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.
Yeah, I think I see some of that local tolerance for differing views you've been bragging about
When you or anyone else wanna take a crack at it, just'a lemme know!
Oh get off your high horse. You don't want to live in Texas anymore than I want you to - but if you were my next door neighbor I'd tolerate you, in spite of your abrasive, self righteous, and judgmental behavior. It's your right, after all, to be that way - I just don't have to LIKE it.
As for "taking a crack at it," you have REPEATEDLY charged that Texans wouldn't be tolerant of a NON CHRISTIAN leading a public prayer at a high school football game, and you have disregarded my first hand experience of just that - and my account of the openness and tolerance of the crowd in the packed stadium.
Yes, indeed it would be. Kind of like public school students being precluded from testifying at school events and the courts eventually upholding the right of schools to regulate what students may say while they are at school or at school events.
If you don't have the sense to say it, I will: It's time for you to call it a night.
The courts have always separated official school functions and things students do on their own.
I would hope so. But of course, there is a much simpler solution to all this: Let NO religion take the high ground EVER. Let them all be represented on the sidelines, apart from the school function itself!
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Quote:
The standard we're forced to uphold due to the U.S. Constitution should not be our highest aspiration, I submit.
The Constitution is the standard. I do not think that restricting the rights of individuals is ever a higher standard. This is the scary thoughts of those like Bloomberg.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen should the government recognize atheism as a formal religion. If the narrow interpretation of the establishment clause that some are trying to apply here to keep those scary bible verses of a paper banner at a football game were applied to atheism, then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
What ever happened to tolerance, live and let live? I am sick of people that are wound so tight, and lack any productive or creative outlet to pursue with their lives that have nothing better to do than go after things like this. I grew up in a Midwestern city with a large Muslim population. At one time, my area had what was the largest mosque in the U.S. You know what, I didn't care, and none of the other locals, people like farmers and factory workers cared. That is the thing, people in the U.S. are free to worship as they see fit. That may bother some of the more uptight in the crowd that have nothing better to do with their time than go tilting after windmills, but that is the law. The judge in this case ruled following the widely accepted interpretation of the Establishment clause which is to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. Because he applied what could be construed as "common sense" he ruled that nothing a group of cheerleaders in Texas were doing either represented the establishment of a national religion, nor condoned a preference of one religion over another by the U.S. government.
Give Sancho a break y'all. He has to be getting tired of carrying the lances...
NO religion should have "special consideration".
Why can't the Buddhists have "special consideration"? Buddhists are more peaceful than christians. Buddhists are more virtuous than christians.
Who gets to decide which religions are deserving of "special consideration"?
If there is some theme or whatever in the Budda thing and the girls are all keen on it, and the players are not bugged.. great.
How can it not be between the players and the girls..? Its part of the game plan, formal support. None of the fans or peoples business
Plus someone mentioned the Muslims and similar. I think thats good too because most Muslims are not part of the tough second part of the Koran and rely on the readings mostly from Moh poetic writings. Now I'm against all immigration of everybody and thats another subject. But if things are going to go more smoothly as in unity, the requisites need to be in play, or forget it for normal multicultural progress.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-10-2013 at 07:16 AM..
Reason: cut footnote
And this would be respecting one religion over another if the local, state, and federal governments didn't protect the Satanist's right to have her views represented to the same degree as they protect the Christians. One Satanist prayer for every Christian prayer, one Satanist promotion on a banner for every Christian promotion on the banner. Since we know (and thank you for being honest) that Satanism wouldn't stand a chance at getting the high ground (i.e., having its views incorporated into the school function itself), basically anyone agreeing with this judge's decision is agreeing to either a violation of the Constitution or a promotion of other religions. Essentially, Christians are giving Satanism and all other religions ammo in this case (or at very least showing them how to get the ammo). Brilliant.
And I'm not any less supportive of an individual's right to freely express him/herself than you are. We just disagree on whether they should be given a microphone, knowing their opposition won't be getting one
Why do you think there should be "one Satanist prayer for every Christian prayer, one Satanist promotion on a banner for every Christian promotion on the banner"? The Constitution does not promote the idea that every religion should be equally represented, and neither do any court decisions. So, the judge's ruling is not a violation of the Constitution or a promotion of other religions. Your reasoning here escapes me. If Satanists are learning from Christians in this case that they have the same "ammo", then good. They do have the same rights. What's wrong with that?
You are less supportive of an individual's right to freely express themselves than I. Because you are willing to restrict that right based on the public's perception (per your repeated assertions that though these cheerleaders aren't acting as representatives of the school, members of the public might perceive that they are), whereas I consider the actual facts (that the cheerleaders initiated this on their own, at their own expense, without consulting the school in any way) to be more important than public perception.
And their opposition might get that microphone, if my viewpoint held sway, whereas your viewpoint, just deny them their freedom of speech, means no one gets that microphone.
You know that's not an excellent point. Because no one is using the microphone. No one is reciting a prayer over the sound system. The cheerleaders pay for the banner themselves. They make the banner at one of the girls' houses, from materials they purchase themselves, they transport themselves to the game, they unfold the banner, the football players make smithereens of the banner, the cheerleaders pick up the shredded banner and throw it away.
Of course not. And since a Satanist wouldn't be permitted to get the mic and say their little prayer, why should a Christian get to? Same for the banner. Equal or no religious expression. For some reason, that doesn't strike many Christians here as a good idea
Christians aren't getting to use the mic. As for Satanists, are there any Satanists at this school? You can't argue for non-existent people that aren't being represented. If they don't exist, they don't have any rights. I would remind you that the lawsuit was brought by people who live in WISCONSIN. Yes, someone local complained to the school, which is when the school asked the cheerleaders to stop. Then the attorney general of Texas asked the cheerleaders to continue. Then people from WISCONSIN sued the school district to have it stopped. Then the attorney general said his office would represent the school. And the courts have sided, twice now, with the cheerleaders. While the school just wants this lawsuit resolved, so they can go forward with implementing a policy to stop the cheerleaders from making religious banners in the future.
Aw, don't weasel out of it, answer the question: Are my 1st Amendment rights restricted when I am prohibited from saying whatever I wish while working for a fully public, government institution?
Come on, don't weasel, answer the question.
Yes, your First Amendment rights are being restricted, but the courts have established a legal foundation for such restriction. But just to be clear, the cheerleaders aren't working for a public government institution. They aren't using government funds in their exercise of free speech. They, like cheerleaders all over the country, have fundraisers that pay for the cheerleaders' uniforms and equipment and training and transportation and so on.
The last place in the world we need this kind of nonsense to be is in our public schools. If you want that nonsense, go to religious schools. We're not talking about studying a religion, we're talking about juveniles testifying to a particular religion. It has no more place in public schools or at public school events than someone standing up to testify to the virtues of Apple computers before the big game. Save it for your own time and stop wasting everyone else's with this garbage.
But if someone stood up in the stands and began proclaiming the virtues of Apple computers, is that against the law? We are talking about juveniles "testifying" (I wouldn't call writing a brief excerpt from the Bible on a banner that's going to held up for football players to run through and tear up, "testifying", but whatever). And if those same juveniles decided to bow their heads in prayer in class before the English final, that's their right, isn't it? As long as they are acting as individuals, they have the right to pray or testify or write scripture on the cover of their notebooks, and their right is protected by the Constitution of the United States. Isn't it?
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.
