Taking God Out of Texas High School Football

[ClydeR]

This year, cheerleaders for Kountze High School decided to put Bible verses on the paper banners that the football team runs through at the start of each game.

Someone mailed a complaint to the Kountze ISD superintendent. Kevin Weldon said he immediately contacted legal counsel and the Texas Association of School Boards which advised him the practice should end immediately.

More... (http://www.kens5.com/news/Texas-high-school-students-fight-to-display-Christian-themed-football-banners-170524666.html)

Texans are super serious about high school football. You can bet that there will be a lawsuit about this.


“The one parent that did complain,” said football player Caleb Darby, “if you don’t like it don’t come to our games. That’s how I feel away about it.”

Instead, more people might be coming to their next game. In addition to the flurry of new sign painting for the next football game, students and parents also created a Facebook group page called “Support Kountze Kids Faith.” Within 24 hours more than 30,000 people signed up to join the site.

“I’m actually thankful for it,” said cheerleader Ashton Jennings of the controversy. “Because if someone hadn’t complained, or if there hadn’t been any opposition we wouldn’t have this chance to spread God’s word in this big of a way.”

“It makes me proud of all of these girls,” said cheerleader parent Shy Seaman who began to cry when asked about the students’ willingness to fight the superintendent’s decision. “It means so much, I mean not only for my own that I’ve raised her right but these other kids have been raised right too. And our community has raised these kids with these strong values that they’re willing to fight for it.”

[Tgo01]

People complained about bible verses on paper banners that the football players run through?

People need to get lives.

[Tenlaar]

I would have complained too. Keep your imaginary friends to yourself.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure years of therapy will help you overcome the horror of seeing something religious.

[Tenlaar]

You act as if it is a rare thing for people to shove their religion in peoples' faces. It is everywhere.

[thefarmer]

By allowing the football players to run through it, it can be implied that the team, and in turn the school endorses not only that bible verse, but that specific religion too.

From looking at that FB page they set up, the only Faith they're wanting support for is Christian, so I'm more than positive that there would had been plenty of complaints, even assuming the school approved it, if the banner had been a passage from the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or <insert less popular in the US religion>.

[Tgo01]

I'm okay with people having different lifestyles, just as long as they keep it in the closet and I don't have to know about it.

Boy that sounds familiar.

[Bobmuhthol]

The Shy Seaman quote is all the evidence you need to see why religion is fucking frightening. Also her name is Shy Seaman...?

[Tenlaar]

A lifestyle and a personal belief structure are different things.

[Gelston]

I don't think it is a big deal. Iit is a high school girl writing shit on a banner that gets destroyed. It isn't as if it is the school is passing out 6 foot tall crucifixes to people at the start of the game and forcing them to carry them to their seats.

[Androidpk]

A lifestyle and a personal belief structure are different things.

How exactly?

[Bobmuhthol]

One is observable.

[msconstrew]

Why debate about whether it's "okay" because it's "just a high school." The First Amendment prohibits this, period. It should not be permitted. It is unfortunate that schools can't seem to see why it's violative of the First Amendment because that certainly would prevent litigation. But since they can't, it should be litigated and the school should be enjoined from the practice.

Religion is shoved in our faces all the time, whether we like it or not. When the State or a State actor does it, it violates the First Amendment. There's no reason to just sit down and dismiss it because it's "not that bad." Yeah, it IS that bad.

[ravashaak]

As Farmer stated, if you'd switched the Christian statement on the banner with something from another religion (say the Koran), most of the same folks saying that it was no big deal, would be livid. I'm sure that if the banner had said something like "Atheism rules!", it would also have resulted in boiling indignation from most of the same folks who are for the Christian statement on the banner at a school function. The best thing to have done here would have been to avoid the religious topic entirely. It's an injection of religious beliefs into a place where it has no business. It has no more business at an official school function than a sign-toting atheist has at the pulpit screaming discouragement at believers in Sunday church gatherings.

I remember when I was in high school, our banners said something about kicking the other team's ass. Seems a bit more on-topic to me.

[Androidpk]

"Kicking the other team's ass."

But then someone would complain that you're endorsing violence. In fact, football is a pretty violent sport, we should probably replace it with competative patty cake. Oh wait, those pesky people with no arms or hands would complain.. damnit!

[Valthissa]

[QUOTE=msconstrew;1457854]Why debate about whether it's "okay" because it's "just a high school." The First Amendment prohibits this, period. It should not be permitted. It is unfortunate that schools can't seem to see why it's violative of the First Amendment because that certainly would prevent litigation.QUOTE]

tricky thing that first amendment:

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.

Seems to me there is some tension between the establishment of religion part and freedom of speech section. The girl with the banner was probably thinking, 'hey, I'm not Congress making a law about religion so I can speak freely'.

I agree that, at least in my part of Virginia, religion is, as you say, shoved in my face (and I don't appreciate it).

C

[Gelston]

It is NOT a high school doing it. It is a STUDENT writing it. She isn't being told to do it, it is her free speech. They are not supporting it nor disallowing it.

[Tgo01]

Religion is shoved in our faces all the time, whether we like it or not. When the State or a State actor does it, it violates the First Amendment. There's no reason to just sit down and dismiss it because it's "not that bad." Yeah, it IS that bad.

Not sure I'm buying the argument that cheerleaders who took it upon themselves to write bible verses on banners that are only up for a few minutes is considered the school promoting or sponsoring a religion.

[Tgo01]

I also found this article about this particular subject. (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=803524) (Not sure if Clyder's link mentioned this, too lazy to look.)


BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) - A judge says cheerleaders at a Texas high school's football games can continue carrying banners that feature Bible verses for at least two more weeks.

A judge in Beaumont has issued a temporary restraining order blocking a ban on religious signs at school-sponsored events in the Kountze (koontz) Independent School District.

District Superintendent Kevin Weldon banned the religious messages, including run-through banners at football games, after the Freedom from Religion Foundation told him that a resident had complained about the Bible verses. Cheerleader Macy Matthews said no school money was used and the signs weren't made on school property.

Liberty Institute senior counsel Mike Johnson says the Supreme Court has ruled that students don't lose their constitutional rights when they enter school.

No school money was used, it was done off of school property and on their own free time. Nowhere on the banner does it mention the school's name or that the school sponsored it. No teachers are getting involved (well other than DISALLOWING it that is, which can also be against the first amendment.) How is this violating the first amendment?

I also love how the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is getting involved in this.

[Bobmuhthol]

No school money was used argument: This is garbage because it doesn't cost the school money to announce every day that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, and that's still obviously unconstitutional.
The signs weren't made on school property argument: This is garbage because guns aren't made on school property, and bringing them onto school property is obviously illegal (not sure how the constitution feels here, but I know how statutes feel).

[msconstrew]

tricky thing that first amendment:

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.

Seems to me there is some tension between the establishment of religion part and freedom of speech section. The girl with the banner was probably thinking, 'hey, I'm not Congress making a law about religion so I can speak freely'.

I agree that, at least in my part of Virginia, religion is, as you say, shoved in my face (and I don't appreciate it).

C

I don't appreciate it, either.

Anyway, just because a cheerleader did it doesn't mean it's not considered State action. Did the school endorse it? How many times has it occurred? Is it a regular practice? If it's a regular practice, then I think you can make a very good argument it is is State action because the school is either actively or tacitly condoning the practice. I'm sorry I don't have the time to go do some legal research on this issue, but maybe I'll come back with a better analysis tonight.

[Tgo01]

No school money was used argument: This is garbage because it doesn't cost the school money to announce every day that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, and that's still obviously unconstitutional.

That's obviously unconstitutional because the school is actively promoting a religion, not because it does or does not cost money.


The signs weren't made on school property argument: This is garbage because guns aren't made on school property, and bringing them onto school property is obviously illegal (not sure how the constitution feels here, but I know how statutes feel).

You're comparing bringing guns onto school property to students bringing banners onto school property? Come on let's try to be serious here.

[Bobmuhthol]

The school is actively promoting a religion when the school's cheerleaders stop practicing sodomy long enough to create a sign about how cool God is and then display it at a school event.

The argument is that these signs can't possibly violate law because they were made away from the school and then brought to the school, and the only reasonable conclusion is that law-breaking objects cease to break the law as long as the school wasn't involved in their inception (if you don't agree with this, then you don't agree with the original argument, so good luck using it as a defense). The fact that you see how stupid the gun example is proves my point: their argument isn't sound.

[Tgo01]

The argument is that these signs can't possibly violate law because they were made away from the school and then brought to the school, and the only reasonable conclusion is that law-breaking objects cease to break the law as long as the school wasn't involved in their inception

That's not the argument being made at all. Banners with religious slogans on them are not breaking the law, whether or not they were made on school property. What they are trying to illustrate is the school/faculty did not endorse or encourage these signs at all, which is a very important distinction to make when it comes to whether or not a school is violating the first amendment.

[Bobmuhthol]

Banners with religious slogans on them are not breaking the law, whether or not they were made on school property.
The First Amendment disagrees with you???

What they are trying to illustrate is the school/faculty did not endorse or encourage these signs at all
You're right, the school didn't endorse the signs. And then they banned them. And now an insane judge is making them endorse the signs, which seems like a pretty direct violation of the First Amendment in itself. But hey, Texas judges will be Texas judges.

[Tgo01]

The First Amendment disagrees with you???

Now I'm really confused. You're saying banners with religious slogans on them are inherently against the law? Where exactly is that stated in the first amendment?

[EasternBrand]

That's obviously unconstitutional because the school is actively promoting a religion, not because it does or does not cost money.

If the principal does this every morning during the daily announcements, is it obviously illegal? What if the daily announcements are made by the senior-class president, is it still obviously illegal? How about if, on football gameday, the head cheerleader makes the daily announcements? What's the difference between the last scenario and the banner? It seems flimsy to distinguish the daily announcements on the basis that they're a greater part of the school agenda than the football game--not that you've done so, but it's the distinction that I might be temped to make. The game is organized, funded, and hosted by the school just like the bake sale or the chess club.

I'm curious about your distinction regarding "actively promoting" a religion, do you mean to distinguish passive promotion as acceptable, or just as a less obvious issue?

[Parkbandit]

I love the argument "religion is being shoved in our faces".. as if you aren't strong enough willed or intelligent enough to make a decision on your own... the banner is FORCING ME TO BELIEVE!!

And yes, I'm 100% atheist.

For those that this upsets this much... my suggestion would be to maybe give religion a chance.. because your life must be so fucking screwed up you need it.

[Tgo01]

How about if, on football gameday, the head cheerleader makes the daily announcements? What's the difference between the last scenario and the banner?

I would say there are several differences. First it happens during class time so it could be considered disruptive. It would also seem the daily announcement themselves are school condoned/endorsed hence anything said on them would carry the approval of the school/faculty. I'm sure there are others but I'm too lazy to think of more. Students have the right to voice their religious beliefs on school grounds, as long as they are not trying to coerce others and it isn't disruptive. I think a banner and a school approved daily announcement are miles apart in this distinction.


I'm curious about your distinction regarding "actively promoting" a religion, do you mean to distinguish passive promotion as acceptable, or just as a less obvious issue?

You're right that was just bad wording on my part. Doesn't matter whether the school actively or passively does it it's still against the law.

[Bobmuhthol]

Now I'm really confused. You're saying banners with religious slogans on them are inherently against the law? Where exactly is that stated in the first amendment?
The establishment clause.

[Gelston]

And congress made a law respecting the establishment of religion, exactly how here? Do forget about the Free Exercise Clause, aswell.

[Tgo01]

The establishment clause.

Religion based clubs are allowed at schools as long as they are treated just like any other club. I can't imagine a school would ban all clubs from making posters promoting their club but I guess it's possible.

[EasternBrand]

I would say there are several differences. First it happens during class time so it could be considered disruptive. It would also seem the daily announcement themselves are school condoned/endorsed hence anything said on them would carry the approval of the school/faculty. I'm sure there are others but I'm too lazy to think of more. Students have the right to voice their religious beliefs on school grounds, as long as they are not trying to coerce others and it isn't disruptive. I think a banner and a school approved daily announcement are miles apart in this distinction.

These are reasonable arguments about thorny facts, with which I disagree with on, I think, equally reasonable grounds, so in the time-honored tradition of this folder, I'll just say, ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID OR SOMETHING? and move on.

[Tenlaar]

It would also seem the daily announcement themselves are school condoned/endorsed hence anything said on them would carry the approval of the school/faculty.

How exactly can banners being used in a school function be seen as anything other than condoned by said school?

[Tgo01]

How exactly can banners being used in a school function be seen as anything other than condoned by said school?

Maybe condoned wasn't the right word to use. The school can easily not endorse the banners though.

[Suppressed Poet]

As a Texas resident, I can tell you there is no way in hell that they will make them take it down. I won't debate on what's right / wrong, the 1st amendment, etc. I'm just saying that is the way things are here and Texas is a very conservative Christian state.

[Latrinsorm]

People complained about bible verses on paper banners that the football players run through?

People need to get lives.Are you saying former President Thomas Jefferson needs to get a life? I mean, yeah... he's dead as Julius Caesar.
Students have the right to voice their religious beliefs on school grounds, as long as they are not trying to coerce others and it isn't disruptive.Citizens have the right to voice their religious beliefs. How sure are you that students enjoy all the same rights as citizens?

Putting that aside, couldn't you make the case that "disruptive" is demonstrated by "someone complained", which happened in this case?
"Kicking the other team's ass."

But then someone would complain that you're endorsing violence. In fact, football is a pretty violent sport, we should probably replace it with competative patty cake. Oh wait, those pesky people with no arms or hands would complain.. damnit!I prefer co-operative patty cake.
I love the argument "religion is being shoved in our faces".. as if you aren't strong enough willed or intelligent enough to make a decision on your own... the banner is FORCING ME TO BELIEVE!!Who, specifically, do you feel is making that argument?

[Tgo01]

Are you saying former President Thomas Jefferson needs to get a life?

Yes.


Citizens have the right to voice their religious beliefs. How sure are you that students enjoy all the same rights as citizens?

Pretty darn sure. Yes there are some limitations put in place but this would not fall under those limitations.


Putting that aside, couldn't you make the case that "disruptive" is demonstrated by "someone complained", which happened in this case?

I would argue that one person complaining, or even a group of people complaining, would not automatically make something disruptive. If that were the case it would be very easy to censor everything at school, just get one asshole parent to bitch about everything and next thing you know our kids are going to school acting as drones, afraid to speak up about anything and all looking and dressing exactly the same.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs35t2xFqdU

[Parkbandit]

Who, specifically, do you feel is making that argument?

You've never, ever heard anyone ever use that phrase before in your little sheltered life?

[Latrinsorm]

Pretty darn sure. Yes there are some limitations put in place but this would not fall under those limitations.Darn it!
I would argue that one person complaining, or even a group of people complaining, would not automatically make something disruptive. If that were the case it would be very easy to censor everything at school, just get one asshole parent to bitch about everything and next thing you know our kids are going to school acting as drones, afraid to speak up about anything and all looking and dressing exactly the same.That's true, perhaps we should have some objective limit on it, perhaps some sort of centuries old document, perhaps one that we also happen to rely on for other fundamental legal matters.
You've never, ever heard anyone ever use that phrase before in your little sheltered life?I have heard people use the phrase "religion is being shoved in our faces". I have not seen anyone, using that phrase or otherwise, argue that that "FORC[ES] THEM TO BELIEVE!!", so I will ask you again: who, specifically, do you feel is making that argument? There are only 13 people in this thread who have posted besides you, it should be a pretty easy task to source a name.

[Tgo01]

That's true, perhaps we should have some objective limit on it, perhaps some sort of centuries old document, perhaps one that we also happen to rely on for other fundamental legal matters.

Sounds great. Show me exactly where this particular scenario falls under any sort of law on our books, whether centuries old or written within the past few days.

Do it Latrin, I double dog dare you.

[Latrinsorm]

It was a Constitution reference. You disagree that it violates the First Amendment. When it inevitably reaches a higher (albeit mess with-able) court, we'll see who's right (me) and who is wrong even if the justices temporarily agree with him (Terrence Gloria Olivier the First).

[msconstrew]

I have not seen anyone, using that phrase or otherwise, argue that that "FORC[ES] THEM TO BELIEVE!!", so I will ask you again: who, specifically, do you feel is making that argument? There are only 13 people in this thread who have posted besides you, it should be a pretty easy task to source a name.

I said it. I did not say that it forces me to believe; it obviously does not because I am an atheist. But just saying that I find having other peoples' religions thrust upon me distasteful is not incendiary enough for PB. So he needs to put words in others' mouths and infer that that's what they're saying so he can then deride the sentiment. It's a very complicated set of illogical gymnastics.

For the record, I find it distasteful that many people assume that everyone in this country is Christian. That assumption clearly does not force me to believe in that religion. But you know, I am an atheist. I don't mention it to others (except in this context), I don't tell people they should consider becoming atheists, and I don't attempt to impose my beliefs on others. I just wish that the same was true of others.

[Tgo01]

Maybe I have just led a very sheltered life or I've just been very lucky. Only one time that I can recall has someone actually tried to "convert" me, and I used to date someone who was a Sunday school teacher and I went to church with her every Sunday and I've had friends/neighbors with many different religious backgrounds. I've had more people try to convert me to the Democratic way of life then I've had people tried to convert me to some sort of religion. I'm beginning to think this "they are shoving religion down my throat! They're imposing their beliefs on me!" is just another made up talking point.

[Bobmuhthol]

By allowing the football players to run through it, it can be implied that the team, and in turn the school endorses not only that bible verse, but that specific religion too.

From looking at that FB page they set up, the only Faith they're wanting support for is Christian, so I'm more than positive that there would had been plenty of complaints, even assuming the school approved it, if the banner had been a passage from the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or <insert less popular in the US religion>.
This couldn't be more true, and I am very intentionally reposting it next to Tgo01's last statement.

[msconstrew]

Maybe I have just led a very sheltered life or I've just been very lucky. Only one time that I can recall has someone actually tried to "convert" me, and I used to date someone who was a Sunday school teacher and I went to church with her every Sunday and I've had friends/neighbors with many different religious backgrounds. I've had more people try to convert me to the Democratic way of life then I've had people tried to convert me to some sort of religion. I'm beginning to think this "they are shoving religion down my throat! They're imposing their beliefs on me!" is just another made up talking point.

I have definitely had people try to impose their beliefs on me. But, more to the point, it's just uncomfortable when someone assumes you're a certain religion when you're not - especially when you weren't even raised that religion. I am NOT saying that discomfort is a First Amendment violation, and of course private actors can do whatever they like. But I think people on state property shouldn't be subjected to that kind of discomfort if you they don't have to.

I'll give an example. The company I work for is private. I went to a formal function about six months ago and before dinner one of the corporate officers led us in prayer. Yes, it made me uncomfortable, but it's perfectly legal in a privately owned company. But I'm glad that can't (or shouldn't) happen in state-controlled circumstances. At least there are some places where we don't have to worry about the feeling that we're not part of the group.

I'm probably explaining this poorly and everyone's going to think I'm whining. Whatever. I'm glad for the First Amendment.

[Parkbandit]

I have heard people use the phrase "religion is being shoved in our faces". I have not seen anyone, using that phrase or otherwise, argue that that "FORC[ES] THEM TO BELIEVE!!", so I will ask you again: who, specifically, do you feel is making that argument? There are only 13 people in this thread who have posted besides you, it should be a pretty easy task to source a name.

Where did I say someone in this thread was making that argument? I was speaking generally.

Also, the phrase was used in post #5 of this very thread. I think the actual phrase I was thinking of was "shoved down our throats".. but "face" stuck in my mind.

[Parkbandit]

I have definitely had people try to impose their beliefs on me. But, more to the point, it's just uncomfortable when someone assumes you're a certain religion when you're not - especially when you weren't even raised that religion. I am NOT saying that discomfort is a First Amendment violation, and of course private actors can do whatever they like. But I think people on state property shouldn't be subjected to that kind of discomfort if you they don't have to.

I'll give an example. The company I work for is private. I went to a formal function about six months ago and before dinner one of the corporate officers led us in prayer. Yes, it made me uncomfortable, but it's perfectly legal in a privately owned company. But I'm glad that can't (or shouldn't) happen in state-controlled circumstances. At least there are some places where we don't have to worry about the feeling that we're not part of the group.

I'm probably explaining this poorly and everyone's going to think I'm whining. Whatever. I'm glad for the First Amendment.

Seriously, how uncomfortable could a 20 second prayer actually make you? Did you cry? Did you have to excuse yourself so you could calm down?

Dramatic silliness... and yes you sound like you are whining.

[Tgo01]

But, more to the point, it's just uncomfortable when someone assumes you're a certain religion when you're not - especially when you weren't even raised that religion.

If you're just talking about in general then I agree, I hate when people assume I'm anything that I'm not. However I don't feel in this case anyone is assuming anything.


But I'm glad that can't (or shouldn't) happen in state-controlled circumstances. At least there are some places where we don't have to worry about the feeling that we're not part of the group.

Again I think you're stretching things if this is in regards to this banner thing.

[Suppressed Poet]

I said it. I did not say that it forces me to believe; it obviously does not because I am an atheist. But just saying that I find having other peoples' religions thrust upon me distasteful is not incendiary enough for PB. So he needs to put words in others' mouths and infer that that's what they're saying so he can then deride the sentiment. It's a very complicated set of illogical gymnastics.

For the record, I find it distasteful that many people assume that everyone in this country is Christian. That assumption clearly does not force me to believe in that religion. But you know, I am an atheist. I don't mention it to others (except in this context), I don't tell people they should consider becoming atheists, and I don't attempt to impose my beliefs on others. I just wish that the same was true of others.

Let's look at it this way. This country, whether you like it or not, was founded on Christian beliefs and by Christians. Christianity is and has been a part of the United States since its inception. Most of our original documents, including the Constitution, make reference to God. Our currency has written "In God we trust".

This is not to say that our country does not believe in religous freedom or tolerance. I am proud to be a part of a nation that respects the religious freedom of choice to Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Buddhasists, etc. alike.

That being said, this nation is STILL founded on Christian beliefs and by Christian people. It is as much a part of our history as it is a part of our culture. The overwhelming majority of people today in the United States are Christian, the same as it has been since it started. Hell our presidents (and both canidates) use God bless America in their speeches...which doesn't necissarly have to be a Christian reference more than a monotheist (but it indeed is a Christian reference).

So that being the case, I think it's both naieve and a far stretch to say something like this is shoving religion down your throat. Why should America actualy go back and change its laws/culture/history because of a little bitching from you or any other person that finds this "offensive". Pushing religion down your throat would be requiring you to attend a ceremony of a particular church. That is what our forefathers were fighting, not this wishy-washy pussy shit "oh it hurts my feelings!!".

And you know what...if it was another school had football players running through a banner that read "We don't need God to kick your butt tonight" and that school/community was ok with it, I in turn would not gripe and say that they are pushing Godlesness down my throat.

[4a6c1]

Seriously, how uncomfortable could a 20 second prayer actually make you? Did you cry? Did you have to excuse yourself so you could calm down?

Dramatic silliness... and yes you sound like you are whining.

Your mocking her? Could you be any more dense?

An executive with my company gave a speech last year and since almost everyone in the room except for security were foreign nationals we were uncomfortable and suprised that he ended his speech with God bless America but did not mention Ramadan (middle of august). We (the security crew) and the suits in the middle floors take a lot of effort to be culturally sensitive. We got our model from Schlumberger...who employs mostly asians and indonesians. They deal with hundreds of different cultural holidays yearly.

You should learn, if you are capable, that in the real world the people that do things to help you get through your day are not all christian americans. Nor are they white christian americans. Sometimes they are not even Americans. But they are people and they deserve your equal treatment.

Finally, Texas so incredibly backwards that this did not suprise me at all.

Echoed 1st Amendment.

[4a6c1]

http://jezebel.com/5944747/in-case-you-havent-barfed-today-here-comes-the-stupidest-fox-news-article-of-all-time?popular=true

Best fox news article EVER

[msconstrew]

Seriously, how uncomfortable could a 20 second prayer actually make you? Did you cry? Did you have to excuse yourself so you could calm down?

Dramatic silliness... and yes you sound like you are whining.

I did! I sobbed little girly tears! And then I needed a big strong man to hold me! It was traumatic! I couldn't even eat dinner! And then I went to HR and complained!

I am pretty sure I answered your question in the telling - it made me uncomfortable. That's all. But I also said that I was glad that this sort of thing can't happen at state-sanctioned events. If you want to read more into it, feel free.

[ClydeR]

Most of our original documents, including the Constitution, make reference to God.

Most of the people in this forum are part of the 47% moocher class, and they'll never believe it unless you quote it for them. You might as well quote that part of the Constitution in advance so they'll believe it.

[Latrinsorm]

Let's look at it this way. This country, whether you like it or not, was founded on Christian beliefs and by Christians. Christianity is and has been a part of the United States since its inception. Most of our original documents, including the Constitution, make reference to God. Our currency has written "In God we trust".

This is not to say that our country does not believe in religous freedom or tolerance. I am proud to be a part of a nation that respects the religious freedom of choice to Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Buddhasists, etc. alike.

That being said, this nation is STILL founded on Christian beliefs and by Christian people. It is as much a part of our history as it is a part of our culture. The overwhelming majority of people today in the United States are Christian, the same as it has been since it started. Hell our presidents (and both canidates) use God bless America in their speeches...which doesn't necissarly have to be a Christian reference more than a monotheist (but it indeed is a Christian reference).

So that being the case, I think it's both naieve and a far stretch to say something like this is shoving religion down your throat. Why should America actualy go back and change its laws/culture/history because of a little bitching from you or any other person that finds this "offensive". Pushing religion down your throat would be requiring you to attend a ceremony of a particular church. That is what our forefathers were fighting, not this wishy-washy pussy shit "oh it hurts my feelings!!".

And you know what...if it was another school had football players running through a banner that read "We don't need God to kick your butt tonight" and that school/community was ok with it, I in turn would not gripe and say that they are pushing Godlesness down my throat.Our country was also founded on slavery and racism. In some of our members' lifetimes we had elected governors standing in the doorways of colleges refusing entry to blacks, giving segregationist speeches to deliriously supportive football stadiums (...COINCIDENCE???). Now we recognize that that was all patently antithetical to the stated and proper ideals of our country. If it took nearly 200 years for us to grasp something so simple as "don't be a jerk to people because they have more pigment in their skin", of course it would take us even longer to grasp something more nebulous like religious interaction.

For the record, there is no mention of God in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. To your more central point, however, which Christian belief specifically was enshrined in the Constitution? Feel free to cite any Bible verse, any papal declaration, any sermon.

[Tgo01]

But I also said that I was glad that this sort of thing can't happen at state-sanctioned events. If you want to read more into it, feel free.

Doesn't the White House host an annual Easter egg hunt? I don't think you get much more state-sanctioned than that.

[4a6c1]

Because.....Jesus raised up from the dead and turned into an egg laying bunnyrabbit? Is that in the bible?

[Tgo01]

For the record, there is no mention of God in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation.

Lord is mentioned in the Constitution.


Because.....Jesus raised up from the dead and turned into an egg laying bunnyrabbit? Is that in the bible?

Are you trying to deny Easter is a Christian holiday or something?

[msconstrew]

Let's look at it this way. This country, whether you like it or not, was founded on Christian beliefs and by Christians. Christianity is and has been a part of the United States since its inception. Most of our original documents, including the Constitution, make reference to God. Our currency has written "In God we trust".

And yet the FIRST Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause. That should tell you something about the people who founded this nation, too, though you fail to acknowledge it in your entire diatribe.


This is not to say that our country does not believe in religous freedom or tolerance. I am proud to be a part of a nation that respects the religious freedom of choice to Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Buddhasists, etc. alike.

I'd be proud of it, too, if it wasn't just paying lip service to freedom of religion with the underlying hostility because "this is a country founded on Christian values" ... like you said above and below.


That being said, this nation is STILL founded on Christian beliefs and by Christian people. It is as much a part of our history as it is a part of our culture. The overwhelming majority of people today in the United States are Christian, the same as it has been since it started. Hell our presidents (and both canidates) use God bless America in their speeches...which doesn't necissarly have to be a Christian reference more than a monotheist (but it indeed is a Christian reference).

True. There are people who believe it should be removed from currency. And it has been removed from various military medals and other national symbols. You could also point out that there is a National Prayer Dinner every year, which is hosted by our sitting President. That, too, seems to violate the First Amendment, but apparently keeping constituents happy is more important than anything else.


So that being the case, I think it's both naieve and a far stretch to say something like this is shoving religion down your throat. Why should America actualy go back and change its laws/culture/history because of a little bitching from you or any other person that finds this "offensive". Pushing religion down your throat would be requiring you to attend a ceremony of a particular church. That is what our forefathers were fighting, not this wishy-washy pussy shit "oh it hurts my feelings!!".

Well, first, it's not "offensive" to me. Second, I did not suggest that we should "go back and change [the country's] laws/culture/history because of a little bitching from [me]". That would be impossible. And third, you're using a dramatic example to attempt to minimize what you perceive to be an insignificant act ("requiring you to attend a ceremony of a particular church"). Just because your perception of the act is that it is insignificant or that it does not foist religion on others does not mean that your position is legally correct. Forgive me if I think that I know more about the law than you do.

[4a6c1]

Are you trying to deny Easter is a Christian holiday or something?


Are you trying to deny that looking for eggs on a lawn is not a feminist child birthing holiday dedicated to Ishtar?! BLASPHEMER.

[Tgo01]

Are you trying to deny that looking for eggs on a lawn is not a feminist child birthing holiday dedicated to Ishtar?! BLASPHEMER.

...yes?

...no?

Someone help me out here.

[thefarmer]

It is as much a part of our history as it is a part of our culture.
...

Why should America actualy go back and change its laws/culture/history because of a little bitching from you or any other person that finds this "offensive".



I won't argue that Christianity hasn't played a large part in the founding and beginning stages of this country. Going back and changing things isn't, at least from what I see argued here, what's being asked for. It's for future laws and such.


The overwhelming majority of people today in the United States are Christian, the same as it has been since it started. Hell our presidents (and both canidates) use God bless America in their speeches...which doesn't necissarly have to be a Christian reference more than a monotheist (but it indeed is a Christian reference).

What happens when/if Christianity isn't the majority religion in the US? Does it become OK for presidents to say 'All Hail Allah'? What about school instituted prayers facing Mecca? Does this mean that references, indirectly or directly, concerning new laws/culture would be OK?

Strawman argument: Slavery and indentured servitude was a big part of this country's founding and early history too. Does this mean that because it was, it should still be OK today?

Do you think the people fighting to keep this banner up are doing so because they believe in the freedom to express any religion? Or just theirs (Christianity)? If there was a Jehovah's Witness cheerleader who wanted to display a passage from one of their pamphlets, would these same people be fighting to allow it?

Again, looking at their FB page, I only really see evidence of support for Christianity. There was even several anti-Muslim comments on the page, none of which were contradicted by other people, or the page owner.

[Latrinsorm]

One final point: of course you wouldn't be bothered as a member of the powerful majority if a powerless minority made a statement against what you believe. Consider that there have been more Catholic priests to sit in Congress than open atheists.

[Latrinsorm]

Lord is mentioned in the Constitution.That's a common mistake: the original text actually has the Year of Traci Lords. Thomas Jefferson was a perv, what can I say.

[Tgo01]

That's a common mistake: the original text actually has the Year of Traci Lords. Thomas Jefferson was a perv, what can I say.

I thought Ben Franklin was the perv?

[Latrinsorm]

Ben Franklin was also a perv, but he was not involved with the Constitution or its peppering with references to adult film actresses.

[Suppressed Poet]

One final point: of course you wouldn't be bothered as a member of the powerful majority if a powerless minority made a statement against what you believe. Consider that there have been more Catholic priests to sit in Congress than open atheists.

Ha - I am actually Catholic myself, though obviously not a priest. I really am in the minority as well within the Christian population of the country, especialy here in Texas. It still doesn't really bother me when a babtist says to "find Jesus and be saved" which is not consistant with my beliefs.

I think in a lot of ways we are becoming a nation of whining pansies.

This whole thing makes me thankful I went to a Catholic high school and we were not subject to this type of BS.

[msconstrew]

This whole thing makes me thankful I went to a Catholic high school and we were not subject to this type of BS.

It makes me glad I went to a secular east coast private school, too, but probably for different reasons than you.

[Latrinsorm]

I think you would agree that the distance between Catholic and Protestant is significantly smaller than that between Christian and atheist/whatever (also, best reply option for a survey ever). I am also a Catholic, and didn't realize most of the nation was Protestant until I was about 7. I'm pretty sure if I had been praying towards Mecca 5 times a day that difference would have been made clear to me a lot earlier.

[poloneus]

Couple of points - students do have rights in school, but not ones that equate to adults in a public setting - see Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Anytime it can be reasonably assumed that the school (i.e. the State) is sponsoring a message, even one carried on a banner by a student, and that message advocates religion, it clearly violates the establishment clause. This cheerleader was at a school sponsored event doing cheerleading stuff and therefore would clearly fall under this description. See Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). The fact that she is holding it and the other kids are running through it would seem to send the message that each one of them supports that religion. The court has repeatedly indicated that while Congress and the Supreme Court may open their daily activities with a prayer - they are adults and would not be subject to the same level of peer pressure as students in school. Since kids would have undue pressure put on them purely because everyone else is doing it, they are very likely to participate and tacitly acknowledge their support of the religion. Therefore the State has just established a religion for them.

Case law is clear on this. This has been litigated over way too many times and the decision is always the same. Local courts may not agree, but federal courts will ban this practice.

The same kid could take off her cheerleading uniform and go into the stands and hold her banner all day. I can not see how that would be a problem under the law.

[Liagala]

Maybe I have just led a very sheltered life or I've just been very lucky. Only one time that I can recall has someone actually tried to "convert" me, and I used to date someone who was a Sunday school teacher and I went to church with her every Sunday and I've had friends/neighbors with many different religious backgrounds. I've had more people try to convert me to the Democratic way of life then I've had people tried to convert me to some sort of religion. I'm beginning to think this "they are shoving religion down my throat! They're imposing their beliefs on me!" is just another made up talking point.
Other than Jehovah's Witnesses, I've never seen anyone actually shove their religion in my face either. But then again, I have no objection to Christianity. It's human nature to be more aware of that which bothers us. I could see a person standing on a street corner a block or two away with God pamphlets and not think twice. Ten minutes later if you mentioned the guy I'd have to ask who you were talking about. An atheist who's annoyed by things like that would remember it for weeks afterward. To them it's some asshole who thinks he has the right to shove his religion down every person's throat who walks by him. It's all about perception. I know I've gotten upset over things other people thought were minor in the past, because it was an issue that gets to me. It's pretty tough to say that the issues I care about are legit, but the ones I have little concern for are made up talking points. How people react to said issues is definitely up for judgment IMO, but not their thoughts.

[Tenlaar]

This country, whether you like it or not, was founded on Christian beliefs...

I think somebody should perhaps take the time to read a few more old documents.

[Back]

Fairly certain the main point of founding this country was government without church influence. Thats elementary school stuff.

[Androidpk]

The United States was NOT founded as a christian country.

[msconstrew]

The United States was NOT founded as a christian country.

This is true. Suppressed Poet cannot tell the difference between Christians founding a country that is secular despite their beliefs and Christians founding a Christian country. I don't even think it's a very difficult distinction, but it apparently eludes a lot of people.

[4a6c1]

This country was settled by refugees and immigrants, SOME of them religious extremists (Puritans). I can talk alot of shit about the founding fathers but at least they saw fit to separate church and state to protect us from the Suppressed Poets of the world.

[Androidpk]

The founding fathers were very specific in that matter, especially with article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.


"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[4a6c1]

And weren't most refernces to "God" added to our things in the 50's aka anti-communist hysteria?

[Tenlaar]

I can talk alot of shit about the founding fathers but at least they saw fit to separate church and state to protect us from the Suppressed Poets of the world.

It goes further than that, many of the founding fathers thought religion to be one of the greatest dangers to mankind and freedom in general. It is absolutely absurd to say that they wanted a christian nation.

[4a6c1]

Speaking of founding fathers, Patrick Henry is the great american evangelical that most people think of when they think "christian founding father" and although he was a great man, he was singular in his extreme Christian persuasion. Even so, I think it can even be assumed by the language he used that his extreme Christian faith was implied and part of a social expectation as a leader in his community and church. His words are similar to many anglo authors throughout the world at the time in that talk of Christ was often thrown in as an afterthought and considered obligatory. Different time, different culture. Keep in mind this was not very long after talk of witches led to burnings. Christian religion was implied and assumed. Athiests were sometimes doctors with power but never the poor and never public. If this country was "founded" by a closet Muslim we would never know!

[4a6c1]

...yes?

...no?

Someone help me out here.

http://www.piney.com/His32.html

[Tgo01]

http://www.piney.com/His32.html

Let's not argue semantics here. It's very obvious the White House Easter hunt is about the Christian holiday Easter. Whether or not them bad Christians stole the holiday doesn't change that.

[Suppressed Poet]

I won't argue that Christianity hasn't played a large part in the founding and beginning stages of this country. Going back and changing things isn't, at least from what I see argued here, what's being asked for. It's for future laws and such.



What happens when/if Christianity isn't the majority religion in the US? Does it become OK for presidents to say 'All Hail Allah'? What about school instituted prayers facing Mecca? Does this mean that references, indirectly or directly, concerning new laws/culture would be OK?

Strawman argument: Slavery and indentured servitude was a big part of this country's founding and early history too. Does this mean that because it was, it should still be OK today?

Do you think the people fighting to keep this banner up are doing so because they believe in the freedom to express any religion? Or just theirs (Christianity)? If there was a Jehovah's Witness cheerleader who wanted to display a passage from one of their pamphlets, would these same people be fighting to allow it?

Again, looking at their FB page, I only really see evidence of support for Christianity. There was even several anti-Muslim comments on the page, none of which were contradicted by other people, or the page owner.

Laws are determined by the values and culture of the society, which for the most part is in fact influenced by the majority.

If the country's population had an overwhelming change in religion, in your reference to Islam, I would expect that yes our country would change to have more Islamic culture. I previously gave an example that it wouldn't piss me off to the extent I would want to get the government involved if a majority secular school (and it was ok with them and that community) wanted to do the same thing with their football team.

What a lot of people fail to understand in a democracy is that government is driven by the people. It is not a perfect system (in my opinion it is the best still today) and the majority voice controls things while still at its best (hopefully) protecting the minority interest. Religion (or lack of one) is a major part of people's value system and culture. And then circle back to my first statement in this response.

I think the slavery thing is way different than this issue, going way off topic, and a comparison of apples to oranges. I am just not going to go there.

I can't speak to know their interests, but I would hope so. If it was a school and community of Jehovah's Witness then my argument would remain the same. Part of religious freedom I believe is not just that everyone has their own and it should be hush hush, but to be able to openly talk about it both privately and publicly just as we are doing here.

[Androidpk]

The United States is a Republic not a democracy. Learn your history and types of government.

[4a6c1]

correction: capitalist oligarchy!

[4a6c1]

Let's not argue semantics here. It's very obvious the White House Easter hunt is about the Christian holiday Easter. Whether or not them bad Christians stole the holiday doesn't change that.

It sounds like you're disrespecting Ishtar here but I'll let it slide because you still call it Easter and celebrate her holiday. Forgiven!

[Tgo01]

It sounds like you're disrespecting Ishtar here but I'll let it slide because you still call it Easter and celebrate her holiday. Forgiven!

You crazy girl.

[Suppressed Poet]

I think you would agree that the distance between Catholic and Protestant is significantly smaller than that between Christian and atheist/whatever (also, best reply option for a survey ever). I am also a Catholic, and didn't realize most of the nation was Protestant until I was about 7. I'm pretty sure if I had been praying towards Mecca 5 times a day that difference would have been made clear to me a lot earlier.

Absolutely no doubt a bigger difference, but I guess I am not getting my point across clearly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/athiest-billboard-in-texas-catholics-womens-rights_n_1638099.html

Let me present another hot topic today, here in Texas, that is right along this same argument and specifically directed to Catholic women. So here we have an atheist political group putting billboards up saying to quit the church, and "put women's rights ahead of bishop's wrongs".

Does this absolutely piss me off? Ehh...a little bit. I find it tasteless. In the end I would say that this is also part of religious freedom and the price we pay. (we being all because every religion/non religion can be targeted) It is not going to change my ideals, values, or beliefs. I have to accept this is just something we have to put up with and that they have a right to do this just as much as any other person does.

What I do find a bit comical, and I am sure you can relate being a Catholic, is that so many people do not understand that most in fact don't agree with every single thing in our church. They assume because we have such a direct hierarchy and a very well documented and universal belief system, everyone must follow that to a T. Just like every other organization, we have people of the far left and right. Obviously they never heard of the term "cafeteria Catholic" and that most of us can't wait until Vatican III.

[msconstrew]

I find it tasteless.

Tell me, do you find it more or less tasteless than someone posting on an internet message board and saying they came into shampoo/conditioner bottles and then leave those bottles for innocent patrons to use? I just want to gauge your level for tasteless so I can get a read.

[Tgo01]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/athiest-billboard-in-texas-catholics-womens-rights_n_1638099.html


A billboard positioned on a highway between Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, is raising eyebrows with its controversial message: "Quit the church: Put women's rights over bishops' wrongs."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation placed the sign on Interstate 30 in opposition to lawsuits filed by the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Dallas and Fort Worth over the Obama Administration's contraception mandate, WTSP-TV reports.

This is why I mentioned earlier that I found it funny that the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" was behind this high school thing. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. "Don't force your religion down MY throat! But here let me force my ideals down YOUR throat!" What is this second grade at the playground?

[Suppressed Poet]

The United States is a Republic not a democracy. Learn your history and types of government.

Yes that was an oversight and thank you for pointing that out. You can still insert republic where I put democracy and I would make the same point.

[Suppressed Poet]

Tell me, do you find it more or less tasteless than someone posting on an internet message board and saying they came into shampoo/conditioner bottles and then leave those bottles for innocent patrons to use? I just want to gauge your level for tasteless so I can get a read.

If you actually believed I literally did that and couldn't read that as a joke in response to someone's bad hair day from using a hotel product, I don't think I can help you.

[msconstrew]

If you actually believed I literally did that and couldn't read that as a joke in response to someone's bad hair day from using a hotel product, I don't think I can help you.

I didn't say I believed it, now did I? Learn reading comprehension. I called it tasteless, which it is, whether true or false.

[Suppressed Poet]

This is why I mentioned earlier that I found it funny that the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" was behind this high school thing. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. "Don't force your religion down MY throat! But here let me force my ideals down YOUR throat!" What is this second grade at the playground?

My thoughts exactly and thanks for that.

Ok...I've got to get myself out of the politics thread because it raises my blood pressure. I need to go back to the stress free enviornment of being a pool boy and saving my sperm for the conditioner bottles for hotel guests.

[Parkbandit]

Your mocking her? Could you be any more dense?

An executive with my company gave a speech last year and since almost everyone in the room except for security were foreign nationals we were uncomfortable and suprised that he ended his speech with God bless America but did not mention Ramadan (middle of august). We (the security crew) and the suits in the middle floors take a lot of effort to be culturally sensitive. We got our model from Schlumberger...who employs mostly asians and indonesians. They deal with hundreds of different cultural holidays yearly.

I am not the least bit surprised you were terribly uncomfortable in such a dire situation. I AM surprised that you didn't immediately call the BBB about it though.



You should learn, if you are capable, that in the real world the people that do things to help you get through your day are not all christian americans. Nor are they white christian americans. Sometimes they are not even Americans. But they are people and they deserve your equal treatment.

I've worked with all sorts of people everyday for longer than you've been alive. I treat everyone equally until they deserve different. It's not based upon their skin color as you tend to group people.. it's based upon their individual merit... something that is completely foreign to you.



Finally, Texas so incredibly backwards that this did not suprise me at all.

Echoed 1st Amendment.

Move out of Texas if you hate it so much? I am certain no one would miss you.

[Latrinsorm]

I know I've gotten upset over things other people thought were minor in the past, because it was an issue that gets to me.Also because of your excessive number of X chromosomes. :|
I think the slavery thing is way different than this issue, going way off topic, and a comparison of apples to oranges. I am just not going to go there.As I understand it, you seem to place a great deal of credence in this nation sort of being founded on Christian values, but slavery was a lot more entrenched in our early government than Christianity was. If the majority was wrong about legislating slavery, why not about legislating Christianity?
Does this absolutely piss me off? Ehh...a little bit. I find it tasteless. In the end I would say that this is also part of religious freedom and the price we pay. (we being all because every religion/non religion can be targeted) It is not going to change my ideals, values, or beliefs. I have to accept this is just something we have to put up with and that they have a right to do this just as much as any other person does.But again, as a Christian you're in the position of power. Your being reminded of that can't be troubling outside of white guilt. Picture being on the other side and being reminded of your effective disenfranchisement.

[Suppressed Poet]

As I understand it, you seem to place a great deal of credence in this nation sort of being founded on Christian values, but slavery was a lot more entrenched in our early government than Christianity was. If the majority was wrong about legislating slavery, why not about legislating Christianity?

Good God. (no pun or hidden meaning intended) You are indeed a frustrating one. :)

Umm...well maybe because Christianity is a religion and slavery is well, slavery? Maybe I'm just different than you are and I don't feel that every single aspect of our lives needs to be legislated/regulated/controlled by the federal government? Maybe because in this particular case there is an obvious common sense difference between slavery and Christianity?


But again, as a Christian you're in the position of power. Your being reminded of that can't be troubling outside of white guilt. Picture being on the other side and being reminded of your effective disenfranchisement.

Ok this is even more nonsense. White guilt, a position of power...really? So it is not that I am trying to be fair-minded, consistent, or just a plain old Christian in the sense of turning the other cheek. Yep, you must be correct. I guess I just don't feel an overwhelming urge to ask big government for help on every small little social issue that comes up because, after all, I am a white Christian in a position of power.

Yeah did I mention that my particular parish is like 95% Hispanic? Well I guess technically they are white too. I'm sure we all share that white guilt thing together.

[Suppressed Poet]

Let me also ask in that case...

So it is perfectly acceptable for minority groups to say whatever the hell they want to majority groups, because the majority holds the power and they are not affected. And of course the majority group then needs to be really sensitive about what they say to the minority group, because the minority is disenfranchised?

Just seems a little hypocritical to me.

[Jarvan]

You know, I will never get over the stupidity of some people.

The first amendment prohibits the US government forcing people to worship a set religion, it ensures our country, unlike Iran for example, is not a religious state. The first amendment does not stop the government or government officials from using religious objects, prayers, or beliefs in everyday life. Congress still says a prayer. The Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments posted, as do a large number of court houses. Our government recognizes 2 different CHRISTIAN holidays as holidays. I don't know of any official government holiday that is non christian in religious nature.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - can't pass a law saying we are all -insert religion- and must practice it, nor state that the country itself is one. Remember, this was one of the MAJOR reasons for a large portion of our country's leaving England, England was a protestant nation, and you basically had to be Protestant. "or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Once again, the government can't say we are a -insert religion- and you can't practice yours.

It's insane asshats that try to force their beliefs on others that are the problem. On both sides. Atheists that want all religion removed utterly from everywhere for fear that someone, likely their kids, may believe in it. And zealots that feel they have to try to convert people to their faith for whatever reason.

It's funny, but our money says "In God We Trust"

never saw a bill or coin that said "in the Christian God We trust"

I wonder, if a football player had did a "Tebow" after making a touchdown would the school have been forced to suspend/expell him? Cause by some people's reckoning on here, if they hadn't they would have been endorsing religion and be in violation of this mysterious portion of the first amendment where no one connected to anything to do with the state can do anything religious.

[4a6c1]

Move out of Texas if you hate it so much? I am certain no one would miss you.

I have eyes to see. Does being rightfully critical of a thing or place equal hate?

I'm feeling generous. I guess I'll do the hard work for you. Facts:

Texas is 1st in the nation for people without health insurance.
Texas is 1st in the nation for poor children who are uninsured
Texas is 4th in the nation for children living in poverty
Texas is 4rd in the nation for percent living below poverty level
Texas is 3rd in the nation for percent of people who are malnourished.
Texas is 50th in per capita spending on mental health
Texas is 50th for percent of non-elderly women with health insurance
Texas is 49th for women voter turnout
Texas is 1st for amount of carbon dioxide emissions
Texas is 1st for amount of volatile organic compounds released in air
Texas is 1st for amount of toxic chemicals released in water
Texas is 1st for amount of recognized cancer causing carcinogens released into air

http://shapleigh.org/system/reporting_document/file/509/texasonthebrink.pdf

TRANSMISSION TO PB. ARE YOU GETTING IT YET.

And for your answer as to why I don't "run away". Is that what you would do? Are you a coward? Maybe you're the type to duck and run but I've never been that person. I don't expect you to understand why I stay and do something about it.

[Jarvan]

I have eyes to see. Does being rightfully critical of a thing or place equal hate?

I'm feeling generous. I guess I'll do the hard work for you. Facts:

Texas is 1st in the nation for people without health insurance.
Texas is 1st in the nation for poor children who are uninsured
Texas is 4th in the nation for children living in poverty
Texas is 4rd in the nation for percent living below poverty level
Texas is 3rd in the nation for percent of people who are malnourished.
Texas is 50th in per capita spending on mental health
Texas is 50th for percent of non-elderly women with health insurance
Texas is 49th for women voter turnout
Texas is 1st for amount of carbon dioxide emissions
Texas is 1st for amount of volatile organic compounds released in air
Texas is 1st for amount of toxic chemicals released in water
Texas is 1st for amount of recognized cancer causing carcinogens released into air

http://shapleigh.org/system/reporting_document/file/509/texasonthebrink.pdf

TRANSMISSION TO PB. ARE YOU GETTING IT YET.

And for your answer as to why I don't "run away". Is that what you would do? Are you a coward? Maybe you're the type to duck and run but I've never been that person. I don't expect you to understand why I stay and do something about it.

Sounds like you hate Texas and should move to me. Doesn't seem like you are trying to fix the problem. Maybe try running for public office?

[Showal]

I don't understand how people see that allowing gays in the boy scouts will probably convert young boys to gayism but publicly displaying religious quotes in school sports won't compel the youth towards religion. I guess it's because the gay population is more threatening than the religious but accepting of diversity population.

[Parkbandit]

I have eyes to see. Does being rightfully critical of a thing or place equal hate?

I'm feeling generous. I guess I'll do the hard work for you. Facts:

Texas is 1st in the nation for people without health insurance.
Texas is 1st in the nation for poor children who are uninsured
Texas is 4th in the nation for children living in poverty
Texas is 4rd in the nation for percent living below poverty level
Texas is 3rd in the nation for percent of people who are malnourished.
Texas is 50th in per capita spending on mental health
Texas is 50th for percent of non-elderly women with health insurance
Texas is 49th for women voter turnout
Texas is 1st for amount of carbon dioxide emissions
Texas is 1st for amount of volatile organic compounds released in air
Texas is 1st for amount of toxic chemicals released in water
Texas is 1st for amount of recognized cancer causing carcinogens released into air

http://shapleigh.org/system/reporting_document/file/509/texasonthebrink.pdf

TRANSMISSION TO PB. ARE YOU GETTING IT YET.

And for your answer as to why I don't "run away". Is that what you would do? Are you a coward? Maybe you're the type to duck and run but I've never been that person. I don't expect you to understand why I stay and do something about it.

You equate moving to being a coward?

How's that "doing something about it" working out for you? Are you running for any public office.. or is your idea of "doing something about it" amount to trolling an Internet text gaming forum and regurgitating liberal talking points?

[Latrinsorm]

Good God. (no pun or hidden meaning intended) You are indeed a frustrating one. :)

Umm...well maybe because Christianity is a religion and slavery is well, slavery? Maybe I'm just different than you are and I don't feel that every single aspect of our lives needs to be legislated/regulated/controlled by the federal government? Maybe because in this particular case there is an obvious common sense difference between slavery and Christianity?I, like you, am pro-Christianity and anti-slavery, which is the whole point. The field of what your argument could also apply to as stated includes slavery, and arguably fits it better than Christianity. By pointing this out, ideally you would then reject (repent!) your argument. It could still be the case that Christianity (or Christianityish) is good for government and slavery is bad, you would just need to find some other reasoning.

The usual distinction between "taken out of context" (or "common sense" or "apples and oranges") and "reductio ad absurdum" is whether a person is making or disagreeing with the initial statement.
Ok this is even more nonsense. White guilt, a position of power...really? So it is not that I am trying to be fair-minded, consistent, or just a plain old Christian in the sense of turning the other cheek. Yep, you must be correct. I guess I just don't feel an overwhelming urge to ask big government for help on every small little social issue that comes up because, after all, I am a white Christian in a position of power.

Yeah did I mention that my particular parish is like 95% Hispanic? Well I guess technically they are white too. I'm sure we all share that white guilt thing together.You could also be trying to etc., but it is foolish to ignore the effects of your environment. Liam Neeson will give you an ice bath and later burn your house down (and presumably kill your cat). "White guilt" in this context refers not to actual white people, but by analogy to the dominant majority of Christianity. I could have said "Christian guilt" but as you know as a Catholic that is also an overdefined operator.
Let me also ask in that case...

So it is perfectly acceptable for minority groups to say whatever the hell they want to majority groups, because the majority holds the power and they are not affected. And of course the majority group then needs to be really sensitive about what they say to the minority group, because the minority is disenfranchised?

Just seems a little hypocritical to me.The moral thing to do is enfranchise everyone. Failing that, providing an outlet for the minority's (justified!) frustration is both less immoral and more practical than minstrel shows. It is not a good thing, but it is a less bad thing. In the language you couched it in, it is not acceptable but it is tolerable.
Cause by some people's reckoning on here, if they hadn't they would have been endorsing religion and be in violation of this mysterious portion of the first amendment where no one connected to anything to do with the state can do anything religious.I feel like I say this to you a lot, but... not sure if serious. Do you seriously believe that your reading of the 200+ year old text gives you a firm grasp of all the case law, rulings, etc. of the intervening years, in addition to the context of its writing?
And for your answer as to why I don't "run away". Is that what you would do? Are you a coward? Maybe you're the type to duck and run but I've never been that person. I don't expect you to understand why I stay and do something about it.If you're so brave why don't you join the armed forces! Um... again!

[poloneus]

You know, I will never get over the stupidity of some people.

The first amendment prohibits the US government forcing people to worship a set religion, it ensures our country, unlike Iran for example, is not a religious state. The first amendment does not stop the government or government officials from using religious objects, prayers, or beliefs in everyday life. Congress still says a prayer. The Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments posted, as do a large number of court houses. Our government recognizes 2 different CHRISTIAN holidays as holidays. I don't know of any official government holiday that is non christian in religious nature.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - can't pass a law saying we are all -insert religion- and must practice it, nor state that the country itself is one. Remember, this was one of the MAJOR reasons for a large portion of our country's leaving England, England was a protestant nation, and you basically had to be Protestant. "or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Once again, the government can't say we are a -insert religion- and you can't practice yours.

It's insane asshats that try to force their beliefs on others that are the problem. On both sides. Atheists that want all religion removed utterly from everywhere for fear that someone, likely their kids, may believe in it. And zealots that feel they have to try to convert people to their faith for whatever reason.

It's funny, but our money says "In God We Trust"

never saw a bill or coin that said "in the Christian God We trust"

I wonder, if a football player had did a "Tebow" after making a touchdown would the school have been forced to suspend/expell him? Cause by some people's reckoning on here, if they hadn't they would have been endorsing religion and be in violation of this mysterious portion of the first amendment where no one connected to anything to do with the state can do anything religious.



You sound mad. Respect my religion or you're an insane asshat! What's next? Storm an embassy in Egypt maybe?

It's not anything the state does, as is clearly obvious by "in God We Trust" and other things already mentioned. When it comes to educating youth, the lines are strictly drawn. A single child choosing to do a "Tebow" should be fine. Having the entire team come out to the field by running through a religious banner would not. You would in effect be asking every child to affirm their religious belief en masse. Since the Boards of Ed are creatures of the State, that would be the State establishing a religion. BTW, you don't seem to really understand the establishment clause.

[Jarvan]

You sound mad. Respect my religion or you're an insane asshat! What's next? Storm an embassy in Egypt maybe?

It's not anything the state does, as is clearly obvious by "in God We Trust" and other things already mentioned. When it comes to educating youth, the lines are strictly drawn. A single child choosing to do a "Tebow" should be fine. Having the entire team come out to the field by running through a religious banner would not. You would in effect be asking every child to affirm their religious belief en masse. Since the Boards of Ed are creatures of the State, that would be the State establishing a religion. BTW, you don't seem to really understand the establishment clause.

Umm.. no, I don't think you can comprehend English there bud. I said the Insane Asshats are those that are like, "I am an Athieist get rid of everything everywhere that says god, can't mention it in political speech, no t on bills/coins, no crosses on public land blah blah blah, it insults me" AND the people that are like "I am -insert religion- you should be too, join my religion, join it join it! or Die!!!"

I was raised Lutheran, but I don't believe everything I was taught. I personally don't like organized religion, mainly cause by organizing it, you try to define it, and it's really not something you can define. But that's my opinion.

And no, sorry. You don't understand the establishment clause. I love how people look at the first amendment, or just in general, exclaim separation of church and state.


In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

That's where separation comes from.

Frankly, I would love to see this case make it to the Supreme Court, likely they wouldn't even bother to hear it. I doubt if they did they would say, sorry, kids can't write things on banners that they run through and destroy. Also.. It's not a Religious banner you schmuck. It's a team banner, someone just put something from the bible on there. If by the addition of say a Psalm or line from the bible turns it into a Religious symbol, well, there are a shit ton of violations of Church and state then isn't there? You see them all over the place, Hell, my Hometown's Charter has some, it's seal even has one. Everything they put the seal on would now be a Religious document forcing their beliefs on others.

I Guess by handling money, your saying you are forcing people to affirm their their belief in god.

And yes, those asshats rioting in Egypt and the middle east are just that.

[poloneus]

Umm.. no, I don't think you can comprehend English there bud. I said the Insane Asshats are those that are like, "I am an Athieist get rid of everything everywhere that says god, can't mention it in political speech, no t on bills/coins, no crosses on public land blah blah blah, it insults me" AND the people that are like "I am -insert religion- you should be too, join my religion, join it join it! or Die!!!"

I was raised Lutheran, but I don't believe everything I was taught. I personally don't like organized religion, mainly cause by organizing it, you try to define it, and it's really not something you can define. But that's my opinion.

And no, sorry. You don't understand the establishment clause. I love how people look at the first amendment, or just in general, exclaim separation of church and state.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

That's where separation comes from.

Frankly, I would love to see this case make it to the Supreme Court, likely they wouldn't even bother to hear it. I doubt if they did they would say, sorry, kids can't write things on banners that they run through and destroy. Also.. It's not a Religious banner you schmuck. It's a team banner, someone just put something from the bible on there. If by the addition of say a Psalm or line from the bible turns it into a Religious symbol, well, there are a shit ton of violations of Church and state then isn't there? You see them all over the place, Hell, my Hometown's Charter has some, it's seal even has one. Everything they put the seal on would now be a Religious document forcing their beliefs on others.

I Guess by handling money, your saying you are forcing people to affirm their their belief in god.

And yes, those asshats rioting in Egypt and the middle east are just that.

I'm sorry you're so angry. I know religion is serious business, and posts on the internet about kids in Texas even more so, but please try to count to 10 or something. You're going to give yourself a stroke.

I'll well aware of Jefferson's writings. I'm also well aware that I was talking about the establishment clause. You know, the first amendment? I'm sorry I lost you on my post. Both of them actually. Nonetheless here's your wall - when the facts involve children in a public school system the United States Supreme Court has continuously reaffirmed a clear wall of separation citing the establishment clause. See Engel v. Vitale (1962) for one of the earliest clear examples.

I won't repeatedly correct you about the "In God We Trust" and why Congress and the Supreme Court itself can start with a prayer. Suffice to safe - adults and children are different in the eyes of the law. Please see my previous two posts on this including the referenced case law.

Have a nice day!

[Tgo01]

Nonetheless here's your wall - when the facts involve children in a public school system the United States Supreme Court has continuously reaffirmed a clear wall of separation citing the establishment clause. See Engel v. Vitale (1962) for one of the earliest clear examples.

Do you have any examples where it does not involve a member of the faculty of said school either encouraging or endorsing said religion/prayer/whatever? Because you do realize what you quoted there, Engel v. Vitale, and what is being discussed here are not related at all, right? Other then that it involves school children that is.

[poloneus]

Do you have any examples where it does not involve a member of the faculty of said school either encouraging or endorsing said religion/prayer/whatever? Because you do realize what you quoted there, Engel v. Vitale, and what is being discussed here are not related at all, right? Other then that it involves school children that is.

It is related if you actually read the majority opinion in Engel.

And see below for the rest of the context:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?75412-Taking-God-Out-of-Texas-High-School-Football&p=1458002#post1458002

[Tgo01]

It is related if you actually read the majority opinion in Engel.


In an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled that government-written prayers were not to be recited in public schools and were an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, because before the decision could be announced, Justice Felix Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire, and Justice Byron White took no part in the case.

The Court explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. It then stated that school's prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible.

The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. The Court further held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough not to promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which still violates the Establishment Clause.

School written prayer, faculty of the school encouraged students to participate in the prayer, the prayer was fully endorsed by the school. Please explain the similarities between the Engel case and the story being talked about in this thread.


And see below for the rest of the context:
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?75412-Taking-God-Out-of-Texas-High-School-Football&p=1458002#post1458002


Couple of points - students do have rights in school, but not ones that equate to adults in a public setting - see Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

I'm confused why you would cite this case in defense of your argument.


The court's 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was "based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam." The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

The court ruled in favor of the students who were censored, the court stated that students do not lose their freedom of speech when they enter school and the court stated that the school must show the action they want to stymie would interfere with the learning process and not just because the school feels said speech might cause discomfort or unpleasantness.


Anytime it can be reasonably assumed that the school (i.e. the State) is sponsoring a message, even one carried on a banner by a student, and that message advocates religion, it clearly violates the establishment clause. This cheerleader was at a school sponsored event doing cheerleading stuff and therefore would clearly fall under this description. See Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988).

I'm really confused by you citing this case as well.


The First Amendment protection for student expression described did not compel a public school to affirmatively sponsor speech that conflicts with its "legitimate pedagogical goals." The school-financed newspaper at issue was also not considered to be a public forum under the totality of circumstances present in the case, and therefore, its editors were entitled to a lower level of First Amendment protection than is applicable to independent student newspapers or those newspapers that have, by policy and practice, opened their page to student opinion.


Under the First Amendment, school officials can censor non-forum student newspapers when they can justify their decision by stating an educational purpose. However, this decision does not allow school officials to censor articles wantonly or based on personal opinion, as shown in Dean v. Utica.

However, it is important to note that seven states have passed laws guaranteeing that all student newspapers have the right to publish freely. These states include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Oregon. The Hazelwood standard does not apply to student newspapers in these states; with limited exceptions, student editors control the content.

School sponsored/school-financed newspapers that have not opened their page to student opinion can be censored (if they can justify the decision by stating an educational purpose) and even then the school can't "wantonly" censor the paper or do so "based on personal opinion."

[Jarvan]

I'm sorry you're so angry. I know religion is serious business, and posts on the internet about kids in Texas even more so, but please try to count to 10 or something. You're going to give yourself a stroke.

I'll well aware of Jefferson's writings. I'm also well aware that I was talking about the establishment clause. You know, the first amendment? I'm sorry I lost you on my post. Both of them actually. Nonetheless here's your wall - when the facts involve children in a public school system the United States Supreme Court has continuously reaffirmed a clear wall of separation citing the establishment clause. See Engel v. Vitale (1962) for one of the earliest clear examples.

I won't repeatedly correct you about the "In God We Trust" and why Congress and the Supreme Court itself can start with a prayer. Suffice to safe - adults and children are different in the eyes of the law. Please see my previous two posts on this including the referenced case law.

Have a nice day!

I am sorry you are an idiot, you may want to contact Social Security to see if you qualify for disability due to your illness.

Also, the Establishment clause was what I was referring to in my first post. A person putting a verse from the bible on a banner is not an establishment of religion by a state. Now if the school put the verse on the t-shirts, or painted like 3:16 on the helmets.. yes, I could see that being an issue. It's actually funny though, cause at my HS we always used to bow our heads in prayer before a game. I guess the coach violated the First amendment huh.

I know your internet trolling is a serious business for you, but please, don't believe what your mom told you when she said you were brilliant when you showed her you could count to ten.. last week.

[poloneus]

Wikipedia rules!

Your quoting Wikipedia’s summary. Not the actual opinion itself. The opinions are much more complex and establish a great deal more than the brief summary given by Wikipedia.

I chose the quickest examples from the decisions where I could remember some key words for a text search:

In Engel, the school began each day with a prayer that while general in nature established a monotheistic religion.

“The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people.” – Engel v. Vitale 1962

I get it. The school did not write the religious quote. The cheerleader did. She speaks for the school in this case. Look at what Hazelwood precedent established:

“The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.” - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1988

The cheerleader clearly meets the criteria established here in Hazelwood, and by default is speaking for the school. Therefore the school would be violating the establishment clause mentioned in Engel and this will be a losing battle.


I had originally cited Tinker because of the previous discussion in the thread on students rights in school (I’m not going back to read, but I believe there was a few comments about general rights in school). The Tinker case has been viewed historically as a case which dramatically expanded those rights while in a school setting. Considering where student rights were preceding that moment in history it was a tremendous expansion in many communities. However, Tinker also clearly established a limitation on those rights which stops well before rights of adults in public. The common phrases associated with limitations on freedoms of adults is when they create a “clear and present danger” (Schenck v. U.S. 1919) while exercising their freedoms. For students you are correct with the “material and substantial” disruption language. They are quite different. A classic example would be t-shirt with a swastika across the front. Perfectly lawful for an adult to wear in public, but would not be allowed in a school setting.

Tinker may have expanded rights, but Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeieir dramatically scaled back those rights. Without Hazelwood this case would be debatable. Considering the tremendous amount of previous litigation and precedence here, the Bible verses will lose.



I am sorry you are an idiot, you may want to contact Social Security to see if you qualify for disability due to your illness.

Also, the Establishment clause was what I was referring to in my first post. A person putting a verse from the bible on a banner is not an establishment of religion by a state. Now if the school put the verse on the t-shirts, or painted like 3:16 on the helmets.. yes, I could see that being an issue. It's actually funny though, cause at my HS we always used to bow our heads in prayer before a game. I guess the coach violated the First amendment huh.

I know your internet trolling is a serious business for you, but please, don't believe what your mom told you when she said you were brilliant when you showed her you could count to ten.. last week.

I guess you're the idiot, huh?

Here's some help to get started:
https://secure.ssa.gov/iCLM/dib

[TheEschaton]

First off, "In God We Trust" and "Under God" in the pledge, are 20th century tropes of the Christian right trying to maintain that we are a Christian nation.

Second off, in regards to schoolchildren, SCOTUS has been very clear that they are more susceptible, less able to make unpressured, objective decisions of their own, and deserve a strict protection from the endorsement of religion.

Jarvan's point that the Establishment clause is not only the most narrow and conservative interpretation, but out of context. the full paragraph says:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson is clearly saying that the State has no right or business in professing religion.

Fourthly, as to whether the cheerleader making a sign and the football team running through it is "endorsement" by the school - again, the point is moot. The school specifically prohibited it. Thus, it's not a question of state-endorsed religion. It's a question whether the students freedom of speech can be rightfully limited by the school. That's why Tinker is quoted, because Tinker says that


...in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,"

In this case, the aim of the school is not to avoid discomfort, but to protect the religious freedoms of a public school attendee and their parents' rights to dictate the religious education of that child. Even moreso because it's a majority opinion, and not an "unpopular viewpoint," I think they'd be hard-pressed to find the school unconstitutionally limited her speech. Like someone already rightly pointed out, she could easily take off her uniform, and sit in the stands with the same sign, and not violate any school policy.

Lastly, Suppressed Poet's idiotic assertion that the majority view in a country should allow certain things to slide is idiotic. Let me reiterate: idiotic assertion is idiotic. The very point of law in general and the Constitution specifically is to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of the majority. The majority can be wrong - they are not ipso facto right simply because they are the majority. Moreover, their being the majority doesn't allow them to impose majority beliefs on other people.

I say this as a Catholic liberal, who went to Catholic school from kindergarten all the way through law school (although the last 11 years of that were with the Jesuits, har de har har). My Constitutional law professor, a Jesuit priest, was all for a strict wall of separation of Church and State, the stricter, the better. He liked to quote Madison, the actual father of the Constitution, who wrote "...practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

[Warriorbird]

First off, "In God We Trust" and "Under God" in the pledge, are 20th century tropes of the Christian right trying to maintain that we are a Christian nation.

You do know that the Knights of Columbus did both, right?

[4a6c1]

Bwahahaha. Jarvan SMASH.

Where is Kellers Jesus fucking Christ avatar when I need it.

[Tenlaar]

In God We Trust was first put onto currency almost a hundred years after the founding of the USA, in 1862, and has nothing to do with the founding fathers and their vision for the country. It also required added legislation changing the rules put forth by the 1837 Act of Congress.

[Tgo01]

Okay you appear to admit that the Engel case has nothing to do with this case.


I get it. The school did not write the religious quote. The cheerleader did. She speaks for the school in this case. Look at what Hazelwood precedent established:

“The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.” - Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 1988

I went ahead and found a source other than Wikipedia since everyone around here suddenly hates Wikipedia. (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hazelwood.html) I hate things that are sourced!


The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech--the question that we addressed in Tinker--is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively [271] to promote particular student speech. The former question addresses educators' ability to silence a student's personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises. The latter question concerns educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences. [note 3]

Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school may in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or producer of a school play "disassociate itself," Fraser, 478 U.S., at 685, not only from speech that would "substantially interfere with [its] work . . . or impinge upon the rights of other students," Tinker, 393 U.S., at 509, but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences. [note 4] A school must be able to set high standards for [272] the student speech that is disseminated under its auspices--standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the "real" world--and may refuse to disseminate student speech that does not meet those standards. In addition, a school must be able to take into account the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student speech on potentially sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of Santa Claus in an elementary school setting to the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting. A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with "the shared values of a civilized social order," Fraser, supra, at 683, or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy. Otherwise, the schools would be unduly constrained from fulfilling their role as "a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment." Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).

Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination [273] of student expression. [note 5] Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. [note 6]

The court is clearly referring to "educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities." I think you're really stretching things to claim that a banner at a football game constitutes "expressive activities." In that case then students have NO freedom of speech on school grounds or at school sponsored events. No where in the opinion here does it say it makes a difference if the student is a cheerleader or not.

[TheEschaton]

"Under God" was proposed as a legislative idea by someone from the Sons of the American Revolution. The KoC urged it as a legislative idea in 1951, but the bill itself was not because of the KoC, and passed in 1954 after Eisenhower listened to some sermon by some guy (a Presbytarian, who Eisenhower listened to quite a bit as a recent PResbytarian convert).

In God We Trust was added to paper money in 1957, after being used on coins starting after a Protestant campaign in 1868, discontinued in 1883, and reissued in 1938 on the nickel. The penny has had the phrase since 1909. The replacement of the official motto of the country "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust" was signed again by Eisenhower, as a direct reaction to anti-Communism and the vaguely communist undertones of E pluribus Unum.

[4a6c1]

or is your idea of "doing something about it" amount to trolling an Internet text gaming forum and regurgitating liberal talking points?

PB!!!! There are so many ways to further your own personal agenda besides preaching at us about dispassionate capitalism here on this wonderful little forum and I'm OVERJOYED to be the one to deliver these ideas to you. First of all I recommend lobbying. You obviously have the passion for politics to do so. ANYONE can lobby for their own interests. You don't need money or knowledge.... just facts and a politicians chief of staff who will hear you out. Better yet attach yourself to a known group (NRA, PETA, GREENPEACE ETC) who can help you or will accept you. There are thousands and thousands of lobbys that you can choose from. Behind the scenes there is also fundraising to be done and volunteering for politicians who motivate you. If you are short on time, there is donating and/or simply signing up with your local party headquarters to pass out flyers, make cold calls etc. I've done all these and it has been hugely rewarding.

[Warriorbird]

In God We Trust was first put onto currency almost a hundred years after the founding of the USA, in 1862, and has nothing to do with the founding fathers and their vision for the country. It also required added legislation changing the rules put forth by the 1837 Act of Congress.

And the whole "Motto of the US" bit was pushed by the Knights of Columbus. You also disingenuously neglect to include when "Under God" came into the Pledge solely for your conservative trolling purposes.

[TheEschaton]

Okay you appear to admit that the Engel case has nothing to do with this case.



I went ahead and found a source other than Wikipedia since everyone around here suddenly hates Wikipedia. (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hazelwood.html) I hate things that are sourced!



The court is clearly referring to "educators' authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities." I think you're really stretching things to claim that a banner at a football game constitutes "expressive activities." In that case then students have NO freedom of speech on school grounds or at school sponsored events. No where in the opinion here does it say it makes a difference if the student is a cheerleader or not.

She's a school's cheerleader, and the school's football team is running through the banner. How can you not see the difference between this and her sitting in the stands with the banner? The former is certainly an "expressive activity" suggesting the school endorses it. If I came out of the visitor's tunnel and the opposing team's banner said "God is awesome, go team!" it is certainly reasonable for me to attribute that sentiment to the team, and thus the school.

[poloneus]

Okay you appear to admit that the Engel case has nothing to do with this case.

?

I'm sorry this is so complicated. Maybe this is better:

1) Engel says school sponsored religion is bad.
2) Hazelwood says cheerleader is speaking for school.
3) Cheerleader sponsors religion = school sponsors religion.
4) goto 1





I went ahead and found a source other than Wikipedia since everyone around here suddenly hates Wikipedia. (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hazelwood.html) I hate things that are sourced!


I love wikipedia for certain things, but you were quoting a summary written by some guy on wikipedia. He wrote a summary because the decisions can be long. His summary did not have enough of the original decision that was applicable here. Since it was stated that the point being made was in the decision and you went to a summary of the decision and used that to basically say the original point was wrong... well then wikipedia was not a good choice in that case. Not for nothing, but I feel like this is going to end with me teaching you to tie your shoes or something.

[TheEschaton]

And the whole "Motto of the US" bit was pushed by the Knights of Columbus. You also disingenuously neglect to include when "Under God" came into the Pledge solely for your conservative trolling purposes.

The point of pointing it out is to establish that it certainly is no indication of this being a country *founded* on Christian ideals, not to troll conservatives for adding it into those prospective things. Suppressed Poet was the one who initially advocated that these phrases were proof we were a Christian nation and thus it should be okay to write yay God on the football banner.

[Tgo01]

She's a school's cheerleader, and the school's football team is running through the banner. How can you not see the difference between this and her sitting in the stands with the banner? The former is certainly an "expressive activity" suggesting the school endorses it. If I came out of the visitor's tunnel and the opposing team's banner said "God is awesome, go team!" it is certainly reasonable for me to attribute that sentiment to the team, and thus the school.

Okay have there been any cases where cheerleaders or football players have less freedom of speech while wearing their uniforms?


?

I'm sorry this is so complicated. Maybe this is better:

1) Engel says school sponsored religion is bad.

Seriously? That was your whole point with citing Engel? I don't think a single person in this thread (not even Jarvan) has said that school sponsored religion is okay. The argument is this is not school sponsored religion.

Hey by the way guys I think murder is wrong. Just throwing that out there to everyone who disagrees with me.

[Warriorbird]

The point of pointing it out is to establish that it certainly is no indication of this being a country *founded* on Christian ideals.

I was just being mean to you due to Catholicism, which isn't nice. I was actually proud of the Pope for the whole evolution bit. I totally get it wasn't part of the founding. I'm pretty sure he wasn't getting it solely because "Conservative side must concede no points evar!" and he actually gets it.

[Showal]

I love how Jarvan is known as the political thread retard and he just keeps posting and posting.

[TheEschaton]

Okay have there been any cases where cheerleaders or football players have less freedom of speech while wearing their uniforms?


It doesn't matter that she was a cheerleader or that football players did it. It matters because it was a school activity, under the purview and organization of the school, and could reasonably be interpreted to be endorsed by the school.

The same cheerleader and football players could go and sit in the stands IN their uniforms with the same sign - their non-participation in the school event taking place would protect their speech. The "take off their uniforms" was literally just a bit of rhetoric to delineate and clarify the distinction between private citizens expressing private opinions versus a school activity reasonably being seen to advocate a religious stance. To suggest the case hinges on whether she's a cheerleader or not is either disingenuous on your part, or a result of a severe inability to grasp the issue at hand.

[Tenlaar]

You also disingenuously neglect to include when "Under God" came into the Pledge solely for your conservative trolling purposes.

I didn't bother to mention that because (as TheE stated) it didn't come about until 90 years after the first use of In God We Trust, thus has little bearing on when people first decided that this country should change from a "free religion" country to a "free to be christian" country.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't bother to mention that because (as TheE stated) it didn't come about until 90 years after the first use of In God We Trust, thus has little bearing on when people first decided that this country should change from a "free religion" country to a "free to be christian" country.

That first use of In God We Trust, 61 years after we became a country and 230 years after we became a colony? You're stepping up and you're proving things historically you are. Oh yes!

[Tenlaar]

That first use of In God We Trust, 61 years after we became a country and 230 years after we became a colony? You're stepping up and you're proving things historically you are. Oh yes!

I don't even know what exactly you're trying to argue here. Are you disputing the idea that something that happened almost 30 years after the last of the founding fathers died has nothing to do with the intent of those persons during the creation of the nation?

[Tgo01]

The same cheerleader and football players could go and sit in the stands IN their uniforms with the same sign - their non-participation in the school event taking place would protect their speech. The "take off their uniforms" was literally just a bit of rhetoric to delineate and clarify the distinction between private citizens expressing private opinions versus a school activity reasonably being seen to advocate a religious stance. To suggest the case hinges on whether she's a cheerleader or not is either disingenuous on your part, or a result of a severe inability to grasp the issue at hand.

My bad, I thought with the whole "take off her uniform" bit you guys were making the argument that her being in uniform had something to do with it. Okay so students participating in school events have limited free speech? I think one could make the argument that anything could be considered a "school event." Even so the cases poloneus cited earlier even said that students still enjoy freedom of speech within school functions.

[poloneus]

.



Seriously? That was your whole point with citing Engel? I don't think a single person in this thread (not even Jarvan) has said that school sponsored religion is okay. The argument is this is not school sponsored religion.

Hey by the way guys I think murder is wrong. Just throwing that out there to everyone who disagrees with me.


You know, I will never get over the stupidity of some people...

I wonder, if a football player had did a "Tebow" after making a touchdown would the school have been forced to suspend/expell him? Cause by some people's reckoning on here, if they hadn't they would have been endorsing religion and be in violation of this mysterious portion of the first amendment where no one connected to anything to do with the state can do anything religious.

[Tgo01]

.

Even in that quote Jarvan isn't saying school endorsed religion isn't against the first amendment. No one at all has been making the argument that school endorsed religion isn't bad.

[TheEschaton]

My bad, I thought with the whole "take off her uniform" bit you guys were making the argument that her being in uniform had something to do with it. Okay so students participating in school events have limited free speech? I think one could make the argument that anything could be considered a "school event." Even so the cases poloneus cited earlier even said that students still enjoy freedom of speech within school functions.

Yes, they do enjoy freedom of speech, albeit more limited than adults. One of that limitations is religious speech which would normally be considered fine among a body of adults. That's why you can't have prayer in public schools but Congress can - because in theory Congress is full of mature adults (lol) who aren't easily pressured into making decisions unobjectively.

[Tgo01]

Yes, they do enjoy freedom of speech, albeit more limited than adults. One of that limitations is religious speech which would normally be considered fine among a body of adults. That's why you can't have prayer in public schools but Congress can - because in theory Congress is full of mature adults (lol) who aren't easily pressured into making decisions unobjectively.

Alright alright, I'll give you this round just because you made me laugh out loud with the Congress being full of mature adults bit.

[poloneus]

Seemed that way to me. Nonetheless, I tried making most of the argument and assumed everyone got it. Yeah that went well the first time...

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...02#post1458002

You still haven't gotten it.

There is no doubt the cheerleader falls under the Hazelwood standard.

[Latrinsorm]

Like someone already rightly pointed out, she could easily take off her uniform, and sit in the stands with the same sign, and not violate any school policy.Pedophile!!

[Tenlaar]

Girls hit puberty at like 10 now, high school girls don't count!

[4a6c1]

......

[Warriorbird]

I don't even know what exactly you're trying to argue here. Are you disputing the idea that something that happened almost 30 years after the last of the founding fathers died has nothing to do with the intent of those persons during the creation of the nation?

I'm forwarding it, not disputing it. If I felt like it I might even point to events of the actual time period that might have given rise to the whole "In God We Trust" bit.

[Tenlaar]

Really, red rep for that? Excuse me for using the actual definition of words. High school girls are not prepubescent unless they skipped four or five grades or have some freaky medical issues.

[4a6c1]

Girls hit puberty at like 10 now, high school girls don't count!

You should probably look elsewhere if you were looking for someone to commiserate with your weird ass sexual comments about children. Some of us have daughters.

[Tenlaar]

It was meant as a comment about people using pedophile in the wrong context, but whatever. About half of the high school students in the US have had sex. If only they had Jesus banners at their football games...

[Suppressed Poet]

Lastly, Suppressed Poet's idiotic assertion that the majority view in a country should allow certain things to slide is idiotic. Let me reiterate: idiotic assertion is idiotic. The very point of law in general and the Constitution specifically is to protect the rights of individuals against the tyranny of the majority. The majority can be wrong - they are not ipso facto right simply because they are the majority. Moreover, their being the majority doesn't allow them to impose majority beliefs on other people.

I say this as a Catholic liberal, who went to Catholic school from kindergarten all the way through law school (although the last 11 years of that were with the Jesuits, har de har har). My Constitutional law professor, a Jesuit priest, was all for a strict wall of separation of Church and State, the stricter, the better. He liked to quote Madison, the actual father of the Constitution, who wrote "...practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

I didn't get the idiotic part...could you reiterate?

I do actually agree with you on a number of things including church vs. state and the protection from the possible tyranny of the majority. We obviously differ in how, when, and why that should be enforced.

Take political law out for just a moment. Would you agree that the majority, by definition being the greater number, are going to have a profound impact on our nation's culture and laws? And perhaps this is why we see Christian (or if you don't agree with Christian at least monotheistic) references all over the place in our government? This includes the Constitution by the way "between a man and his God".

Let me also ask you...if Madison could speak with you today do you really think that he would agree with you that a cheerleader is a spokesperson for the government, or that this is exactly the type of government oppression he was cautiously trying to avoid? Maybe you do. I instead think he would kick you in the spot where your balls *should* be.

[TheEschaton]

I think the majority having a majority influence on the culture of a country isn't a given. Maybe it's true in theocracies or dictatorships, maybe it's true in more homogeneous societies. In this case, our country was specifically set up so the majority could not impose a majority culture that excluded minority cultures and/or dictate the social norms of the country. They specifically protected against that. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Our culture is one that deliberately set itself up to be secular.

Honestly, I believe all the displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, all the public prayer meetings in Congress, all the proclamations of Christian holidays by government, violate the First Amendment. But, like you noted, a majority is allowed to let these things slide if it wants - and it has - and no politician since Jefferson and Madison (who refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations or hold prayer in office) has had the temerity to stand up to it since. But just because the majority and its politicians have let it slide do not mean that it is in anyway right, good, or lawful. It is, at best, only mildly offensive. So when a minority DOES have a problem with the majority opinion - it is in our Constitution that his belief is also protected, and the majority belief not given special status.

Madison was for the strictest separation of Church and State. I'm sure, since he was a smart man (or at least smarter than you), he could easily draw the connection between goverment school holding a school-sanctioned and school-organized event, and the appearance of an endorsement of Christianity during that event, and consider it against the First Amendment. After all, he was the Father of the Constitution, and a champion for the Bill of Rights. I personally think you have no sense of Madison, probably because you're an idiot, because he FAVORED a strong national government (as opposed to strong state governments), and saw his Bill of Rights as a way to prevent the government from being another monarchy/oligarchy, a "nation of laws, not men."

As for a man who goes by the handle Suppressed Poet calling into question my manhood, lol. I write poetry too, man, but I don't feel the need to wallow in it like you apparently do, or submit a group of internet e-friends to the ups and downs of my portrait of an artist as a young man.

P.S. I have my pocket Constitution and am having trouble finding the phrase "between a man and his God" in it - would you kindly point it out for me? It's weird, I took two whole years of Con Law and various Con Law related specializations in law school, and I can't seem to remember that phrase at all in the Constitution

[4a6c1]

OKAY LOOK. I have seen The E tank an instance in World of Warcraft and so I know for a FACT that he has some balls.

Uh....hmm. That sounds sarcastic and was ment to be at first but I think it might be true..................................

..........

.....

[Overlordz]

I bet God is really swinging for these cheerleaders. I mean, he wouldn't want people to just enjoy a fucking football game. He wants all y'all to praise his ass every chance you can get. He's up there saying "Thanks cheerleaders of Kountze, the people of your hick ass town were only praising me every Sunday, but really, I do enjoy being praised during football games too. In fact, it really irks me that you guys aren't worshipping during school... can't you guys be be bothered to disrupt school more often in my name? After all, we're talking eternal damnation if you don't please me enough, and those pesky school administrators and their laws, well, they don't really matter. To show my support for you guys, I'm going to do nothing to anyone or anything ever (except for all that cool shit I did in the Bible, like turning sticks into snakes and shit). Sorry again about the Holocaust, I was taking a nap, but those Jews did kill me so lol whatev. Go Kountze!"

[4a6c1]

I tried to put that whole thing in my sig but it wouldn't fit. :-[

[Jarvan]

I don't know about most of you, but I certainly know that when I was in HS, if I saw my football team run through a paper sign that had anything to do with a religion written on it, I would have instantly be converted to said religion. I mean, yeah, I was young and impressionable.

And if you can't read the sarcasm in that, you really need your head examined.

It really comes down to one simple thing to me really. Some people feel that since they don't believe/apply that everyone else has to conform to them. Look even at RI and them ending all mother-Son and Father-Daughter dances and events, since it isn't "fair" to single parents or such.

It takes a special type of person to take offense at all these really stupid minor things in life. As for children being more impressionable, if anyone here can honestly say that a phrase on a banner at a football game is enough to convert make someone question their faith.. you have bigger issues then spending your time making fun of me in a political thread.

[Jarvan]

I love how I am known as the political thread retard and I just keeps posting and posting.

Fixed for you.

[thefarmer]

Let me also ask you...if Madison could speak with you today do you really think that he would agree with you that a cheerleader is a spokesperson for the government, or that this is exactly the type of government oppression he was cautiously trying to avoid?

Those specific cheerleaders*, in their uniforms*, at a football game*, held up a banner for the football players* in uniform* to run through as an official* part of the football game.*

*school sponsored/approved/endorsed

The cheerleaders are representing the school.

The football players are representing the school too.

The school is state and government funded.

If these two groups of students weren't representing the school in an official capacity, they would have been in the stands and called fans.

[Latrinsorm]

About half of the high school students in the US have had sex.With Eschaton??? You monster!!
I don't know about most of you, but I certainly know that when I was in HS, if I saw my football team run through a paper sign that had anything to do with a religion written on it, I would have instantly be converted to said religion. I mean, yeah, I was young and impressionable.

And if you can't read the sarcasm in that, you really need your head examined.

It really comes down to one simple thing to me really. Some people feel that since they don't believe/apply that everyone else has to conform to them. Look even at RI and them ending all mother-Son and Father-Daughter dances and events, since it isn't "fair" to single parents or such.

It takes a special type of person to take offense at all these really stupid minor things in life. As for children being more impressionable, if anyone here can honestly say that a phrase on a banner at a football game is enough to convert make someone question their faith.. you have bigger issues then spending your time making fun of me in a political thread.It perpetuates a hostile environment. :)

Also, you don't feel at all worried that a 200 year old legal and moral debate "comes down to one simple thing" for you?

[Suppressed Poet]

I think the majority having a majority influence on the culture of a country isn't a given. Maybe it's true in theocracies or dictatorships, maybe it's true in more homogeneous societies. In this case, our country was specifically set up so the majority could not impose a majority culture that excluded minority cultures and/or dictate the social norms of the country. They specifically protected against that. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Our culture is one that deliberately set itself up to be secular.

Honestly, I believe all the displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, all the public prayer meetings in Congress, all the proclamations of Christian holidays by government, violate the First Amendment. But, like you noted, a majority is allowed to let these things slide if it wants - and it has - and no politician since Jefferson and Madison (who refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations or hold prayer in office) has had the temerity to stand up to it since. But just because the majority and its politicians have let it slide do not mean that it is in anyway right, good, or lawful. It is, at best, only mildly offensive. So when a minority DOES have a problem with the majority opinion - it is in our Constitution that his belief is also protected, and the majority belief not given special status.

Madison was for the strictest separation of Church and State. I'm sure, since he was a smart man (or at least smarter than you), he could easily draw the connection between goverment school holding a school-sanctioned and school-organized event, and the appearance of an endorsement of Christianity during that event, and consider it against the First Amendment. After all, he was the Father of the Constitution, and a champion for the Bill of Rights. I personally think you have no sense of Madison, probably because you're an idiot, because he FAVORED a strong national government (as opposed to strong state governments), and saw his Bill of Rights as a way to prevent the government from being another monarchy/oligarchy, a "nation of laws, not men."

As for a man who goes by the handle Suppressed Poet calling into question my manhood, lol. I write poetry too, man, but I don't feel the need to wallow in it like you apparently do, or submit a group of internet e-friends to the ups and downs of my portrait of an artist as a young man.

P.S. I have my pocket Constitution and am having trouble finding the phrase "between a man and his God" in it - would you kindly point it out for me? It's weird, I took two whole years of Con Law and various Con Law related specializations in law school, and I can't seem to remember that phrase at all in the Constitution

Ok The E. Please go out there and change things with your pocket Constitution and your two whole years of Con Law. Let me know how that works out for you. You seem to admit that yes, those influences have made it into our country today, but don't believe we should be there. Where you say that this cheerleader is violating the 1st Amendment, I actually say that she is exercising it and is protected by that very same (in its entirety) amendment. Good luck tearing down every reference to religion and I'm sure you would make this a better place.

On this same forum you have an avatar that calls for a need of "creative extremists", post to assert your arrogant intellectual superiority, and how your daddy is so important/rich. You are right, that is much more manly. Great job hypocrite…

I stand corrected. God is not mentioned in the constitution and I was thinking of another document. You win. What I did find though...the Constitution is dated in the year of our Lord 1787. Better go and take that down while you are at it. Oh that is not a Christian reference, it is simply how the western world kept track of time? Funny it is that way, right?

[Showal]

Fixed for you.

How clever! You changed what I said so it looked like I was saying it about myself! No one has ever thought to do that before! You even made it reflect your perfect grammar!!!

[TheEschaton]

Ok The E. Please go out there and change things with your pocket Constitution and your two whole years of Con Law. Let me know how that works out for you. You seem to admit that yes, those influences have made it into our country today, but don't believe we should be there. Where you say that this cheerleader is violating the 1st Amendment, I actually say that she is exercising it and is protected by that very same (in its entirety) amendment. Good luck tearing down every reference to religion and I'm sure you would make this a better place.

On this same forum you have an avatar that calls for a need of "creative extremists", post to assert your arrogant intellectual superiority, and how your daddy is so important/rich. You are right, that is much more manly. Great job hypocrite…

I stand corrected. God is not mentioned in the constitution and I was thinking of another document. You win. What I did find though...the Constitution is dated in the year of our Lord 1787. Better go and take that down while you are at it. Oh that is not a Christian reference, it is simply how the western world kept track of time? Funny it is that way, right?

How would you have expected that dating nomenclature to have been dated? By the Mayan calendar? For what it was worth, it was the only dating system used in the Western world. Even A.D. is literally the Latin for Anno Dominio (or something, my Latin is rusty) which literally translates to the Year of Our Lord.

Plus, if you read what I wrote in this thread, you will clearly note I was not saying this was an issue of religious freedom - the cheerleader has every right to express her religion. If you reference a post I made IN THIS THREAD I said that the school forbidding the practice is a question of whether they violated her free speech (to express said religion) while in her capacity of school cheerleader at a school football game on school property - and every indication, every case settled on the matter seems to suggest they have not.

I don't claim to be intellectually superior to most people. I do claim to be right about things when people assert other, fallacious things. When they continue to to assert those other, fallacious things in spite of reasonable evidence to the contrary, I come to the conclusion they must be idiots - irrespective of my own intelligence. That you have chosen to attach this to my character as arrogance and a claim to an intellectual high ground is ad hominem at best - I am often more than willing to change my mind on topics when presented with reasonable debate. Very little of that exists on the internet. I'm also sorry you can't understand that my father is a different person than I am and I have deliberately made different choices than he has. I can understand though, how what I meant to be an amusing or thought-provoking anecdote about the capitalist father of one of this board's most socialist members, can be seen as hypocritical, so I sincerely beg your forgiveness.

[TheEschaton]

Also, it's important to note Christianity had very little influence in the early part of our country's history. The rise of talk as a Christian nation arose around the Civil War, when Southerners used their Christianity to attack (rhetorically) Northern abolitionists, claiming they had a moral right to enslave other people.

[Suppressed Poet]

How would you have expected that dating nomenclature to have been dated? By the Mayan calendar? For what it was worth, it was the only dating system used in the Western world. Even A.D. is literally the Latin for Anno Dominio (or something, my Latin is rusty) which literally translates to the Year of Our Lord.

Plus, if you read what I wrote in this thread, you will clearly note I was not saying this was an issue of religious freedom - the cheerleader has every right to express her religion. If you reference a post I made IN THIS THREAD I said that the school forbidding the practice is a question of whether they violated her free speech (to express said religion) while in her capacity of school cheerleader at a school football game on school property - and every indication, every case settled on the matter seems to suggest they have not.

I don't claim to be intellectually superior to most people. I do claim to be right about things when people assert other, fallacious things. When they continue to to assert those other, fallacious things in spite of reasonable evidence to the contrary, I come to the conclusion they must be idiots - irrespective of my own intelligence. That you have chosen to attach this to my character as arrogance and a claim to an intellectual high ground is ad hominem at best - I am often more than willing to change my mind on topics when presented with reasonable debate. Very little of that exists on the internet. I'm also sorry you can't understand that my father is a different person than I am and I have deliberately made different choices than he has. I can understand though, how what I meant to be an amusing or thought-provoking anecdote about the capitalist father of one of this board's most socialist members, can be seen as hypocritical, so I sincerely beg your forgiveness.

My whole point is how much Christianity (the majority religion in the western world) has had an influence to our laws and society. You admit this with the dating system used to sign the constitution. By your own logic, isn't the government then actually giving favoritism to Christianity by signing it in this way? I agree with you it is absolutely ludicrous that they would have used anything else. But seriously, you can't selectively decide to take down the Ten Commandments from court houses or "In God We Trust" without looking at this. By the way, that argument has been made in the past and it was shot down in the Supreme Court (to get rid of reference such as In God We Trust).

And this is where we differ - I don't think the framers of our constitution intended that we would use the separation of church and state in this particular situation. I don't believe they would go that far to say a cheerleader is an official part of the school, which is an institution of the government, and the whole situation being a government sponsored event. It is a damn football game, a cheerleader, and a banner with a religious reference. This is not the same as forcing the students to say a prayer in the morning. This is not the same as using school funding to bus kids to church.

I really know very little of your father. I just remember reading a couple of time your mentioning him, something about a mansion, and something about a big dollar deal he was working on. Don't take it personally and you don't need my forgiveness. One of the greatest things about politics is that there are not always clear black and white answers. Just because my opinion on the matter differs than yours, does not make me an idiot. I am not a legal expert, and probably not as educated as you are on the subject of the constitution, but I am perfectly capable of voicing and defending my position. I'd like to apologize to you for any low blows and hopefully in the future we can debate cleaner.

[Warriorbird]

My whole point is how much Christianity (the majority religion in the western world) has had an influence to our laws and society. You admit this with the dating system used to sign the constitution. By your own logic, isn't the government then actually giving favoritism to Christianity by signing it in this way? I agree with you it is absolutely ludicrous that they would have used anything else. But seriously, you can't selectively decide to take down the Ten Commandments from court houses or "In God We Trust" without looking at this. By the way, that argument has been made in the past and it was shot down in the Supreme Court (to get rid of reference such as In God We Trust).

And this is where we differ - I don't think the framers of our constitution intended that we would use the separation of church and state in this particular situation. I don't believe they would go that far to say a cheerleader is an official part of the school, which is an institution of the government, and the whole situation being a government sponsored event. It is a damn football game, a cheerleader, and a banner with a religious reference. This is not the same as forcing the students to say a prayer in the morning. This is not the same as using school funding to bus kids to church.

I really know very little of your father. I just remember reading a couple of time your mentioning him, something about a mansion, and something about a big dollar deal he was working on. Don't take it personally and you don't need my forgiveness. One of the greatest things about politics is that there are not always clear black and white answers. Just because my opinion on the matter differs than yours, does not make me an idiot. I am not a legal expert, and probably not as educated as you are on the subject of the constitution, but I am perfectly capable of voicing and defending my position. I'd like to apologize to you for any low blows and hopefully in the future we can debate cleaner.

So you're basically saying the Constitution should only matter when you want it to? Got it.

[Suppressed Poet]

Also, it's important to note Christianity had very little influence in the early part of our country's history. The rise of talk as a Christian nation arose around the Civil War, when Southerners used their Christianity to attack (rhetorically) Northern abolitionists, claiming they had a moral right to enslave other people.

I call total BS on this one. Hell, when the Constitution was created and ratified many of the states had their own state-law sponsored Christian religions. I think that is a very narrow notion of the Civil War and a Christian nation. Much more than a Christian nation, the Civil War was about states’ rights vs the rights of the federal government. One of the original problems of the Constitution is it did not clearly address whether state law or federal law held the trump card, and thus we have the all-important 14th Amendment.

[Suppressed Poet]

So you're basically saying the Constitution should only matter when you want it to? Got it.

Absolutely not.

I am saying there is a lot of room for debate in the interpretation of the law and its meaning. It is a naïve approach to say "your way is always wrong and my way is always right".

[Parkbandit]

Also, it's important to note Christianity had very little influence in the early part of our country's history. The rise of talk as a Christian nation arose around the Civil War, when Southerners used their Christianity to attack (rhetorically) Northern abolitionists, claiming they had a moral right to enslave other people.

When you say "our country".. do you mean India? Because you're delusional if you are talking about the US.

[4a6c1]

I stand corrected. God is not mentioned in the constitution and I was thinking of another document. You win.

This made me more sad than anything. You mentioned you are in Texas. Were you publicly educated here? Please don't take offense but I would like to see if we can get this one miniscule point to come full circle: children taught closed minded silly ideas in a state that only values business capital creates an ignorant population.

[poloneus]

I don't know about most of you, but I certainly know that when I was in HS, if I saw my football team run through a paper sign that had anything to do with a religion written on it, I would have instantly be converted to said religion. I mean, yeah, I was young and impressionable.

And if you can't read the sarcasm in that, you really need your head examined.

It really comes down to one simple thing to me really. Some people feel that since they don't believe/apply that everyone else has to conform to them. Look even at RI and them ending all mother-Son and Father-Daughter dances and events, since it isn't "fair" to single parents or such.

It takes a special type of person to take offense at all these really stupid minor things in life. As for children being more impressionable, if anyone here can honestly say that a phrase on a banner at a football game is enough to convert make someone question their faith.. you have bigger issues then spending your time making fun of me in a political thread.

How did your application go? Nice that you can do it online now.

[diethx]

http://www.weakstream.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/flying-dildo.jpg

[Jace Solo]

This made me more sad than anything. You mentioned you are in Texas. Were you publicly educated here? Please don't take offense but I would like to see if we can get this one miniscule point to come full circle: children taught closed minded silly ideas in a state that only values business capital creates an ignorant population.

This applies to "children taught closed minded silly ideas by the state that only values the goals of the government creates an ignorant population.

However, if people are ignorant, it's generally they're own fault because the information is out there, they just aren't looking for it.
When the government does it however, they generally make that information disappear in some way. ie Hitler and the burning of any book he didn't approve of.

As far as this entire thread. It's free speech for the cheerleader to put whatever they want on the banner as long as it's not offensive to the majority. If the majority doesn't complain, then it's not offensive. Case closed, people do need to get a life and stop thinking that making other people miserable will make them feel better.

[4a6c1]

However, if people are ignorant, it's generally they're own fault because the information is out there, they just aren't looking for it.


I would disagree with you based on the statistics I posted earlier in the thread. I posit that backwardness and ignorance is endemic to Texas (in favor of the success of big business and the gaining of capital); that the public education system enables this cyclic system of failure. The cultural insensitivity showcased here with this specific thread is only one tiny symptom of the cancer.

I'll spell this out for whoever needs it but cultural insensitivity is a huge problem obviously because we can't further our own interests in the world without it.

[Parkbandit]

As far as this entire thread. It's free speech for the cheerleader to put whatever they want on the banner as long as it's not offensive to the majority. If the majority doesn't complain, then it's not offensive. Case closed, people do need to get a life and stop thinking that making other people miserable will make them feel better.

But that is the benchmark of the Progressive Party... they aren't happy until everyone is as miserable as they are.

Winston Churchill said it best:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

[Suppressed Poet]

This made me more sad than anything. You mentioned you are in Texas. Were you publicly educated here? Please don't take offense but I would like to see if we can get this one miniscule point to come full circle: children taught closed minded silly ideas in a state that only values business capital creates an ignorant population.

No, I mentioned earlier I was educated in a parochial school. I did that K - 12, but I did graduate from a state college (Texas Tech). I assume you count me in this ignorant population and I'm sorry if you feel that way. No offense taken. God forbid I make a mistake somewhere, and even more so that I admit to it. Taking out of context 3 sentences and showing where I admitted I was wrong in a particular area doesn't make me ignorant.


Though on your statement "children taught closed minded silly ideas in a state that only values business capital creates an ignorant population" not so much. I think if you were to say "children taught closed minded silly ideas is a major factor in producing an ignorant population" I would agree. It doesn't really matter the agenda behind the state. Also if you are suggesting the government in Texas only values business capital, I think you are wrong there too. Maybe what you were going for is a lot of public schools in Texas teach very narrow minded ideas, and we have a terrible public education system compared to most of the country. Yes, I do absolutely agree with that. Ridiculous political impacts like purposely excluding hip-hop as legitimate music category from history books and our over emphasis (and the lengthy narrow preparation for) standardized testing has made for some pretty crappy schools here.

[TheEschaton]

As far as this entire thread. It's free speech for the cheerleader to put whatever they want on the banner as long as it's not offensive to the majority. If the majority doesn't complain, then it's not offensive. Case closed, people do need to get a life and stop thinking that making other people miserable will make them feel better.

This is like....the antithesis of how free speech is defined in this country.

[4a6c1]

Ignore the minority and they might go away, amirite?!

[Tgo01]

I would disagree with you based on the statistics I posted earlier in the thread. I posit that backwardness and ignorance is endemic to Texas (in favor of the success of big business and the gaining of capital); that the public education system enables this cyclic system of failure. The cultural insensitivity showcased here with this specific thread is only one tiny symptom of the cancer.

What? Who here has been raised in Texas and went to public schools in Texas?

[4a6c1]

Technically not actually raised IN Texas or educated exclusively IN Texas. Still funny though.

[Back]

What? Who here has been raised in Texas and went to public schools in Texas?

I actually did pre k to 4th grade in Houston's public school system. See how I turned out???

[Parkbandit]

I actually did pre k to 4th grade in Houston's public school system. See how I turned out???

I you and Rojo are examples, she might very well be correct.

Fucking Texas.. we should give it back to Mexico.

[Back]

I you and Rojo are examples, she might very well be correct.

Fucking Texas.. we should give it back to Mexico.

My education advanced further in NYC and Los Angeles. I know you are afraid of progress but you really shouldn't be. Within 60 years of the first manned aircraft we put a man on the fucking moon and now a rover on fucking Mars. When we work together we have a great capacity for achievement.

I know you like to fight but it really does not solve anything.

[Jace Solo]

Ignore the minority and they might go away, amirite?!

Not at all Rojo. I just don't understand why you would given in to the minority. Isn't that what the whole "voting" system is based on? The Majority decides? Or did I miss something where the minority vote is worth more?

As far as the statement about the school system, I was just a mimic of Rojo to show that it works both ways. Any children educated with narrow mindedness in either direction, be it religion faith, the religion of government or even an absence of both at the same time will be ignorant. Teach both Creationism (non-denominationally) and Evolution in schools. Wouldn't that be the proper middle ground? So they have a wider base...or no Creationism because that's not what you believe in?

There were also bible verses and quotes around my school and especially in sports...and I grew up in Florida.

[Back]

Not at all Rojo. I just don't understand why you would given in to the minority. Isn't that what the whole "voting" system is based on? The Majority decides? Or did I miss something where the minority vote is worth more?

As far as the statement about the school system, I was just a mimic of Rojo to show that it works both ways. Any children educated with narrow mindedness in either direction, be it religion faith, the religion of government or even an absence of both at the same time will be ignorant. Teach both Creationism (non-denominationally) and Evolution in schools. Wouldn't that be the proper middle ground? So they have a wider base...or no Creationism because that's not what you believe in?

There were also bible verses and quotes around my school and especially in sports...and I grew up in Florida.

I completely disagree with the idea that we should teach our children that fact and fiction should be treated equally or be given equal weight in consideration.

You really want to mess somebody up? Teach them all that religious nonsense.

[Suppressed Poet]

It really scares me that some people still have the conception that the bible is a literal history book. As a catechist (I teach Sunday school to seventh graders), this is the first thing I tell them at the begining of the year before we do any bible study. The bible is a book of religous truths. The Old Testament was written by inspires individuals to explain their growing understanding of God and the world we live in.

There is no reason I see as to why science and God can not coexist. I think it is really stupid to suggest to children through our school system that the world was literaly created in 6 days exactly how Genesis describes it...or even as a possibility. Now that is a violation of church vs state, not some cheerleader holding up a damn banner.

[Androidpk]

I find it scary anyone views it more than a silly piece of fiction.

[Suppressed Poet]

I find it scary anyone views it more than a silly piece of fiction.

If you want to go through this life knowing you are all alone and your life has no greater purpose, by all means... However I see that as a much scarier thought.

And this is why Ron Paul lost - because you sir, have no soul. :p

[Androidpk]

So in order to feel wanted or to feel a purpose in life is to believe in santa claus. Gotcha.

[diethx]

If you want to go through this life knowing you are all alone and your life has no greater purpose, by all means... However I see that as a much scarier thought.

And this is why Ron Paul lost - because you sir, have no soul. :p

I don't understand why I should feel alone because I don't believe in god or religion. I very rarely feel alone because I have friends and family whom I love and who love me. My purpose is to have a great life and make the best of it because it's the only one I'll ever have. It's sad that there are people out there who can only find fulfillment in some made-up story.

[Tgo01]

You really want to mess somebody up? Teach them all that religious nonsense.

There you go showing off your Democratic tolerance again.

[Suppressed Poet]

I don't understand why I should feel alone because I don't believe in god or religion. I very rarely feel alone because I have friends and family whom I love and who love me. My purpose is to have a great life and make the best of it because it's the only one I'll ever have. It's sad that there are people out there who can only find fulfillment in some made-up story.

My faith is not a made up story.

I'm saying if that works for you, great. I'm not being sarcastic and I don't try to 'convert' people. I imagine it as lonely, but I don't really know because I am not that way.

You telling me that my faith is a made up fantasy story is probably the equivalent of someone telling you that your soul needs saving and to repent and accept Jesus.

[Androidpk]

Cool, sounds like that crutch is really working out for you.

[Liagala]

You telling me that my faith is a made up fantasy story is probably the equivalent of someone telling you that your soul needs saving and to repent and accept Jesus.
This is a pretty fair point, and goes back to the "shoving it in someone's face" point earlier in the thread. People are never going to agree with each other - is it really necessary for either side to insist on telling the other that they're wrong, just for the sake of having the last word?

[Androidpk]

This is a pretty fair point, and goes back to the "shoving it in someone's face" point earlier in the thread. People are never going to agree with each other - is it really necessary for either side to insist on telling the other that they're wrong, just for the sake of having the last word?

Absolutely!

[Tenlaar]

is it really necessary for either side to insist on telling the other that they're wrong, just for the sake of having the last word?

I see religion as no different than somebody believing that a unicorn lives in their closet. They can believe it if they want, but if they try to tell me it's true I'm not going to stand there and act like it makes any kind of logical sense whatsoever.

[Tgo01]

I'm okay with people having different lifestyles, just as long as they keep it in the closet and I don't have to know about it.


I see religion as no different than somebody believing that a unicorn lives in their closet. They can believe it if they want, but if they try to tell me it's true I'm not going to stand there and act like it makes any kind of logical sense whatsoever.

.

[Liagala]

I see religion as no different than somebody believing that a unicorn lives in their closet. They can believe it if they want, but if they try to tell me it's true I'm not going to stand there and act like it makes any kind of logical sense whatsoever.
That's fine... and if they say, "No really, you need to believe there's a unicorn in my closet," you can argue with them all you want. But if they say, "I know you don't believe me and that's cool, but I believe there's a unicorn there. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, who cares, did you see the Pats game last week?" - the correct response there ought to be, "Yeah, that game was great!" If they're not trying to force it on you, I see no need for you to force your view on them.


Absolutely!
Now how did I know you were going to say that...

[Suppressed Poet]

I see religion as no different than somebody believing that a unicorn lives in their closet. They can believe it if they want, but if they try to tell me it's true I'm not going to stand there and act like it makes any kind of logical sense whatsoever.

Again, whatever works for you.

One of the really nice things I like about being Catholic is we believe salvation is obtainable for everyone, including those of different religions and even agnostics/atheists. It's not our judgement call and I'm not here to say I'm right and you are going to burn in hell. I might believe in the end you (and more than likely me as well) may have to go through some purification process called purgatory where you get slapped around a bit and have to make up for your fuckups, but I don't have to infringe on your religous beliefs (or lack there of).

What matters most to me is what you do in this life by helping and serving your neighbors (by neighbors I mean everyone). My faith helps guide me and work to achieve that. I have plenty of friends who are agnostic/atheist. I respect their choice and they respect mine.

[Tenlaar]

I don't go looking for religious discussion. I don't see somebody with something Jesus related and say "Hey, that right there makes you a fool." I don't offer my opinion on religion until somebody else offers theirs - in fact, my most used response to somebody asking about mine is "I usually avoid the discussion because it rarely ends well." If they still want to know, I don't sugar coat it. I just wish everybody else could do the same and keep it to their damn selves unless somebody wants to know. And, to stay on topic, making people read your beliefs before a football game is not keeping it to yourself.

[Liagala]

Again, whatever works for you.

What matters most to me is what you do in this life by helping and serving your neighbors (by neighbors I mean everyone). My faith helps guide me and work to achieve that. I have plenty of friends who are agnostic/atheist. I respect their choice and they respect mine.
Wow, what an excellent example of a religious person stating their belief without pushing it on others...



One of the really nice things I like about being Catholic is we believe salvation is obtainable for everyone, including those of different religions and even agnostics/atheists. It's not our judgement call and I'm not here to say I'm right and you are going to burn in hell. I might believe in the end you (and more than likely me as well) may have to go through some purification process called purgatory where you get slapped around a bit and have to make up for your fuckups, but I don't have to infringe on your religous beliefs (or lack there of).
Oh wait, nevermind. You know, when you ask someone not to push their opinions on you, that gives you a responsibility to keep yours out of their face as well. This is not how you do that. This is, in fact, an excellent example of some "I'm not touching you!" style passive-aggressive preaching. "Oh, of course I respect your beliefs, but I believe you're going to roast forever in the eternal fires of hell for your crime of being an unbeliever!"

[diethx]

My faith is not a made up story.

I'm saying if that works for you, great. I'm not being sarcastic and I don't try to 'convert' people. I imagine it as lonely, but I don't really know because I am not that way.

You telling me that my faith is a made up fantasy story is probably the equivalent of someone telling you that your soul needs saving and to repent and accept Jesus.

I didn't say your faith was a made up story. The bible sure is, though. I think your faith is based upon a made-up story. Unless of course you can somehow prove that the events in the bible actually occurred as written... ?

Truthfully, you're the one who sounds sad and alone.

[Tenlaar]

For the sake of full disclosure I will add that my new favorite way to shut up an overbearing religious person is telling them that I want Quidditch to be real too, doesn't mean I am going to die and go to Hogwart's.

[Suppressed Poet]

I'm just talking about here because it's a social thread and it was brought up. I'm not preaching.

Purgatory is not the same as hell. It is temporary and not a fire and brimstone thing. If you are interested you can read about it. Not sure how we got this far off subject but whatever. I really don't care what you believe in or don't.

[Tgo01]

I didn't say your faith was a made up story. The bible sure is, though. I think your faith is based upon a made-up story. Unless of course you can somehow prove that the events in the bible actually occurred as written... ?

Prove evolution is real.

[diethx]

I wonder where you end up when you're so jealous of a family from church that you revel in their misery when they have an off day.

Oh wait, isn't envy one of those cardinal sins...

[diethx]

Prove evolution is real.

Pretty sure scientists have all but done that for me.

[Suppressed Poet]

I wonder where you end up when you're so jealous of a family from church that you revel in their misery when they have an off day.

Oh wait, isn't envy one of those cardinal sins...

Never said I was perfect and that I am likely to end up in a different place than purgatory. :p

I will certainly try though. I don't like being envious but I am competitive by nature and this is one of my many faults.

[Wrathbringer]

Over the years, I've found that faith is most effective when those who have it/find it apply those principles to their own lives and let everyone else do as they please. We live in a country where there's a church on every corner and evangelism is only a google search away if/when someone is interested. In my experience, those who become interested in faith do so first because of their own seeking/interest, not because there were enough signs/banners/bible-thumpers around them. There's no better evidence for the effectiveness of faith than a changed life.

[Suppressed Poet]

Over the years, I've found that faith is most effective when those who have it/find it apply those principles to their own lives and let everyone else do as they please. We live in a country where there's a church on every corner and evangelism is only a google search away if/when someone is interested. In my experience, those who become interested in faith do so first because of their own seeking/interest, not because there were enough signs/banners/bible-thumpers around them. There's no better evidence for the effectiveness of faith than a changed life.

I agree with that as well.

I still don't think what transpired in this situation was a violation of church vs state in the constitution and that we should run to the federal government for help.

[msconstrew]

I agree with that as well.

I still don't think what transpired in this situation was a violation of church vs state in the constitution and that we should run to the federal government for help.

The real problem with your position is that you're espousing a "belief" rather than analyzing it under the appropriate legal standard. Similar issues have been before courts countless times, and the people who held your position lost. Put succinctly (which is hard for a lawyer, really): if the students had their own religious, after-hours club in which the school had absolutely no involvement, it's not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Here, however, this occurred at a school-endorsed activity (sports event) and therefore the school can't get away from the fact that it's endorsing the cheerleaders' actions and essentially adopting them as its own. Just because a judge in TX ruled it constitutional doesn't mean a damn thing; judges make mistakes all the time and they are reversed on appeal all the time.

Furthermore, your effort to minimize those who object to such constitutional violations ("...run to the federal government for help.") shows that you don't really understand how serious it is not to allow this kind of thing to erode the First Amendment. It's a slippery slope out there, especially because there are a lot of people who, like you, seem to erroneously believe this is a Christian country founded on Christian beliefs and principles.

[diethx]

The real problem with your position is that you're espousing a "belief" rather than analyzing it under the appropriate legal standard. Similar issues have been before courts countless times, and the people who held your position lost. Put succinctly (which is hard for a lawyer, really): if the students had their own religious, after-hours club in which the school had absolutely no involvement, it's not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Here, however, this occurred at a school-endorsed activity (sports event) and therefore the school can't get away from the fact that it's endorsing the cheerleaders' actions and essentially adopting them as its own. Just because a judge in TX ruled it constitutional doesn't mean a damn thing; judges make mistakes all the time and they are reversed on appeal all the time.

Furthermore, your effort to minimize those who object to such constitutional violations ("...run to the federal government for help.") shows that you don't really understand how serious it is not to allow this kind of thing to erode the First Amendment. It's a slippery slope out there, especially because there are a lot of people who, like you, seem to erroneously believe this is a Christian country founded on Christian beliefs and principals.

Lawyered.

[Androidpk]

That's fine... and if they say, "No really, you need to believe there's a unicorn in my closet," you can argue with them all you want. But if they say, "I know you don't believe me and that's cool, but I believe there's a unicorn there. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, who cares, did you see the Pats game last week?" - the correct response there ought to be, "Yeah, that game was great!" If they're not trying to force it on you, I see no need for you to force your view on them.


Now how did I know you were going to say that...

Probably for the same reason that I know you're going to chime in whenever Atlanteax makes a disparaging comment about a Blizzard game. ;)

[Liagala]

Probably for the same reason that I know you're going to chime in whenever Atlanteax makes a desparaging comment about a Blizzard game. ;)
If you're going to italicize something, at least spell it right.

[Androidpk]

Stop being so predictable.

[Suppressed Poet]

The real problem with your position is that you're espousing a "belief" rather than analyzing it under the appropriate legal standard. Similar issues have been before courts countless times, and the people who held your position lost. Put succinctly (which is hard for a lawyer, really): if the students had their own religious, after-hours club in which the school had absolutely no involvement, it's not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Here, however, this occurred at a school-endorsed activity (sports event) and therefore the school can't get away from the fact that it's endorsing the cheerleaders' actions and essentially adopting them as its own. Just because a judge in TX ruled it constitutional doesn't mean a damn thing; judges make mistakes all the time and they are reversed on appeal all the time.

Furthermore, your effort to minimize those who object to such constitutional violations ("...run to the federal government for help.") shows that you don't really understand how serious it is not to allow this kind of thing to erode the First Amendment. It's a slippery slope out there, especially because there are a lot of people who, like you, seem to erroneously believe this is a Christian country founded on Christian beliefs and principals.

I'm not a legal expert. That is just my opinion and interpretation of the first amendment and this situation. Obviously it is a grey area and that is why it is being debated in the first place. You could very well be right that case law dictates the other way. I just don't agree with that viewpoint and the far stretch of cheerleader to voice of the government during a football game.

Of course, ultimately whatever we debate about here matters not because we are not the ones in power to interpret the law.

And you are right, I really don't see this as an erosion to the establishment clause. Using the budget to bus kids to church on Sundays, yes. Organized school sponsored prayers, yes. Some cheerleader (or group of them) designing a banner for a football team to run through, no. I don't think this cheerleader acted in the interest of the school. This is something they did on their own. From what I read, the school (being employees and staff) did not create the banner. I think it is irrelevant of whether she is in a cheer leading uniform or not. If the banner read praise the devil or we don't believe in God, I'd still say the same thing. And to waste the time, resources, and money of our federal government over something this insignificant just sounds stupid to me.

[Androidpk]

What don't you understand about this occuring at a school function? Don't be so daft man.

[msconstrew]

Of course, ultimately whatever we debate about here matters not because we are not the ones in power to interpret the law.

Maybe you're not. I do it on a regular basis, including analysis of First Amendment issues involving schools. Shocking, I know, that someone might not just be discussing their "opinions" and, instead, discussing something with which they have personal and professional experience. Moving on ...


And to waste the time, resources, and money of our federal government over something this insignificant just sounds stupid to me.

I assume by "federal government" you mean "judiciary". And that is exactly the judiciary's function: to interpret and determine whether someone's actions are legal, constitutional, whatever. So for you to take the position that it is a waste of the judiciary's time to interpret this situation and render judgment on it is just plain ignorant of its very function. What else is it there for? To determine the outcome of monetary disputes? Excuse me if I find those much more insignificant than our constitutional rights.

[Androidpk]

Msconstrew is on fire!

[diethx]

Maybe you're not. I do it on a regular basis, including analysis of First Amendment issues involving schools. Shocking, I know, that someone might not just be discussing their "opinions" and, instead, discussing something with which they have personal and professional experience. Moving on ...



I assume by "federal government" you mean "judiciary". And that is exactly the judiciary's function: to interpret and determine whether someone's actions are legal, constitutional, whatever. So for you to take the position that it is a waste of the judiciary's time to interpret this situation and render judgment on it is just plain ignorant of its very function. What else is it there for? To determine the outcome of monetary disputes? Excuse me if I find those much more insignificant than our constitutional rights.

TKO!

[Fallen]

I'm not a legal expert. That is just my opinion and interpretation of the first amendment and this situation. Obviously it is a grey area and that is why it is being debated in the first place. You could very well be right that case law dictates the other way. I just don't agree with that viewpoint and the far stretch of cheerleader to voice of the government during a football game.

Of course, ultimately whatever we debate about here matters not because we are not the ones in power to interpret the law.

And you are right, I really don't see this as an erosion to the establishment clause. Using the budget to bus kids to church on Sundays, yes. Organized school sponsored prayers, yes. Some cheerleader (or group of them) designing a banner for a football team to run through, no. I don't think this cheerleader acted in the interest of the school. This is something they did on their own. From what I read, the school (being employees and staff) did not create the banner. I think it is irrelevant of whether she is in a cheer leading uniform or not. If the banner read praise the devil or we don't believe in God, I'd still say the same thing. And to waste the time, resources, and money of our federal government over something this insignificant just sounds stupid to me.

The problem is, would it be so clear cut if the banner was provided by the church instead of a student? It doesn't matter who made the banner, it is that it was used at, and during the course of an official function that counts.

[diethx]

http://i48.tinypic.com/or7cbs.jpg

BAM, paint skills

[Suppressed Poet]

Maybe you're not. I do it on a regular basis, including analysis of First Amendment issues involving schools. Shocking, I know, that someone might not just be discussing their "opinions" and, instead, discussing something with which they have personal and professional experience. Moving on ...



I assume by "federal government" you mean "judiciary". And that is exactly the judiciary's function: to interpret and determine whether someone's actions are legal, constitutional, whatever. So for you to take the position that it is a waste of the judiciary's time to interpret this situation and render judgment on it is just plain ignorant of its very function. What else is it there for? To determine the outcome of monetary disputes? Excuse me if I find those much more insignificant than our constitutional rights.

Good for you on your chosen profession. Hell, why do we even have this conversation if you are all-knowing, and anyone who has a different interpretation (opinion) on the matter is ignorant. And I'm sure when you did your analysis of the first amendment, every one of your colleagues interpret the law the very same way you do, right?

I referenced time, money, and resources. This actualy is a reality whether you want to admit to it or not, but I also did not say that should be a real consideration when hearing a case. It's more that someone would bring this to the judiciary rather then anything to do with them hearing it or not. They do have that right, but i guess it just surprises me someone would choose to excersise it over something this small.

But I am certain every case brought before the district, appeals, and supreme court is heard...right? We have unlimited resources to spend on every small little dispute that arises, correct?

[Suppressed Poet]

The problem is, would it be so clear cut if the banner was provided by the church instead of a student? It doesn't matter who made the banner, it is that it was used at, and during the course of an official function that counts.

Then tell me why it is different if a football player makes the sign of the cross when celebrating a touchdown?

[Fallen]

Then tell me why it is different if a football player makes the sign of the cross when celebrating a touchdown?

Are individual celebrations allowed in High School sports? If they all huddled for a team prayer after every TD, it would definitely been a problem. A college player was flagged for doing a salute after a TD.

[Suppressed Poet]

Are individual celebrations allowed in High School sports? If they all huddled for a team prayer after every TD, it would definitely been a problem. A college player was flagged for doing a salute after a TD.

So one individual can but a group that shares those same beliefs can not? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Id get it if the coach instructed them to do that, but a group of kids on their own? Nope.

A flag in football for excessive celebration has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about...

[Tgo01]

People keep saying "every time something like this has come before the courts they always ruled it a violation of the first amendment."

What about Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow and Newdow v. Carey? Didn't the courts rule that teacher led pledge of allegiance with the words "One nation under God" wasn't unconstitutional? I think that is 10,000 times worse than what is happening in this case.

[Fallen]

So one individual can but a group that shares those same beliefs can not? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Id get it if the coach instructed them to do that, but a group of kids on their own? Nope.

A flag in football for excessive celebration has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about...

I think there are plenty of instances where the "banner situation" being debated in this thread happens at schools without anyone raising an issue. The same goes for the football celebration of a cross. It is fine...until someone says something. I imagine if pressed, the school would have to state that such a celebration would not be acceptable.

[Tgo01]

Also earlier in this thread people were citing Hazelwood in an effort to say the cheerleader was wrong. If I'm understanding the Hazelwood decision correctly it simply states schools have the legal right to censor students in some respects, it does not say schools are obligated to nor does it really solidify any argument for or against religion in school. I don't think anyone is arguing against what the school decision in this case was, they are arguing whether or not what the cheerleader did violated the first amendment.

Let's just assume the school never got involved and the hypocritical douche bags at the Freedom from Religion Foundation sued the school or student or whatever, what cases would relate to this particular case in that scenario?

[TheEschaton]

People keep saying "every time something like this has come before the courts they always ruled it a violation of the first amendment."

What about Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow and Newdow v. Carey? Didn't the courts rule that teacher led pledge of allegiance with the words "One nation under God" wasn't unconstitutional? I think that is 10,000 times worse than what is happening in this case.

That case was dismissed on a technicality at the Supreme Court, where SCOTUS decided Newdow didn't have the standing (right to sue) to bring suit in his daughter's name. It addressed none of the substantive issues of the case.

As to faith: I don't think having faith or even belief in God is mutually exclusive with reason and rationality. Hell, I'm a Jesuit-educated Catholic. Pascal, who was first and foremost a mathematician, once wrote that it is the rational decision to believe in God, because there are four scenarios, from "worst" to "best":

1) You don't believe in God, and there is a God, and you've somehow offended this God by not believing in him/it/her whatever. You suffer for this after you die.
2) You don't believe in God, and there is no God. You die, and there's nothing afterwards.
3) You believe in God, and there is no God. You die, and there's nothing afterwards.
4) You believe in God, and there is a God, and you've somehow pleased this God, and you achieve salvation or enlightenment, or whatever.

Pascal said that "the wager" led that it was rational to believe in God, because you are no worse off than the anti-theist who didn't believe in God, and definitely better than the one who scorned a God who exists.

It's a bit of a superficial analysis, because Pascal didn't analyze the "effort" required to believe in God, nor the "non-effort" required to not believe in God. Namely, if being religious was such a detriment to your current life that it was worse than had you not believed in God, then the middle two positions switch. However, in modern times, where the anti-theist isn't necessarily amoral or immoral, and is often still bound by law or conscience, or whatever, and the theist is simply a good person and not one who goes out of his/her way to cause pain in the name of their religion, I think Pascal's wager holds up.

In fact, I think Pascal's wager, when you add the subtlety of "the burden of faith," is a good argument for moderation, rationalism, and non-evangelicalism in religion. I mean, how many of you know that I go to Mass at least twice a week, and that at times (often during Lent) I go up to 6 times a week? You all think I'm a socialist dirty hippie (all true except for the dirty bit), but I don't agree with ignorance, I don't believe in black-and-white morality except in extreme cases, and I don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe.

[Tgo01]

That case was dismissed on a technicality at the Supreme Court, where SCOTUS decided Newdow didn't have the standing (right to sue) to bring suit in his daughter's name. It addressed none of the substantive issues of the case.

True, what about Newdow v. Carey? Granted it never reached the supreme court but the courts decided teacher led pledge of allegiance with the words "Under God" was not unconstitutional.


In fact, I think Pascal's wager, when you add the subtlety of "the burden of faith," is a good argument for moderation, rationalism, and non-evangelicalism in religion. I mean, how many of you know that I go to Mass at least twice a week, and that at times (often during Lent) I go up to 6 times a week? You all think I'm a socialist dirty hippie (all true except for the dirty bit), but I don't agree with ignorance, I don't believe in black-and-white morality except in extreme cases, and I don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe.

That's because you're one of them self hatin' Catholics.

[Jarvan]

Maybe you're not. I do it on a regular basis, including analysis of First Amendment issues involving schools. Shocking, I know, that someone might not just be discussing their "opinions" and, instead, discussing something with which they have personal and professional experience. Moving on ...



So what your saying is you are a Federal judge, or a Supreme Court Justice?

The key phrase he said is.. we are not the ones in power to interpret the law.

You can interpret it all you want, it may even be your job to do so on a limited level. But you are NOT in power. Sorry.

[Liagala]

Dude. You really need to sort your stereotypes out. Brown people are supposed to be Hindu and/or 7-11 clerks. Catholics are supposed to be Republican. Hippy liberals are supposed to be atheists. Lawyers are supposed to be greedy, amoral bastards. You are doing this all wrong.

[TheEschaton]

Catholics are weird, we range from Antonin Scalia to nuns who protest outside of military bases.

[Showal]

I see the "Tebow-ing" as very different than creating a banner that is to be used at a school function. If the cheerleader wanted to dismiss herself from the game for 15 minutes to pray to Mecca it would also be different. Practicing your religion or even displaying your religion personally is not what is at question here. The cheerleader made a banner for the school's use. If the cheerleader praying to Mecca made a banner to be hung reminding everyone to pray to Mecca at such and such time during the game and gave it to the school which then displayed it, it would be on the same level. You don't have to read the banner, you don't have to pray, you don't have to convert or even think for a brief moment about converting, but the act of the school displaying the banner creates the impression (or even illusion) that the school sanctions Islam. If the player "Tebow-ing" made a sign for the school to display that displayed a relevant Bible verse every time he Tebowed, and the school did, it'd be the same thing. You see where I'm going here? It's not even a good comparison. Apples to oranges.


So what your saying is you are a Federal judge, or a Supreme Court Justice?

The key phrase he said is.. we are not the ones in power to interpret the law.

You can interpret it all you want, it may even be your job to do so on a limited level. But you are NOT in power. Sorry.

What she's saying is that the interpretation has already been done by someone in power to do so. She's speaking with appropriate authority and you just post to read words that you've written.

[Suppressed Poet]

Interesting rational approach to faith, The E.

For me it's more about living a just, happy, fulfilling life than getting into heaven. I think a lot of the moral teachings of the Church and the selfless manner of the way Christ lived his life is a great example for me.

Of course like you, I was brought up Catholic and it's as a much a part of my family and culture as much as it is a religion. I have made a decision in my adult life to continue it and take ownership.

I tend to weigh more towards good works in the faith vs good works argument in obtaining salvation. I think like most everything else, if you do the right things and set the right habits the results will come.

[Suppressed Poet]

Dude. You really need to sort your stereotypes out. Brown people are supposed to be Hindu and/or 7-11 clerks. Catholics are supposed to be Republican. Hippy liberals are supposed to be atheists. Lawyers are supposed to be greedy, amoral bastards. You are doing this all wrong.

Actually most Catholics are Democrat.

[Liagala]

Interesting rational approach to faith, The E.
I doubt TheE continues his belief in God because of something so simple. I could be wrong, but he doesn't strike me as the type to let an idea so coldly rational and devoid of any hint of consideration for right and wrong, determine his course. If he were the type to let a simple risk/reward tradeoff like that make his decisions, he'd be a corporate lawyer making an assload of money right now.

But then again, I also doubt you actually care why TheE believes - you just saw this as an excellent opportunity to preach a little, and enjoy what you see as support from a fellow believer in a thread where people have done a lot of shitting on Christianity.

[TheEschaton]

Catholics do have a strange foundation in the blue collar, organized labor types. That's what I grew up in, blue collar, Catholic Buffalo (the Pope once considered coming to Buffalo because it had the highest per capita Catholic population of any city in the country - he instead went to Denver, because it was "in the middle").

[Suppressed Poet]

I doubt TheE continues his belief in God because of something so simple. I could be wrong, but he doesn't strike me as the type to let an idea so coldly rational and devoid of any hint of consideration for right and wrong, determine his course. If he were the type to let a simple risk/reward tradeoff like that make his decisions, he'd be a corporate lawyer making an assload of money right now.

But then again, I also doubt you actually care why TheE believes - you just saw this as an excellent opportunity to preach a little, and enjoy what you see as support from a fellow believer.

You seriously overestimate how much I care about you even if my intention really is to preach, which it's not. I just saw it as kind of interesting and as you can see, I like sharing ideas/thoughts.

[Liagala]

Given most of the policies coming out of Rome, I tend to mentally lump Catholics in with the socially conservative crowd. Reality has very little effect on that sort of thing - hence the label of "stereotype." I just find it hard to see Catholics as Democrats while still supporting the Pope's anti-birth control, anti-female priest, anti-a-bunch-of-other-stuff stance.


You seriously overestimate how much I care about you even if my intention really is to preach, which it's not.
Who said anything about caring about me? And whatever your intention is, it comes off as preaching. Most of your recent posts in this thread deliberately dip into rhetoric about how your faith has changed your life, and it's awesome, and people who don't believe will go to hell and/or purgatory, yadda yadda.

[4a6c1]

Hi everyone. I'm busy so I'm going to cherry pick the last few pages for what entertained me.


Prove evolution is real.

:lol:

Please be joking.

[Suppressed Poet]

Given most of the policies coming out of Rome, I tend to mentally lump Catholics in with the socially conservative crowd. Reality has very little effect on that sort of thing - hence the label of "stereotype." I just find it hard to see Catholics as Democrats while still supporting the Pope's anti-birth control, anti-female priest, anti-a-bunch-of-other-stuff stance.

Well you pointed out another stereotype which is that every Catholic believes in *every* policy of the pope.

The main reason most Catholics are Democrat is the greatest population is or came from the NE, and they tend to be of the working class.

If you were going on political agenda alone, neither party is perfect on what Rome would like to do.

[TheEschaton]

The majority of the American Church doesn't support the Pope's views on anti-birth control, anti-female priests, etc. The hierarchy are the ones who believe that. And the bad guys in Dan Brown novels.

Also, I worked with a Catholic NGO in Africa while I was doing AIDS outreach..the organization was made up of nuns and priests who educated about AIDS - they didn't even bother with abstinence, and they had condoms at every workshop. I think most Catholics have a largely practical core.

The Church is a large organization.

[Latrinsorm]

Not at all Rojo. I just don't understand why you would given in to the minority. Isn't that what the whole "voting" system is based on? The Majority decides? Or did I miss something where the minority vote is worth more?This was one of the stated reasons why we were not created as a democracy. Check out Federalist no. 10, for instance. Here's an excerpt: "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Mob rule, the tyranny of the majority: it was a concept the founders were very familiar with. Arguably we are even less of a democracy now than we were then with the advent of the two-party system, among other things.
And this is why Ron Paul lost - because you sir, have no soul.I tried to tell him!
I don't go looking for religious discussion. I don't see somebody with something Jesus related and say "Hey, that right there makes you a fool." I don't offer my opinion on religion until somebody else offers theirs - in fact, my most used response to somebody asking about mine is "I usually avoid the discussion because it rarely ends well." If they still want to know, I don't sugar coat it. I just wish everybody else could do the same and keep it to their damn selves unless somebody wants to know. And, to stay on topic, making people read your beliefs before a football game is not keeping it to yourself.It may interest you to know that the fundamental definition of religious behavior is the division of the world into sacred and profane spheres. In this way, your desire to keep your ears sacred (to invert a Jon Stewartism) and unviolated by so-called "religious" discussion is in itself pure religion.

My purpose in pointing this out is not to say "ha! hypocrite!" and obtain 10 points for Hufflepuff, but to demonstrate that this idea of religious vs. nonreligious/irreligious/whatever is a false distinction, and we could make a lot more progress if we got past it. Compare to something like noise laws: everyone makes noise, so we come to an understanding about how much noise we can make, where, when, etc. It would have been harder to reach this level of compromise if we had had asoundists running around (in slippers, perhaps).
Over the years, I've found that faith is most effective when those who have it/find it apply those principles to their own lives and let everyone else do as they please. We live in a country where there's a church on every corner and evangelism is only a google search away if/when someone is interested. In my experience, those who become interested in faith do so first because of their own seeking/interest, not because there were enough signs/banners/bible-thumpers around them. There's no better evidence for the effectiveness of faith than a changed life.Aha, but how would that someone know they are interested? Surely you do not know everything about yourself, let alone the vast panoply of possible future selves you could become. Throw in the incessant distractions of the modern world, and evangelism has a necessary place. Speaking from personal experience, I became a strong supporter of gay rights after meeting a vehemently evangelistic gay person. I might have come to that position eventually on my own, but then again I might not have.

Never underestimate how many of your own thoughts and desires are nothing more than echoes, imitations of your environment, shadows of your parents, your pastor, your friends perched on your medulla oblongata. Why do you think it's so hard to be truly creative? Because individuals do not truly exist.
Catholics do have a strange foundation in the blue collar, organized labor types. That's what I grew up in, blue collar, Catholic Buffalo (the Pope once considered coming to Buffalo because it had the highest per capita Catholic population of any city in the country - he instead went to Denver, because it was "in the middle").I heard it was because he would have had to go to Buffalo. He was all "Nie dziękuję!!" and then got baked in Denver. That's just something I heard.

[Suppressed Poet]

Yep - I kind of have an interesting story behind all that. My aunt was a nun (blood relation), my uncle was a Jesuit priest. They left their respective orders and married (in good standing with the church). Both went on to be educators (my aunt superintendent of a large city diocese schools). I truly believe they would have still been excellent in their religious order as a married couple.

One day it WILL change that priests/nuns can marry. They have to change, as it is a serious problem right now with the lack of priests and nuns today. Vatican III should happen in my lifetime.

This will be my last post in this thread. I spent too much time on it today and my ADHD doesn't allow me to multi-task well. Don't want to get in trouble at work... Thanks everyone for the conversation and I did enjoy hearing your side on things.

[Tisket]

Stop being so predictable.

This coming from you made me laugh a lot.

[Kembal]

On this topic, I thought this might be an interesting essay to read.

http://www.teenink.com/hot_topics/pride_prejudice/article/466961/Not-So-Silent-Majority/

As for the banner, I have two thoughts: a) It's illegal and b) Welcome to Texas. <sigh>

[Bobmuhthol]

Her (I am assuming the author is a girl) grammar is fucking awful.

[Tgo01]

First court case. (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/05/nation/la-na-texas-cheerleaders-20121005)


The school district's attorney, Tom Brandt, pointed out that Kountze High School's squad had signed a "cheerleader constitution" that limited their behavior and designated them — and thus their banners — as school symbols.

"This is government speech. It's on public property. The cheerleaders represent the school," Brandt said.

He cited a 2000 Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe, in which the justices ruled that student-initiated prayers over a loudspeaker during football games were unconstitutional. Such prayers implied school sponsorship, the court said.

Liberty Institute lawyers have cited precedents of their own — including Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, a 1969 case in which the Supreme Court found that students had a right to express themselves by wearing armbands to school protesting the Vietnam War.

"This is not a prayer case," attorney David Starnes said in closing, after reading Scripture, arguing that it's about free speech, including religious speech. "Even the Supreme Court has recognized you cannot take away religious expression in schools. You can do it in Russia and China, but you cannot do it in the United States."

Thomas ruled immediately, extending the temporary restraining order 14 days.

[Jarvan]

They just won again, the Cheerleaders.

So far that's what 2 rulings in their favor.

I don't think it will ever get to the Supreme Court, but I would find it interesting if it did.

[Tenlaar]

Well isn't that just fucking disgusting.

[Latrinsorm]

Don't worry, it only lets them continue until the actual lawsuit is decided, which seems fair. It is unfortunate that it'll be at least 9 months until then, though.

[4a6c1]

You know, I was thinking about this specific issue today and ventured into the law department to ask a few people whom I knew would know the facts. Both laughed in my face. To those who teach law at least this has already been decided.

Here is some stuff for review. Given to me - passed on to you.


Engel v. Vitale (1962) - outlawed reciting prayers in public school, even when voluntary.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) - court overruled the Pennsylvania law requiring that each school day begin with a reading from the Bible and organized prayer. (a similar law in Baltimore was also struck down)

County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) - displays containing only religious symbols are not allowed in or on government buildings because they violate the First and Fourteenth amendments.

- Court overturned a Kentucky law that mandated the Ten Commandments in every classroom and a "moment of silence" law in Alabama which allowed for meditation and silent prayer at the beginning of the school day. It has also ruled against offering prayer as part of graduation ceremonies and student led prayers at high school football games.

THE COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO ENDORSE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

I learned about Keynesian economics on accident today too. Fun day!

[Tgo01]

THE COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO ENDORSE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

No one is saying otherwise.

[Jarvan]

No one is saying otherwise.

I guess we will find out sooner or later. it's funny though, cause a school where I live just put on the play Jesus: Super star. Go Figure.

[Showal]

I guess we will find out sooner or later. it's funny though, cause a school where I live just put on the play Jesus: Super star. Go Figure.


Jesus Christ Superstar?

[4a6c1]

That's a beautiful Christian play Jarvan you would like it. Please go see it.