Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a banner that is shredded after the first person ran through it.
So what are you trying to convince me of? That what's written on the banner only speaks for the first player who runs through it? Is it not a statement specifically meant to represent the team and the school? And if not, what is it supposed to represent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
No, it does not have to be here but people are free to express their beliefs even when it is somewhere not absolutely necessary.
However, since those who believe differently are not free to express their beliefs in the same manner, no one should be allowed to do it. Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
On the other hand, the cheerleader is specifically identified with a particular school. Cheerleaders do represent the school when they run out onto the field and exhort the crowd to stand and cheer for the team. So I think the determining factor in restricting the cheerleaders' freedom of speech has to be the degree of the school's involvement with the cheerleaders' activities. And one of the key ways to determine that involvement is with the financial investment the school has made with the cheerleaders' squad. If the school pays for everything, then school funds are being used to support the cheerleaders' message. And therefore that message cannot be religious, because the public school's message cannot be religious. If the cheerleaders pay their own way, and school funds aren't being used to support the cheerleaders' message, then it's solely a cheerleaders' message and not a public school message.
Well we should be in agreement on this then. Because the game belongs to the school. The game is the forum they've chosen to use. Therefore, the school is funding their chosen venue for expressing their personal religious beliefs. Case closed? On to the next?
Being "forced to make a difficult decision" is not coercion and does not prove "establishment of religion". No where does the Constitution guarantee that we won't have to make hard choices in life or risk being treated differently by somebody somewhere.
There is no Constitutional guarantee that everyone has the right to play football at public expense without exposure to religion, or even the right to an education at public expense without exposure to religion.
If the school provides the means for these cheerleaders to promote their religious views (which they have been) and other religious views are not equally represented, then yes, it does. Knowing one religion is being promoted through you and others will not be and not doing anything to change it is showing favor for the first and disregard for the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Consider: public money is spent to promote secularism and anti-Christian philosophies in public schools everywhere, forcing thousands of parents like me to make the hard decision not to send their children to public schools and to risk being treated differently by the state. And that's perfectly fine with you. So stop whining.
Who said I was fine with public schools promoting anti-Christian philosophies? And depending on which definition of secularism you're going with here, I'm probably not fine with that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Please explain how that isn't totally contrary to the 1st Amendment you are claiming to uphold.
Gladly. I'm 100% for people expressing their religious beliefs in public. Somewhere on the sidelines at the football game would have been fine with me. Why? Because no religion is being represented as part of the official school game. A Hinduist could make a poster every bit as large as a Christian if they chose, and both would be present and equally visible to the public (which for some reason absolutely must learn of their religion at a football game). Nothing religious should be on the banner, unless all religious views are represented. Take turns every week for all I care. But since we both know that ain't gonna happen, I propose we keep it about high school football and leave personal expressions of faith to forums that can be easily identified as personal.
A small Texas school district serving 1300 students pre-K through 12.
Probably a very homogeneous community. Why do activists hate these types of towns ?
There ARE people that prefer this type of lifestyle. Where's the tolerance everyone preaches ?
If the school provides the means for these cheerleaders to promote their religious views (which they have been) and other religious views are not equally represented, then yes, it does. Knowing one religion is being promoted through you and others will not be and not doing anything to change it is showing favor for the first and disregard for the latter.
You're just making things up now. You won't find "equal representation" in the 1st Amendment or anywhere in the Constitution pertaining to religious expression. The fact that the religious views present at this school are not equally present or proportionate, and the fact that most religions aren't present in this community at all, just makes your "equal representation" criteria all the more absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Who said I was fine with public schools promoting anti-Christian philosophies? And depending on which definition of secularism you're going with here, I'm probably not fine with that either.
Secularism is an ideology that insists upon public life being conducted without any reference to God or religious authority. In most public schools, that means that naturalism, scientism, and materialism permeate the entire curriculum. The philosophy of secularism is anti-Christian. Many Christians are forced to make very hard decisions - and to suffer major inconveniences such as relocation and financial hardship - in order to avoid having their children indoctrinated by secularism. Does that really bother you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Gladly. I'm 100% for people expressing their religious beliefs in public. Somewhere on the sidelines at the football game would have been fine with me. Why? Because no religion is being represented as part of the official school game. A Hinduist could make a poster every bit as large as a Christian if they chose, and both would be present and equally visible to the public (which for some reason absolutely must learn of their religion at a football game). Nothing religious should be on the banner, unless all religious views are represented. Take turns every week for all I care. But since we both know that ain't gonna happen, I propose we keep it about high school football and leave personal expressions of faith to forums that can be easily identified as personal.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the only religious expression protected is personal?
To bring a bit more clarity to the entire seperation of Church and State edict it is required that we look at why tbe Founders saw tbat clause necessary. Its not to hard. Simply put, they did not want tbe Church to be tbe power here is was and is still in Europe and England. Tbey wisbed to preempt tbe possibility of a State sponsored central religion that hax tbe power to initiate things like the Inquisition and tbe Salem trials. These are only two examples of Church power run amok in tbe State, however, tbere are many more that would still have been fresh in the minds of the Founders. Freedom of expression, religious or otherwise, was not meant to be curtailed regardless of venue. "will make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion"....in other words, no STATE SPONSORED CENTRAL CHURCH, ala Tbe Church of England. People are free to express any belief they choose wherever they choose. The state can no more stop this than condone it. Its a NEUTRAL position. One not intended to stop expression but to ensure freedom of same without fear of retaliation from a central church via the state. There is NO violation of constitutional edict in hanging a banner with scripture on it at a school sporting event. In fact, it is encouraged by the Constitution. Retaliation from non religious sources as well as disparate faiths IS unconstitutional, however. Nor can tbe State demand su h expression be barred.
So what are you trying to convince me of? That what's written on the banner only speaks for the first player who runs through it? Is it not a statement specifically meant to represent the team and the school? And if not, what is it supposed to represent?
However, since those who believe differently are not free to express their beliefs in the same manner, no one should be allowed to do it. Simple.
Well we should be in agreement on this then. Because the game belongs to the school. The game is the forum they've chosen to use. Therefore, the school is funding their chosen venue for expressing their personal religious beliefs. Case closed? On to the next?
Those who believe differently are free to express their beliefs. If they existed. They don't. So no one is being stopped from expressing their beliefs in the same manner.
I don't believe the game belongs to the school. And FYI, the school isn't funding their chosen venue. High school football in Texas. The admissions receipts over the years have more than paid for that stadium. The community has funded that venue. The community has paid for the lights and the upkeep of the field. The football players have paid for their uniforms. The cheerleaders have paid for theirs. The banners aren't even created at the school. Your argument cannot rest on public funds being used here. It has to rest on access. And when you figure in football players, mascots, cheerleaders, drill team, band members, and the numerous other people who have access, then that argument is seriously flawed as well.
Tbe Church of England. People are free to express any belief they choose wherever they choose. The state can no more stop this than condone it. Its a NEUTRAL position. One not intended to stop expression but to ensure freedom of same without fear of retaliation from a central church via the state.
I don't believe that disestablishment of religion and neutrality are the same thing. Not at all. A state may favor this religion or that without creating an establishment that mandates conformity or penalizes dissent. Strict neutrality just isn't possible, and the misguided ideal of neutrality is behind a lot of the mischief we're seeing today.
You're just making things up now. You won't find "equal representation" in the 1st Amendment or anywhere in the Constitution pertaining to religious expression. The fact that the religious views present at this school are not equally present or proportionate, and the fact that most religions aren't present in this community at all, just makes your "equal representation" criteria all the more absurd.
You're the one who brought up establishment of religion*. Providing the forum for the expression of one religion's views and not another (which in effect is what's happening here, notwithstanding your denial) is
* Establishment Clause
"
The authors of the First Amendment drafted the Establishment Clause to address the problem of government sponsorship and support of religious activity. The Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the Establishment Clause in cases dealing with public financial assistance to church-related institutions, primarily parochial schools, and religious practices in the public schools. The Court has developed a three-pronged test to determine whether a statute violates the Establishment Clause. According to that test, a statute is valid as long as it has a secular purpose; its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and it is not excessively entangled with religion.
"
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Secularism is an ideology that insists upon public life being conducted without any reference to God or religious authority. In most public schools, that means that naturalism, scientism, and materialism permeate the entire curriculum. The philosophy of secularism is anti-Christian.
From the way you're defining it here, no, I'm not fine with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Where in the Constitution does it say that the only religious expression protected is personal?
Why won't you concede that this practice is giving privileges to one religious group that are not being given to any other? And what's the problem with having the banner on the side? It seems more and more as we go along, it's the implication that Christianity is the school's official religion that you're really fighting for...
Those who believe differently are free to express their beliefs. If they existed. They don't. So no one is being stopped from expressing their beliefs in the same manner.
I don't believe the game belongs to the school. And FYI, the school isn't funding their chosen venue. High school football in Texas. The admissions receipts over the years have more than paid for that stadium. The community has funded that venue. The community has paid for the lights and the upkeep of the field. The football players have paid for their uniforms. The cheerleaders have paid for theirs. The banners aren't even created at the school. Your argument cannot rest on public funds being used here. It has to rest on access. And when you figure in football players, mascots, cheerleaders, drill team, band members, and the numerous other people who have access, then that argument is seriously flawed as well.
Is the name of the school on the uniforms? Do all of the players, cheerleaders, band members attend the same school? Do they have to attend that school to be members of those teams? Do the teams exist as per charters developed by the school?
Are they representing the school when they play or are they representing the community?
I know that sometimes it can be a fine line, however, if the team, cheer squad, band, etc. would not exist without the school, the game belongs to the school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
