louder w/each vote against to put God back in.

  24. Separation of CHURCH and STATE, does NOT mean separation of GOD and STATE!!!
    Bring back prayer in schools and the military!!!

  25. The school superintendent violated Hamby’s first amendment right to freely express his religion. BTW NO ONE is forced to listen to a graduation speech or even attend the ceremony. If an atheist or other non-Christian will have his day ruined by the on graduate thanking “God” for his achievement (1) he/she offends too easily and (2) he/she doesn’t have to watch it or listen to it.
    The Founders (including Jefferson) would turn in their graves if they knew what a perversion the left has made of the Bill of Rights.

  26. LOL! Today, most people are ignorant of the fact that until WWII, in most towns across the United States, public school was held in private churches. Separation of church and state? Well, for the first 300 years of this nation both were conducted in the same building in most, but not all, locales.

      • You’re right. We didn’t start going to school until after the Declaration of Independence. /scarc

      • He could have meant within the first 300, that is still an acceptable depiction of his point. No need to be a chode about grammar and word placements, we all mess up some times.

      • It seems to me that when Mrs. Clinton states that Lincoln was a former senator ( actually a state rep) and Mr. Obama mentioned the 57 states he had visited they get a pass. Let Vice Pres. Quayle uses the official correct spellings provided by the school for the spelling bee he was wide ridiculed the fool. Don’t even get me started on Vice Pres. Biden’s gaffes.

      • The statement is factually correct. The people of this nation were conducting school and religious services in the same buildings for many years before the country’s founding. But go ahead and nitpick, since you can’t refute the man’s (or woman’s) point.

        BTW – Lincoln was never a Senator. If you’re going to nitpick you should at least get your own facts right, or are you challenging Hillary for gaffe of the week? Or is it gaffe of the weak, considering your apparent lack of intellectual strength?

    • And, one of the first most widely used public school textbooks was the New England Primer. Look and see what it contains! Most of it’s words are taken directly from the Scriptures of THE Holy Bible! If the line of thinking espoused by liberals of today regarding “separation of church and state” was in any way the intent of our founding fathers, then how does this make any sense? Revisionist history is NOT true history and those who believe it w/o real knowledge of the facts are buying into a lie manufactured straight from hell!

  27. One thing more. The USA was founded by Christians. Only Christians would write a law that forbids religious discrimination after fighting a violent war to gain their own freedom. No Muslims would have written the First Amendment, and certainly no atheist or communist ever would have done so either.

    • What? Ya because athiests don’t believe in free speech. What a prejudice ignorant thing to say. You should ask God for forgvness

      • The First Amendment is more importantly about Freedom of Religion.
        Freedom of Speech allows you to speak to GOD … or so it should be.

      • Oh god, don’t start, you’re the same damn people that want to take down every religious (just Christian actually) symbol that’s visible to the public. It’s unreal the amount of hate atheists bring to the table. I will pray for you.

      • If atheists really believed in free speech they wouldn’t feel threatened by the presence of a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of city hall for two weeks out of the year. They would understand that the front lawn of city hall belongs to everyone, not just to those who are so afraid there might actually be a God who will judge them someday that they can’t let others practice their religion freely. They would understand that “free speech” does not mean banning religious symbols from public property, but the opposite; that ALL theologies are free to display their symbols proudly on public property. Or maybe you can tell me why it’s legal for a liberal to display bumper stickers on their cars, driven on PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS where I CAN”T avoid seeing them, but Christians can’t have a Nativity Scene of the front lawn of City Hall, which you CAN avoid for two weeks of the year since it seems to annoy you so much.
        Has it even occurred to you that by banning ALL religious symbols from public display that you are imposing atheism on everyone every bit as much as you claim a religious symbol imposes that religion on everyone. Why is atheism so superior and so much more pure that the government should jam it down the throats of everyone? Especially when the First Amendment promises that the government won’t do that.
        The notion that atheists believe in “free speech” while they go around getting religious symbols (almost entirely Christian and Jewish symbols) banned from public display whenever and wherever possible is counter-intuitive, self-contradictory, intellectually and emotionally insecure, selfish, and CHILDISH.
        More to the point of my post, maybe you can cite for me all of the great legal documents in history authored by godless peoples that have achieved the greatness our Constitution achieved, and stood the test of time like our Constitution.
        Better yet, maybe you can justify your own intellectual hypocrisy of living in and benefiting from history’s greatest civilization, founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and principles, while insisting that these concepts have nothing to do with its success and the benefit you have received from living in it.
        Finally, when I need religious advice, such as when to ask God for forgiveness, you are the LAST person I will ask. Your advice, as the saying goes, is worth exactly what I had to pay for it.

      • Right on! That is the double standard of liberals. If one wears a t shirt w/a cross or my, my, one w/a American flag in some schools. Gotta go home and change lest you offend someone but wear a rainbow colored t shirt, you must be tolerant!

      • Wow that was long winded. Umm for one I don’t care how or where you practice your religion. I even support prayer in public schools, if organized by the students.
        Just for your info putting bumper stickers on your private auto-mobile is differrent then setting up a jesus scene on public property. Not that I really care because I still cekebrate Christmass. Would you support the idea of a satanic or Scientology display on public property? People are free to practice there religion in public but setting up religious symbols or items isn’t right unless everyone has access to do so.
        The constitution stood the test of time in the greatest civilization ever? Our country is only 200 years old so I think your jumping the gun there. Plenty of other historic civiljzations lasted much longer with great technical advances. Also our constition is in shambles with HR347, patriot act and NDAA. Time to wake up buddy.
        But go on and tell me more of my opinions anx perspective.

      • Your prejudice is no different than me claiming you like to blow up abortion centers because some Christians have done in the past. Or better yet claiming you like to protest soldiers funerals because tgat one group of Christians does.
        Isnt there a quote in the bible about judging people?

      • You are the one who is prejudiced. You are the bigot You are the authoritarian who denies others their rights of free speech and freedom of religion. And just like most low-information voters, you are unaware of what you are.

  28. If this boy was of some non-Christian faith, would you would care whether or not he was allowed talk about God in his speech? If the answer is no, you’re not interested in either freedom of religion or freedom of speech, you just want to be sure your religion’s the one on top.

    • Rose you have it backward. If the answer is no that means you don’t care and therfore somebody CAN talk about their faith. I am Catholic and would not care if the high school valedictorian mentioned the role their faith, any faith played in their accomplishments.

      • Dallaas, You misunderstood what I said. Substitute the word angry or upset for care. If you’re only angry a Christian was silenced, you’re not looking for religious freedom or freedom of speech, you’re just looking after Christians.

  29. I am a moderate Liberal. I believe in GOD. Some of my friends don’t. We can have a mature conversation about religion without being offensive. There are things which we disagree about. If an atheist student said it was only by their own hard work that they attained their goals, it wouldn’t bother me (I know the truth). Likewise, it shouldn’t bother an atheist if a believing student attributes those accomplishments to GOD.

    • You cannot, by any standards, be a liberal and a Christian. The two contradict one another. I could mention many, many, many, many,… many, policies that do this, but you should honestly have the “common sense” to know this, if you do not, no one can help you.

      • I agree Michael Reggie if you were a Christian you would be disgusted with what obama and his goons stand for and what they are doing to America!!!

      • Michael’s views are idiotic. I’m surprised you agree with him. To try to judge liberals and classify them all in the same manner is not truth. No one should have to explain that. Are all conservatives self-absorbed? Do all conservatives choose capitalism over people? Of course not. So don’t say I can’t be a liberal & Christian. JESUS doesn’t care about political parties. HE cares about our character. Where some conservatives/liberals have lost their audience is by putting their agendas over GOD’S Truth. In this particular issue, religious freedom has shown no evidence to harm-stunt a nonbeliever. It is not forcing them to accept something. When science is taught in schools, I don’t take all of it as truth. Particularly, the origin of life. I am a 12-yr veteran. I’ve seen the bad on the “Red & Blue” parties. This is not a President Obama situation. This is about a student’s freedom of expression when it doesn’t harm anyone. We need to stay on point

      • I reject your characterization of conservatives as a group with the attributes you list. You are spewing liberal talking points there. I would have agreed with you about political parties before liberal Democrats DELIBERATELY CHOSE to become representative of values that are in direct opposition to God’s law. Abortion and homosexuality are objectively wrong and contrary to God’s will.
        In case you forgot, God was booed at the Dem National Convention in 2012, AND they removed Him from their party platform.

      • Well go ahead and reject it. You missed the whole point. I was saying that it was foolish to classify liberals or conservatives in one way. Equally foolish. Lan Dai Hilton’s response is very appropriate. Read it. She’s conservative. I have certain points that people say I lean conservative in. Abortion, marriage. However, there are many liberals who are, as you might say, left on these issues. However, I may agree those that lean liberal on other issues. I could care less if you want to try attacking me because of a statement. A lot of the bashing is toothless. No substance but only name-calling. That’s immature. Pointing out that I am a moderate liberal who supports the young man’s choice to mention GOD in his address was to show common ground. I thought that was the issue I responded to. If Democrats, liberals spewed, as you say the unreasonable garbage that you’re talking about I’d say the same. Your ignoring my initial comment of support for the young student in order to get your jabs in about liberals is ludicrous. You can’t even see it. I voted/supported Republican in the past. It wasn’t because of peer pressure or anything like that. I felt personally at the time we needed that direction change. I vote/support based on that. Not one or two issues. Let me be clear on this. Many atheists (more on the liberal side) are decent human beings who don’t believe in Our LORD because they just don’t. Not because they are anti-GOD. They don’t see it. They aren’t evil. They don’t know HIM. Stating why you believe government should be run a certain way is great. You talk. You listen. At times compromise. At other times, you remain firm. That should be based on convictions rather than party loyalty. Classifying all democrats, liberals or even atheists as evil is more than hypocritical. JESUS trumps politics. HE has done different things at certain times. Dealing with specific issues which some have done id the point. Not name-calling. No substance.

      • That’s totally off point Michael. There are many many many cases to shoot down that concept. Discounting all the liberals who actively participate in church and community is your own view not Our FATHER’S. Those who would feed the hungry, help the needy, encourage the downtrodden. What about them? Oh I forgot, they’re not Christians because they’re liberals. If that’s not “stinkin thinkin”, I don’t know what is. In Romans 2, the topic is about those nonbelievers who do the things which are in the scriptures vs believers who don’t do those things. Read it. It has nothing to do with party (group identity) affiliation. All this energy fighting over whether I am a Christian based on my political views rather than talking about the issue at hand. No wonder there are atheists.

      • George W Bush has done those things too, just so you know! Bono even said in an interview that Conservatives are more generous than people give them credit for.

      • Perhaps you can explain why claiming the title of “liberal” is necessary when you are aware that this designation is associated with the holocaust of abortion and the dismantling of the family through the destruction of Biblical marriage. Please don’t take offense, because I mean none. But I would be inclined to think that a person who describes himself as a liberal MUST be a hypocrite, because all modern day liberal policies are based on forcing others to accept THEIR will over God’s will.
        Even the charitable virtues you support are undermined by the liberal drive to confiscate private wealth and concentrate all effort to help the needy under their own control. This eliminates the sanctifying effect on society and individuals, as you are aware, because they do not help others of their own volition, but through the coercion of the state. I suspect you have not thought this through fully, because in my world Liberal = EVIL, and I can see you are not that. Therefore you cannot be truly liberal.

      • The one and only point I need to make, is that the left and progressive agenda supports and promotes abortion. That by definition is murder of innocents, if you support the current liberal/progressive agenda, you support abortion, you can’t just pick and choose then label yourself as such. Then you would be an independent. Abortion is a mortal sin, thus making you unable to participate in the Eucharist.

        Again, if you associate yourself with neo-liberalism(progressives), you cannot, by the Lords or the Churches definition, be part of Christianity.

      • You be careful Michael. You just went into judgment. You have no authority to say where I’m placed at wirh GOD based on your assumption of political parties & your assumption the Holy Eucharist. I examine myself daily, not just in ceremony, but in doing HIS Commission. I told you what I am and my position on certain topics. Let me stress this. Being a Christian is based on an intimate relationship with CHRIST & following individually what HIS WORD & SPIRIT says. If you try to list your purpose corporately, you may never have the bravery to do something GOD has said to do even if it stands in opposition to groups you belong to. The same way you judge will be used against yourself. How can a nonbeliever decide to join us if we spend energies fighting over whether there are Christians on the left? There is a truth here. See if your version is the one with his fists balled up and anger coming out of their mouth or genuinely what GOD is trying to say. That truth in this case is any person who attributes their successes to GOD’S guidance should not have to abandon that reasoning. If the person had said it was by meditating, that allowed him to be a successful student, there would’ve been far less (if any) resistance. It would be difficult to objectively measure that statement even though there is great possibility for it. In the same manner, a Christian or believer may say it’s through GOD’S direction that I am able to do this or that. No one should oppose it. Now where there could be a snag is if a person who believes in GOD, calls them by a name other than ours. Do we say you can’t say that name? Realistically? What do you do? Can we limit a Muslim for crediting Allah? I’m Christian but other citizens could be Hindu or another religion. GOD forbid someone wants to credit an evil entity for their achievements. WHAT do you do?

      • No Reggie, Being a Christian is both your relationship with the Lord and your actions and intentions on earth. Everything you’re saying, trying to defend yourself, is pathetic. Plain and simple, you supported an agenda that had abortion included, that had supported many mortal sins, and by association is disgusting. You are supposed to fight against such evils, yet you rather defend yourself and other fellow sodomites and abortionists over claiming your sin and following thru with a correction.

        I’m pretty sure going to Church on Sundays and saying a prayer at the table every evening does NOT excuse the fact your SUPPORTED the ending of lives of innocent children, *many millions I might add*. I don’t claim to know how the Lord will judge, but I know what you claim to do as “good” greatly is trumped by the evil.

      • Michael, that comment right there that you made to Reggie…if Christ stood there as you made such a comment…how would Christ look at you? With sincere pity. To claim to know Christ and say such a thing is to show clearly you value politics over following Christ. Regardless of political ideals, do not bash another’s proclamation of faith. We all are at different stages in our walk with God. Have a heart…like Jesus.

      • Sorry, the liberal/progressive agenda promotes abortion, and many other aspects that the Lord states in the bible is wrong. If you support a lib/prog, you support abortion, plain and simple. How would the Lord feel about you defending a person who permits killing babies?

      • Michael, I am defending the fact that we all are at different points in our walk with Christ. Just as a child cannot be expected to understand calculus, all children of God are like children…we are all on a journey in faith as we learn what Christ teaches. ..that is a life long journey. We each arrive at the same conclusion at different points in our journey…because the Teacher is the same. The factor that I’d different is each individual. We each have unique experiences that we base our decisions and path forward. To demand all be at the same exact point as you is not realistic. In fact, if we all were stuck at your understanding of Christ, we’d all be very immature. You lump all people in a black or white category. That’s not a realistic perspective since most exist in the grey, and such perspective often shuts down effective communication. Without effective communication, how do you ever expect to sway opinions? Strong arming others based on your limited perspective will seldom have good results. Find what is agreed upon and work together on that common ground instead of focusing on all the disagreeable parts to tear others down. Build the relationship if you hope to effect a positive change one day at a time. Jesus didn’t condemn the sinners He visited…He showed each he cared and that went further than any strong arming ever did to effect a changed heart. May the Holy Spirit give you wisdom.

    • Reggie…forgive them. They confuse politics with faith…just as those that sent Christ to the cross for not fitting their political ideals for a Messiah. I am a conservative Christian and respect you as your sister in Christ even though I may not agree with you on politics. We each are on a private journey in our walk with our Lord. Those on this thread bashing you are in need of a longer walk. I once was a liberal Christian, too…my private walk and time with the Lord has lead me to be more conservative. Do I still recycle and eat healthy, yes…because good practices are always right…doesn’t make me a liberal or conservative. Keep the faith and continue the walk…Christ knows your heart and soul.

  30. On my computer screen, there is an ad from a company that I interviewed with several months ago. There was some testing done which I survived. Then there was a phone interview followed up by a second phone call and more questions which I survived and finally a face-to-face interview with a real live person. It was a lady who interviewed me. She works with a woman I have known most of my life and was helping me get this job. The lady I interviewed with said she really liked me and had very positive things about me taking the position. I was looking forward to this position because it offered some travel. A week after the interview, my friend called and told me to set all my facebook settings to private because the lady I interviewed with was liberal. I started laughing because in the first few minutes sitting in the interview while we were enjoying some small talk, she calmly stated she was a ‘flaming liberal’. I had no idea where it came from. I haven’t heard from the company since. Strange.

    • The only ones “unprotected” by form “discrimination” are Christians. It was a very roundabout process, but when you protect everything by specific law, then the only thing left to treat unfairly is what’s left. It would seem that they have played a very long game, but Christians (who are actually the minority globally) are now legally treated as enemies of the state.

      • Very true and that’s the same reason our country is in so much debt. Much like passing specific laws for specific groups, the politicians promise each and every specific group something in order to secure their vote. When each politician adds their portion to the budget and the total is reached and we’re a trillion dollars over-budgeted, no one volunteers to forfeit their promises and money because ‘their’ office is more important than the sum of the nation.

    • Really? Where in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, do the words “Separation of Church and State” appear. You need to actually re-read both documents, if you read them at all. Those words do not appear. The First Amendment reads, in part. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” It only bars congress from establishing a state sponsored religion, and bars them from infringing on your right to practice yours, what ever it might be.

    • Sorry but the boy proclaiming his faith in his speech has absolutely nothing to do with Congress establishing or respecting any religion and everything to do with him exercising his right to free speech which of course was violated by the principal.

      • Actually, if you bothered to take a look you’d notice that is an extremely well sourced Wikipedia article.

      • It doesn’t change the truth of the issue. Bottom line It is not in the constitution. It was extrapolated from a letter of Jefferson.

      • Colleges and high schools refuse to allow students to use Wiki anything as a source because they tend to be biased junk information. Ignorance is unbecoming in a public forum.

      • Anything can be a good information if it is sourced well. Now, if this were a college paper as opposed to a web-forum, he should have gone directly to the sources used to obtain and cite his information. But, since this is not a scholarly discussion, The wiki author happens to have a well summarized brief of the litany of of excellent sources used.

        I may be a lot of things, but, ignorant is generaly not one of them.

      • Then don’t show it! like Muslims warring against the U.S. in our early history, marines were formed, “leathernecks”, to protect their necks against attempts to behead them in combat fighting them way back then in our early history, their hymn “to the shores of Tripoli” Yes man do some research before making claims. Do you know the SCOUS rulings on these matters? so you don’t have to come across ignorant.

      • Your judgment is in serious doubt if you don’t go to the source of your Rights……. and read it for yourself.
        It’s called the Constitution!
        Why would you let anyone, much less a propaganda site, interpret what you read…if ‘among other things you are not ignorant’?

      • Wikipedia can be, and is, edited by any Tom, Dick, Harry, Mary, Sarah and Jane. No one would use Wikipedia for a source for anything. It could be used as an example of what NOT to use as an intelligent source. That’s it.

      • Who ordained that if Wikipedia spews a concept..it is truth??

        We have a Constitution that guarantees us our rights…

        Freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

        Why would anyone search Wikipedia when they can read the Constitution?

      • I hope you understand that there is a lot more at hand here than this students constitutional rights.

        This is not a freedom of religion issue. No one is suggesting that this child cannot remain a practicing christian. This is a freedom of speech issue. But, I hope you are aware that Freedom of speech is not absolute. If you don’t believe this, try spouting off a bunch of racist slurs next time you are at work and see just how free your speech is. You most likely wont be arrested and the constitution guarantees that your citizenship wont be revoked because you spoke your mind, but that does not mean that your boss is obligated to continue your employment or allow you on the premises again.

        In similar fashion, this student is willing member of this particular institution that has rules. If he wishes to remain a member of said institution, then he chooses to abide by the guidelines set forth. If he doesn’t wish to abide by those guidelines, he is a free adult and is more then free to leave the institution and find another school. If it is important to him that Christianity be involved in his schooling, there are more than a handful of Christian private schools for him to transfer to.

        To make matters more complicated, he was given a position to speak in front of the whole school, and his speech needed to be approved by the school’s administration. It could very easily be construed that at that point he becomes a representative of the school itself. Now, as you well know from your vast understanding of the constitution, The Supreme court is granted the powers of constitutional interpretation as it relates to matters of law. The Supreme Court has been very clear on the fact that organized, school sponsored prayer is not legal and is unconstitutional. The reason it is unconstitutional is because it imposes the religion of said organized, school sponsored prayer. If a representative is going to get up in front of the whole school and give a serman, you run into constitutional issues and I can sympathize with the school playing it safe.

        And, don’t you worry, I would guess Allen West is very aware of all of that and would have a hard time disagreeing. he just gets off on riling you all up.

      • Public schools are state government run institutions. And therefore, this senior’s federal rights were violated by an inept authority figure. End of subject.

      • No. No one said or suggested he can’t be a Christian. I pray to and thank God and his son Jesus Christ regularly, but I don’t need a public institution to assemble their students so I can preach to them.

        The only rights that would have been violated would have been if the school had sponsored a public forum and given him, specifically, the floor where he intended to stand up and preach Christianity to the student body. luckily they didn’t and all rights were preserved.

      • This young man wasn’t going to preach…he was going to thank God for the honor and blessings he received. That thanksgiving is never a violation of anything or anyone. And in God’s eyes, it is the better thing to do than bow down to the powers that be. This young man was an Old Testament Daniel in my eyes. Further, to give God the glory despite the opposition is courage. This young man earned his position to speak as top of his graduating class… And if he wanted to share that God was the wind beneath his wings, he had every right to share it to help others who may be silently seeking the way. The powers that be at that school stripped him and all listeners of hearing what his source for success was. And that, my fellow Christian, is asinine during a time when public school education is failing to educate. Think about this…which is greater? God or man? Defending man’s misinterpretations of laws in support of the removal of God is eternally dangerous. And Daniel got it right…he feared God more than he feared man. Just something from our Father in heaven for you to consider.

      • You are comparing apples and oranges…we are discussing a PUBLIC school!
        Of course your boss in private business can hire or fire you for whatever..

    • Separation of Church and State was to provide that there would be no one unified leadership of both, no established state church, and to allow for freedom of worship. It is to PROTECT faith and its free expression. It doesn’t preclude mention or proclamation of faith in a secular setting.

    • Actually the whole concept of separation of church and state came from a couple of sentences out of a letter from Jefferson. He expressed a concern he had about what happened in England. The king established the church of England w/the king as head of said church. The constitution on the other hand is clear not to do that nor infringe on the free exercise of any religion. that included any public setting. The supreme court upheld that students have that right in school. The threat of law suits backed by big $$ of the ACLU has been quite effective but wrong!

      • Sorry, but the concept of separation of church and state came from John Locke, who’s philosphy is all over the original founding documents.

  31. I understand the part about freedom of speech, but this is one of the most rediculous articles I have ever read. America is by no means, whatsoever, waging war on the Christians at all. The district, as I see it, was denying his wishes to inject Christianity into his speech because at a public school there are more religions then Christianity and they did not want a whole class to be represented by something they are not a part of (culturally or spiritually).
    Also, this is a completely different issue than the “war,” as you call it, on women in america. The “war” on women is about money and sexism, whereas what you are talking about freedom of speech in public highschool schools.

    • I don’t think you really understand the part about freedom of speech. Are you saying that an individual’s speech has to be something that the whole class represents or he cannot say it? Sorry, but that’s ridiculous.

      • Are you saying that one man’s passion for his religion should represent a whole classes experience at a school? The senior speeches are supposed to be about the class as a whole not one man’s journey.

      • Because the whole class is being represented with his speech. The whole class is graduating, not just him. And as for the first amendment, nobody told him he was not allowed to speak freely. He was only restricted from ANNOUNCING his thoughts to the graduating class along with their family/friends who might have been offended (not for sure, but there is a good possibility) for whatever reason they have. He could have said the same exact thing from his seat and nobody would stop him. He had the freedom to speak, they just didn’t want him to do it on stage at this ceremony.

      • Because the whole class is being represented is your reasoning? Wow…
        And “nobody told him he was not allowed to speak freely?” Did you read the article?
        Also, how does the possibility of offending someone be reason enough to restrict your 1st Amendment rights?
        The central question is “Does the school have the right to censor someone just because they are going to talk about their faith?”
        Quite obviously, the answer is no.
        Good luck to you…if people like you get your way, you’re going to need it in our society.

      • I love how you are taking things out of context. I also love how you are not even making an argument you are just asking questions relating to what i said.

        And I find it hilarious that most of the arguments by people that agree with you here are not even about the subject, they are about the person they are arguing against. Calling our opinions invalid, and telling us that we are going to fail in life. Making claims that we are going to destroy america when the shear fact that we are here and giving our so called “invalid” opinions is the reason america is the great country it is today. And if people like you got your way then we would be no different than the totalitarian countries in the middle east where people are not allowed to challenge anything unless they wish to die.

    • Your are clearly an enemy of the 1st Amendment and America. In fact, you are exactly the person who typifies those waging the war on Christianity. It need not be said that your opinion is worthless regarding whether Christians are facing unlawful discrimination, because that is self-evident. You are, moreover, woefully ignorant and committed to the cause of radical progressivism.

      In other words, nothing you have written is true or insightful or valid. You are just another communist trying to define a discussion to preclude opposition to your political goals. And that, sir, is unAmerican.

      • I think you might be ignorant to the fact that Christians are not the only ones that this happening to. Just because you only hear about when it happens to a christian person doesn’t mean that’s all there is.

        The fact that you are saying that my opinion is worthless and invalid shows that you are the typical radical christian man who thinks that you are better than everyone else. You sir, are of those people who are ruining the principles that this county was founded for, that is that all men regardless of their religion, and all other aspects, are equal. And that, sir, is in american.

      • What is unAmerican is giving up our religious freedoms. It does not matter what your religion is. Even atheists have the religion of no God.
        The only one I have trouble with is the political and legal system disguised as religion called islam. No other “religion” calls for your beheading just because you do not believe what they do. Now that is unAmerican.

  32. I love that liberals can add the words “Separation of Church and State” to our founding documents while removing the words “shall not be infringed”. Methinks somebody needs to educate them on the proper method of amending the constitution.

  33. ALL Christians need to be bold and outspoken or our nation run by democrats/extremists/radical/fanatical lovers of the liberal religion will crush us. Liberalism’s holy trinity is race, gender & income. They use those 3 to pit citizen against citizen. They MUST be stopped.

  34. This isn’t about separation of church and state. The school is the state. The church (for whatever religion), stands on it’s own. This is an individual with the expectations of the first ammendment, free to speak openly, not held too the states demands. This is the problem most people can’t comprehend. If a child wants to read the bible in school, that’s their right. The school can’t teach the bible under state law. Similarly, the school can’t promote God but an individual (non employee of the state or school district) can absolutely speak of God. The state or in this case school entity has NO power to say otherwise. (Under current laws). The left socialist want you to believe otherwise. All people of religious beliefs have giving their rights away to a pack of winning cry babies who would have you believe that the mere mention of God has caused them severe and irreversible damage to their delicate senses. It’s your right as God fearing people to stand up and say “no more”. Godless people want you Godless, don’t give them what they want. In closing I will only say this, God, God, God, God. Hope I haven’t offended anyone, but if I did, oh well.

      • Exactly. No logic is used at all to make a determination that just because someone’s a liberal, that they’re an athiest. I have a lot a liberal friends who go to church every Sunday and a lot of conservative friends, like myself, who are athiests.

      • Michael, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have an abortion. God gives us the choice, and so should our country.

      • God doesn’t give you a choice to decided someone elses fate, he gives you your own fate. Deciding to kill someone else is Murder. Enjoy the flames, you parrot.

      • God does not say to us, “You must choose this one.” Rather, he says, “Choose this one and such and such will happen.” But he leaves the choice with us. We are free to choose, and if we choose sin (murder), we know the consequence. Like I said, you don’t have to choose to murder, but God gives everyone the choice.

      • God give you the *** RIGHT *** to choose life or death for another person? You’re views are distorted and disgusting. You don’t watch a man point a gun at a young child and say “oh my good fellow American, please do as you wish, because the Lord allows it, take his/her life if you wish, I’ll stand here and defend you”. See how evil and idiotic that sounds? You are permitting the murder of innocent children, when supporting such a group, thus makes you evil by association.

      • Michael, you’re spouting off quite a few thoughts that are in no way a cohesive argument against the free will that is spoken about in the bible. There are millions of sins that you commit every day that are just as “evil” as an abortion. I’ll go ahead and stop you from saying one sin is worse than another, because the bible also says that’s not true. Do you watch evil unfold and do nothing about it when you masturbate to pornography on the internet? I think you do, and that (by your own words) makes you evil.

      • The fact you are comparing the two is f*ckign disgusting, and I hope you enjoy your little lie in your head. It’s obvious you’re lost and can’t be brought back by reason. You’re talking about a persons life. I personally would gladly take yours so that another who is a better human being would take your place. Good day.

  35. Schools
    are suppose to be there to teach, not to indoctrinate our children with their liberal rhetoric and deny them their constitutional rights. The problem is
    that most school boards are filled by political “want-a-be” from
    liberal schools or for the sole purpose of claiming an elected position to
    flaunt. Being liberals, the board
    members fail to make decisions based their own intelligence or lack thereof and
    lead like the sheepes by a school superintendent. They rely and are directed by extreme liberals that are over educated baffons that never taught in a classroom, held a real job, has
    no common sense or supervised people. They that picked education as
    a career because they know they cannot succeed in the real world. Replace the school board and start using principles who have proven leadership skills as Superintendent is a start. Get the federal government out of education is a must.

    • True………if schools were private entities. Not true for public schools. No where in the constitution does it say the governement should even start schools.

      • I’m confused, are you referring to funding or the constitution rights of students? Students constitutional rights legally are much stronger in public schools than private schools.

      • Listen to the PRINCIPLE of what you’re suggesting. Are you trying to suggest kids have the “RIGHT” to go up on stage in a public school and say whatever they want – just because our constitution allows for the right to free speech??

      • This is no “kid” and it’s a graduation class. To answer your question, absolutely! I think a valedictorian can write an appropriate speech and if they can’t we’re doomed as a nation. We give them the right to drive at 16 years old and serve in the armed forces at 18 [with real assualt weapons] and you don’t give our youth credit to write a speech? I don’t recall the first amendment restricting anybodies freedom of speech in a PUBLIC building at a PUBLIC assembly. Public schools are PUBLIC property.

      • This argument has absolutely nothing to do with a graduate’s ABILITY write an “appropriate” speech – so, please dispense with the straw man argument. It’s about who gets to define “appropriate”. You? Just the graduate making the speech? The voters in the city? The school board?

      • The word “appropriate” applies to the person making the speech, he/she should determine what is appropriate and I trust these young people to make the speech without censorship by a bunch of people that are in education because the can’t so they teach. I didn’t remotely suggest they should summit it for review. I suggest you read carefully and quit making inferences of what I said. Why don’t you state your opinion instead of trolling?

      • How am I trolling? I’ve been a supporter of Col. West for a LONG time. And I agree with 90% of what he posts. It’s ridiculous to think that public schools – owned and yes CONTROLLED by the public won’t try to set standards for what can be put in a graduation speech. Whether it’s something you agree with or something a liberal agrees with. If you have public schools, you’ll have public censorship. Once again, you need to try to think in principles.

      • Please show me in the Constitution at what age your freedom to drive begins. Please show me in the Constitution at what age your freedom to marry begins. Please show me in the Constitution at what age your freedom to drink begins. Please show me in the Constitution at what age your freedom to carry a gun begins. Please show me in the Constitution at what age your freedom to smoke pot begins. Please show me in the Constitution at what age your freedom to pose naked in a magazine begins. Should I go on?

      • Because up to this point you only retorted and didn’t express your opinions. I agree, the standards of education have been and will be set by exclusive private and parochial schools, but what of the children who are bright, energetic but required to go to a school where independent thinking and nonconformism that are required to attend a public school due to economics?

        Public schools going private is a dream that will never happen, it’s too big of an industry, the lobbing and political clout by public teachers unions is astronomical.

        My children attended a parochial school and every freshman year the school admitted three times the students over the normal level of enrollment for that class. In three weeks, two thirds of the students were expelled due to not following dress codes, class disruption, drugs, smoking and other infractions. The parents of these children enrolled them in a parochial school because they could not control them and wanted someone else to teach them discipline. I saw the some of same thing as assistant boy scout leader, what a tragic waste of youth.

      • “…you only retorted and didn’t express your opinions” ? You either wrote that wrong or you’re taking issue to my expressing facts and not opinion. I can’t tell which…

      • While education isn’t on the list of things the federal government is supposed to legislate, no one seems to care about constitutionality anymore, and at any rate government provision of education is positively mentioned in many state constitutions.

      • If something is going to be RUN by the government, it’s going to be CONTROLLED by the government.
        Where that control emanates from – the bureaucratic cesspool of DC or Pleasantville, UT – makes no difference whatsoever.

      • I think it does matter. I realize there’s good reason for the saying that “you can’t fight city hall”, but that’s a cakewalk next to fighting Washington. The more decentralized political decision making is, the closer it is to the people who are affected by those decisions and the less of a project it is for the people to have influence over them.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’d still rather that decisions were made by people acting in a free market than by politicians at any level, but that doesn’t mean that decentralization of political power can’t help somewhat.

      • I hear ya, Steve. And that may be the initial step required in the process needed to privatize schools (and everything else overtaken by the power drunk elitists in D.C)

      • We all need to remember what the Tenth Amendment says:
        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        There is nothing in the Constitution giving the central government control of the education system, or am I wrong.

    • Also. Are you suggesting public schools stay publically funded, but somehow the government needs to “get out”??
      That’s an impossible contradiction to solve.

      • Federal government funding, not state and local. As with any federal funding, asinine requirements from the morons in DC are attached and this is especially true with educations.

      • Who cares if the funding comes from the “Federal governement or the “local government”. Do you seriously think the local governments funding local liberal dominated schools are going to allow children to discuss religion on stage at a graduation becase funding no longer comes from DC? That’s ridiculous; they’ll be even MORE inclined to make their own rules.

        MAKE ALL SCHOOLS PRIVATE! Let them make their own rules and let people decide which one they want to attend.

      • Private schools is an option but that has the same chance as a student being able to exercise his first amendment rights with a local liberal dominated school. At least the decision about student rights will be at the state and local level and not the perverted federal mandates. You do realize that a substantial part of the county is conservative?

      • At least with for-profit/competing private schools there will be a choice. With public schools there is no choice.

      • I agree but private schools have the luxury of not having to deal with those who are not there for an education.

      • Oh my.. You are completely retarded aren’t you. Once federal funding hits your local school they have control of it. If the public school is controlled and paid for by its district’s funding, it is the property and responsibility of the PEOPLE of that area to regulate education, hence school boards and elections. If the area is predominately Christian, they can teach what they choose, since the people pay for it, as long as they pass a state standardize test then what’s the problem?

      • Why is it that people let the federal government dictate conditions on money. Do they not realize that the government gets that money from you the people in the form of taxes. It is your money, given to them to provide services to you. This is like a bank teller cashing your check and then telling you what you can and cannot do with your own money.

  36. I would have given a draft, but my final speech would have reflected my rights to freedom of speech…They promote homosexuality and lesbianism, I promote my spiritual preferences. Simple!!!! Everybody’s equal…

  37. Take back your schools people!! They are teaching your children progressive hippie doctrine from a drug induced generation of Godlessness. It is NOT the lie they tell about “core” teaching…These evil people have destroyed the black community with ignorance and are now flooding us with uneducated “hispanics” A term that is NOT real. Why if you are from a country or race do you not identify your country and no be lumped in a group by Godless people?

    • Plaque on the wall of Northeastern IL University in Chicago which says ‘This Building is Dedicated to Public Service Honoring the Memory of Abraham Lincoln, Democrat.’—Yes please let us take our schools back. They don’t breed free thought anymore, just single-minded crap. Instead of saying the Pledge of Allegiance…put your blinders on students.

  38. While it may reasonably be doubted whether the school needed to act as it did, West’s view of the Constitution is wildly off target. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed it was there and, upon learning of their error, reckon they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    • What an ignoramus! You wasted a lot of words, Mr. Indeap, when you could have simply written the equivalent statement: “I’m an arrogant fool who enjoys pretending that he knows what he’s talking about.”
      You started off badly by citing “we the people,” but omitting “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
      Then you went from bad to worse by asserting that it doesn’t matter whether the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution. It does matter, in fact, a great deal. Are you ignorant of its origin in a letter from Jefferson to the Baptist convention, or trying to hide its purpose: which was to allay their concerns over federal interference in religious affairs?
      Finally, you conclude with the sublimely ludicrous stretch that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means teachers must not express their religious identity in the classroom.
      Prayers and Bible reading in schools, 10 commandments in courtrooms, Scripture in legislative halls, and many other expressions of faith have been widely practiced in this nation for well over 150 years. Only in recent memory have the secularists gained the power–not Constitutional justification, but naked power–within our judicial system to autocratically eradicate our religious foundations.
      You and your ilk have the power today–admit that obvious fact, and at least you’ll garner some grudging respect. But by going on to pretend that our founders prohibited expressions of faith in any local, state or federal capacity, you insult our intelligence and make yourself look like an idiot.

      • recarterjr007,
        Excellent response!! You saved me the trouble of letting this dolt have both barrels. Thanks.

      • I offered a substantive response–twice–to your unsupported assertions, but the moderator apparently thought it too much for you so it does not appear here.

    • I suggest you read the Federalist Papers written by three of the
      founders of this country. You will read how much they revered God. You
      are totally misinterpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court made a
      terrible mistake by combining and altering the meanings of two
      amendments to come up with the convoluted idea of separation of church
      and state. Look it up. Also read “The Founders Bible” by David
      Barton. He has done 25 years of research on the background of each
      founding document. He found that many of the ideas behind the
      Constitution came right from Deuteronomy. Read it. I’m so tired of
      people tearing down our country and the religion of our founding

      • I am quite familiar with the Federalist Papers; nothing in them conflicts with my comments here. While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

        Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the
        unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand that. This is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States government itself.

        Barton? This zealot’s “work” has been so thoroughly, repeatedly, and
        authoritatively debunked by so many who have demonstrated it to be riddled with slipshod research, shoddy analysis, and downright dishonestly that I can but wonder how anyone can refer to him as an “authority” on this subject without turning red from embarrassment. Perhaps the handiest debunking is Chris Rodda’s book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/), where she conveniently collects and directly refutes his many mistakes and
        lies. The irony is that, by knowingly, repeatedly resorting to lies, this
        would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case. His own lying is perhaps the best evidence that his overall thesis is wrong.

      • Happy 4th of July, nancybythebay!

        Senator Jeff Sessions gave America a birthday present this morning…. enjoy!

        National Review
        On Immigration, It’s Time to Defend Americans
        July 4th, 2014

      • Happy 4th of July to you too. Thanks for the heads up on the article by Jeff Sessions. Great.

  39. I enjoyed the young man who mid way through his speech sneezed. All the other graduates shouted in unison, “God bless you!” The educrats sat and squirmed.

  40. “You mean to tell me that this young man doesn’t possess the first amendment right to his “free exercise of religion?”

    No, you misunderstand, unsurprising really. What this is about is him not enjoying the right to the government securing a captive audience for him to preach at. No student should have to choose between skipping their graduation or be inundated with appeal to the prophet Mohammed and the joys of worshiping Allah.

    To have a freedom OF religion you need a freedom from the government or any of it’s actors endorsing ANY religion. Funny you have such difficulty in seeing how the government has an inordinate amount of power in this realm, while in nearly the same breathe recognizing schools can have the power to intimidate and coerce.

    It is for the very reasons you’ve said that we tell government and government events to stay out of religion, even when the speakers are not government employees.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here