i agree…

For more about the case, as well as an analysis of “separation of church and state” and other legal matters, see “Erring on the side of censorship: US government schools are becoming Christ-free zones” http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4515

Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression… that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content. To avoid any mistaken perception that a school endorses student or other private speech that is not in fact attributable to the school, school officials may make appropriate neutral disclaimers to clarify that such speech is not school sponsored.

In answer to your question: I would be similarly opposed to the school district, even if Brittany was a member of another religion. However, my support of Brittany goes beyond the district regulations or the text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In that sense, my support would differ. Does that make sense?

Hope that answers your question!

From what I have read, watched, and listened to (i.e. almost everything), I would not say that Brittany lied. To be more precise, I don’t believe that she said she would present the edited version of her speech while still planning to give the non-edited version. I think the final decision to go with the original speech came much closer to the actual ceremony.

I think it’s also important to note that, at the time, the McCombs and their attorney were in the midst of their attempts to contact and/or meet with the school district attorney to discuss the speech. According to the legal brief, none of their calls were ever returned.

After giving this a lot of thought, the conclusion I believe best explains the facts is that, when Brittany said that she would give the edited version of her speech, she was still hoping that her parents would be able to settle the matter with the school district attorney, whether favorably or unfavorably, prior to the graduation ceremony. It wasn’t intended to deceive. Instead, it was intended to appease them until her parents could resolve the issue. Of course, when the school district attorney repeatedly failed to return their calls requesting to meet with him, Brittany was faced with a last-minute decision. She could 1) go along and give the edited speech or 2) give the speech that God had placed on her heart. From the little I have seen of Brittany’s heart for Christ, I don’t believe she could have stood before her classmates and their families and given a speech with only a generic reference to a “divine being.”

However, from an admittedly limited perspective on the last several days and hours before her graduation, I believe that it probably would have been better for Brittany to communicate her decision to the school officials prior to the ceremony. It would likely have resulted in a similar censorship and violation of her freedom of speech/religion, but would have given the school district no basis to say that she was trying to be deceptive.

Hindsight is always 20-20 (or at least, closer to it). But what I can say with confidence is that Brittany’s motivation was and is to do whatever God has called her to do (see the full text of her speech). From what I can tell, Brittany has honored her parents in this situation from the beginning. She was certainly not trying to draw national attention. She was simply seeking to share the message God had placed on her heart. Because of that, she has my support.

However, there are several final things I would like to clarify. If you would like to have the last word, feel free. Others may take up the discussion in my place.

First, the majority of this discussion has tended to start Brittany’s story at the point where she “erred” and does not separate or distinguish that point from the legal case. It did not start there. It began when Brittany submitted a speech that she was chosen to present at graduation because of neutral and even-handed criteria (her personal academic merit) and was wrongly censored for religious content that she was perfectly within her rights to share. It continued with increased pressure from school district officials and a district attorney who refused to speak with her, her family, or her family’s lawyer. All of that occured prior to any “error” on her part and that, by itself, is the foundation of the lawsuit against the school district. The “sin” that “often leads to the other party taking a wrong action in return” was not on Brittany’s part, but the school district’s.

Second, I would point out the subtle but important distinction between being and doing — two very different things. Brittany did wrong by failing to communicate her decision to the school officials. But it was the school officials who were wrong (from the beginning) in their censorship and discrimination. Brittany’s error does not put her “in the wrong.”

Third, although it has been stated that Brittany’s admitted imperfection does not excuse her error (something I don’t believe was ever argued), there has been a seeming tendency to speak as if the fact that we cannot expect non-Christians to act rightly somehow excuses them from being held accountable to the law (both earthly and heavenly law). The God-established purpose of the state (including the court system) is to reward objective good and punish objective evil.

Fourth, to everyone (Spunky particularly) allow me to apologize for speaking too quickly in that last paragraph of my previous comment. It was not my intention to imply (which I did) that the facts don’t matter because the lawsuit has been filed. I hope the entirety of this comment clarifies what I meant to say.

Fifth, I was also wrong when I said that Christians must either side with Brittany or with the school district. Although I disagree with the viewpoint, it is possible to see both parties as undeserving of support.

For both of those errors, please forgive me.

And so, to conclude my involvement in this discussion (for the time being)… Spunky, it’s been a pleasure to discuss this with you. Thank you for the wisdom and experience you brought to the discussion — wisdom and experience I don’t yet have. May God bless you for your continued service to the body of Christ.

It’s not a matter of which side we should not be taking sides in the lawsuit. It’s a matter of honestly looking at the facts and determining what is right. We cannot with integrity just sweep past facts aside because a lawsuit has been filed and then declare picking one side or the other the only valid option.

Just to clarify, by not supporting Brittany DOES NOT mean I support what the school did in return. As is often the case, when one party sins it often leads the other party to take a wrong action in return.

The question as Christians we must ask is what is biblical restoration? And when one party is a Christian and the other is not, does that change the action of the believer?