Agapé Press notes that the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU is freaking out over a student-initiated "altar call" at Jonesboro High School’s graduation ceremony last May.
For you cradle Catholics, an altar call is the point in many
evangelical church services (usually at the end) where those who have
not yet come to "know Jesus" are invited to "ask him into their heart".
They are normally encouraged to pray the "sinner’s prayer" and accept
Jesus as "Lord and Savior".
I spent alot of time in Jonesboro (or Jome-ber) during my formative years. As a high-school student in tiny Black Rock, Arkansas, Jonesboro was where we took our dates to the movies. Later, I attended Arkansas State University, which is located in Jonesboro.
Catholics don’t "do" altar calls, and as a Catholic, a surprise altar call is not something I would expect at a graduation ceremony. Given Jonesboro’s location smack in the middle of the Bible Belt, though, I would not be that surprised, either. I certainly wouldn’t be offended. The young woman giving the speech, Jessica Reed, was voicing her own views about life, having been invited to do so by virtue of her standing at the head of her class.
According to the article, the ACLU is, oddly, accusing her of violating the first amendment. Now, I’m no lawyer, but it would seem to me that it would be a violation of her first amendment rights if the school were to vet her comments or censor her speech, unless it were for obscenity. It is settled law that schools can’t censor student newspapers in the same way.
One observer notes that-
"…the ACLU is
frantically searching for a plaintiff in Jonesboro in hopes of suing
the school for an alleged unconstitutional endorsement of religion, but
has yet to find one.".
I would think that, whether or not you see eye-to-eye with Jessica Reed on the subject of Eternal Salvation, her comments would at least provide an opportunity to talk with your kid about the meaning of life. It would be what they call a "teachable moment", whether you were pro- or anti-altar call. Or does the ACLU expect everyone to accept the twisted notion that people just shouldn’t discuss such things?
I thought that one of the benefits of our advanced, industrialized society was that we would all have more time to think about and discuss such things. I thought our increased leisure was supposed to be dedicated to higher pursuits, like sharing ideas about the meaning of life.
This Catholic supports Jessica Reed’s right to free speech.
When the subject comes up, I always tell my kids the same thing: asking Jesus into our hearts is a good thing, and it is important that we do it every day.
Being Catholics, though, we believe the invitation runs both ways. Even as we ask Jesus to dwell in our hearts, we are invited to take refuge in his Sacred Heart.
GET THE STORY.
Right now…
Don’t put it off…
Just stand up wherever you are… that’s right… come right on up front and GET THE STORY.
I’m going to ask the piano player to just keep playing quietly…
The first time I read this post, I read “Student’s Altar Call Rankles ACLU *Pigs*.”
And thought nothing of it.
Amen, Brother Jones! Hal-luh-looooo-yah!
With every head bowed and every eye closed. . .yes I see that hand.
How would you feel if …
You attended the ceremony and your son or daughter, whom you have raised as a Catholic, stands up and goes forward at the altar call and no longer practices as a Catholic.
I might feel shocked that they were that vulnerable, since we have talked many times about the differences between our faith and that of our Protestant bretheren.
I know that they already know the answer to the question, “Are you saved?”
As well as
“Do you know Jesus”
“Have you asked him into your heart?”
And –
“Have you accepted him as Lord and Savior?”
But people are individuals, and God works in mysterious ways. I wouldn’t give up hope.
Like I needed to ask myself whether “raised as a Catholic” is the same as instilling in them a complete love for and understanding of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Did I really teach them or just force them to go through the motions because “it’s what we do”!
How would you feel if …
You attended the ceremony and your son or daughter, whom you have raised as a Catholic, stands up and goes forward at the altar call and no longer practices as a Catholic.
Reminds me of Der Tommissar’s Altar Call story, which I read for the first time yesterday.
In my opinion, the Catholic Church is the originator of the altar call, as all Catholics are called to the altar each time we attend mass. And if I’m not mistaken, many evangelical protestant churches no longer even have any sort of altar/table up front to call people to (sorry for the awkwardness of that sentence, I couldn’t think of another way to phrase it).
This same high school probably would not allow a priest to address the audience.
“I’m going to ask the piano player to continue playing quietly.” Hilarious!
Not knowing much about what happens in the world of law suits and the ACLU, but do people ever counter sue the ACLU for offending their sensibilities in these matters? I mean, what if I as a student were offended by the offense the ACLU took? Do people sue them very much?
I wonder if you could get the ACLU to sue itself…
Frankly, I am glad that the ACLU is suing. This alter call is unbiblical, heretical, unchristian and dangerous to one’s salvation.
If we could get the ACLU to sue every school every time they did something “unbiblical, heretical, unchristian and dangerous to one’s salvation” then the public school system would be out of business…
(I agree with Greydanus’s point that there’s a difference between me thinking the valedictorian said something harmful in her speech, and me having the right to sue the school over it. Life is more than litigation.)
“I wonder if you could get the ACLU to sue itself…”
good one, DJ! that cracked me up!
I’m actually with the ACLU on this one. It’s one thing to allow prayer in a school, perhaps even of a Christian nature, since most people in this country are Christians and it is right and natural that that this should find expression in our public institutions.
But “altar calls” imply and/or presuppose a specific brand of Protestant Christianity, one that is, more often than not, anti-Catholic (the theology of which is certainly unCatholic).
This is also an act of overt proselytizing, and has absolutely no place at a public-school sponsored event; unless the school were to make provision for a separate graduation ceremony where such did not take place, for those who were not Evangelical Protestant. This is, of course, ludicrous.
As per Steve’s defense of the student:
“Since the student didn’t preach against Catholicism, I can’t think why this would happen.”
The theology behind “altar calls” is intrinsically un-Catholic.
“If one student’s altar call can undo my whole raising of my kid Catholic, I’m in big trouble.”
True; but it does not mitigate the inherent dangers in participating what amounts to an Evagelical Protestant church service.
“In any case, most to the point, I can’t see that I would be in any position to sue the school.”
Well, did the school screen this speech/proselytizing, and go ahead to permit it?
I sympathize, Eric, but I think the law is clear that the schools can’t vet or censor student speech except for obscenity, inciting to violence and stuff like that.
It wasn’t a traditional altar call (where people walk up to the front and kneel down) or anything, just an “invitation” for people to give their lives to Christ (as she understands it).
I wouldn’t be crazy about it, either. But it is not the kind of thing that anyone should bring a lawsuit over. We have too much of that already.
If I had kids, I’d be homeschooling.
My high school commencement speech wasn’t reviewed before I read it. I’ve never known any administrator who’s requested a copy of the valedictorian or salutatorian’s speeches. I suppose it’s an issue of trust, though, and the top students tend to have earned the trust. It’s not like a paid speaker.
I find the ACLU’s reaction awfully funny. The ACLU knows that Miss Reed is protected under the First Amendment. Even if someone sues for being “subjected” to the address, precedent is set to protect the speaker, not the audience.
Eric, your comment about the commencement turning into “what amounts to an Evagelical Protestant church service” shows why the UCLA would be wrong to sue. Two lines in a speech do not a church service make. And someone’s personal discomfort with the two lines doesn’t mean that Miss Reed should be sued for saying them.
The cartoon looks like it is mocking the concept of “alter call.” What is the ACLU upset about?
There is a lot that is not said in the article. Many people are assuming only two lines were said and that the speech was cleared by the school. The ACLU are not dumb, unfortunately they are smart. they would not be wasting their time if they thought that they would not win the case. Because Agape press is a Christian publication, I suspect that the article has a pro-Christian slant. The ACLU threatening to sue is not actually suing. The ACLU threatening is a classic shake down scheme.
Um, they didn’t invite a Protestant pastor, either. Their valedictorian chose to offer her own religious perspective. Had the valedictorian been Catholic, he or she could have done the same thing. What’s your point?
Even if you were right, that is not grounds for a lawsuit. The only question is, did the school violate the establishment clause of the Constitution by allowing a top student to speak on the topic of her choosing?
You have to define your terms. Based on the quotes in the piece, all the student did was invite other students to embrace faith in Jesus. How is that “intrinsically un-Catholic,” or a threat to the faith of my Catholic child?
What Tim J. and Jean said. Schools don’t — and shouldn’t — “screen” student commencement speeches. A top student has earned the right to make a statement, even a controversial one, and there is no danger of federally established religion arising from the school permitting her to do so.
Me too — in fact, I do, and I am! — but if I were to draw up a list of the Top 500 Reasons to Homeschool, “exposure to student evangelistic zeal in a commencement speech” wouldn’t even be a minor footnote. 🙂
Um, they didn’t invite a Protestant pastor, either.< Speculation based on the article, The fact is unknown whether or not a religious figure was invited to the ceremony.
Me too — in fact, I do, and I am! — but if I were to draw up a list of the Top 500 Reasons to Homeschool, “exposure to student evangelistic zeal in a commencement speech” wouldn’t even be a minor footnote. 🙂
I’d do it because I love to teach…but not 25 at a time. Class control was not my forte.
Turning italics off 🙂
OK, that didn’t work. Hmmm…
The only question is, did the school violate the establishment clause of the Constitution by allowing a top student to speak on the topic of her choosing?
Why is that the “only” question? That’s a rather hasty generalization based on poor information which is from an article that may be biased.
Based on the quotes in the piece, all the student did was invite other students to embrace faith in Jesus.
You cannot base all of the student’s actions on only those things written in the piece. The article says it was an altar call.
Schools don’t — and shouldn’t — “screen” student commencement speeches.
Schools might not “screen” student commencement speeches, but they should. I can think of alot worse topics in this day and age that should not be in a speech at a graduation ceremony.
No, no. Let me rephrase: Saying they wouldn’t admit a Catholic priest is a red herring as regards this particular story, which is not about a Protestant pastor speaking at a commencement, but about a valedictorian speaking at a commencement. In other words, there is no sense complaining “They let a valedictorian speak, but they wouldn’t let a Catholic priest speak.” That might be a valid objection if they invited a Protestant pastor but wouldn’t allow a Catholic priest. Alternatively, one would have to compare the liberty given to a Protestant student with that given to a Catholic student.
I am turning Italics off!
Let’s try that again.
The person who left the tag unclosed was using <em>, not <i>. That’s why our previous attempts had failed.
Because that’s the only possible grounds for the ACLU lawsuit. If the school didn’t violate the establishment clause, no lawsuit.
I wouldn’t hang a dog based on a choice of words by a reporter. I’m not saying the student didn’t do more than is reported in the story — I’m saying that we can only criticize or not criticize regarding what we have evidence actually happened, not what hypothetically could have happened.
I disagree. I think the danger to the first amendment right of free speech posed by such a proposal is far greater than the non-danger to the first amendment establishment clause.
This doesn’t address the ACLU question but I’ll comment on the “altar call” and “accepting Jesus as your personal savior”.
In many evangelical Protestant circles, the above has become The Eighth Sacrament. (I know … most sacraments aren’t recognozed anyway. I’m talking here as a Papist.) The following is a common testimony:
“I was baptized as an infant, always believed in God and attended 17 years of Catholic schools. But it wasn’t until I accepted Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior that I became a real Christan.”
The differences are both theology AND semantics. Your favorite saint probably had a dramatic conversion experience but within the context of their Catholic faith. When a nominal Catholic is challenged to surrender his life to Christ by a non-Catholic Christian and responds in the positive, he often abandons his Catholic faith to associate with the non-Catholic messenger.
We can be very grateful to JPII for including The 3rd Luminous Mystery:” Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom and the call to conversion.” This proclamation and call needs to be echoed frequently by Catholic parents, pastors & teachers with clarity & the power of God the Holy Spirit. Jesus often drew the line in the sand. We need to do the same with our children and really with all.