A thought on my struggle with issues raised by the South Carolina graduation speech.
Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)
I am a much-less-than-perfect Christian who believes, as I believe Jefferson did, that liberty of conscience is a sacred endowment. So is freedom of expression. And the majority in that particular school district in South Carolina are highly unlikely to be willing to allow the same degree of free expression to most (perhaps any) non-"Judeo-Christian" valedictorian. I realize that they didn't approve his speech. They also don't seem particularly concerned about it.
The speech that the SC valedictorian made was offensive to me, not because of his inclusion of the Lord's Prayer as an important informant of his personal life, but because of the manner in which he presented it. His preamble, that "most of you know what I mean when I say" (followed by the prayer) appeared to me to be an in-your-face marginalization of any non-Christians in attendance at what was a public school event. Actually hearing it spoken via the clip rug put up certainly made it feel that way to me.
I struggle with the issue of free expression at events such as these when it appears intended to marginalize the standing of minorities. Whether or not it actually was, I can't know. Only how it appeared to me. And I do understand that the Constitution doesn't confer any protection from being offended, nor should it.
I admit to not being a particularly deep thinker. I've probably contradicted my self any number of ways in this post. I could be absolutely wrong-headed on the issue of the SC graduation. The issues raised by contending individual rights often leave me struggling for a correct appraisal, much less a solution.
My Progressive brothers and sisters in Christ on this board sometimes approach these issues from a theological perspective, weighing in on whether a particular action, seen as perhaps un-Constitutional, is really reflective of an accurate attitude held by Jesus. This seems legitimate and reasonable if we're discussing theology; however, in discussions on the Constitutionality of an issue, I find it unhelpful. To appeal to "correct" doctrine, or to point to Jesus' attitude toward anything, when the issue is a Constitutional one, leaves a flavor of submitting the Constituional legitimacy of an action to an appeal to a different theology than that of most of the Religious Right. Religion should never be used as a touchstone of Constitutionality.
In any case: this started out as a response by PM to Professor Ragosta, who responded to a comment I made in an OP by SecularMotion http://www.democraticunderground.com/121883886
However, as I constructed it I realized I wanted to post it as an OP, if only to help clarify my own thoughts, and to give you as much of an idea as I can about why I often post on Church/State issues, and why I took issue with the case in South Carolina.
At the end of it, I'm not sure I've done either.
Edit: having read it now, a day later, I'm quite certain I haven't.
Not that anyone asked. 