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.
Whose field is it. Who is paying the coach who is leading the team onto the field. They have taken a ritual those participating on the Football team engage in and blended it with a religious ritual. They have made it clear that to participate in Football at this public school you must in engage in this religious ritual. A ritual that many Christians themselves would find offensive. If it was just their personal expression then so be it, but it is not.
It is their personal expression.
I am 100% for separation of government and religion.
I am also 100% for freedom of speech.
The cheerleaders are citizens just as you and I are. And as such, they have just as much right to express their ideals as you and I. I don't see how the cheerleaders "have made it clear that to participate in football at this public school you must engage in religious ritual." Because I don't see the banner as a religious ritual. I'm not a regular church-goer, so perhaps I've missed the ritual where the congregants hold a banner with scripture written on it across the aisle, and the choir members burst through the banner on the way to their space at the head of the church. Do they sing "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" as they run up the aisle, too? Do they spike the hymnals at the altar?
The banner isn't a religious ritual. Prayer is religious ritual. I don't think the school should ask the people attending the game to bow their head in prayer. The school shouldn't initiate any religious activity. But students should be free to initiate religious activity as long as they are doing it on their own, at their own expense. And I've said, very clearly, that the question for me is about the degree that the school supports, financially, the cheerleaders and their activities. Are the uniforms paid for by the school? Because that's often not the case. And if the school's not paying for those uniforms, then wearing the uniform doesn't make one a spokesperson for the school. Does the school pay for the pom-poms and other equipment used by the cheerleaders? Because that's often not the case. Does the school pay to send the cheerleaders to training camps where they receive instruction on safety protocols as well as the latest cheerleading moves? Because they often don't. That's why cheerleaders hold fundraisers. To pay their own way. If what they are doing is patently offensive, that's one thing. I don't see a quote from the Bible written on a banner as patently offensive.
i suppose school cheerleaders with a banner saying, "but thanks be to god, which gives us victory through our lord jesus christ" is a form of advertising. If the team loses though, i'd shop elsewhere.
It's not just about tax dollars. We're all going to be paying for things we don't believe in; there's no way around that. But adding religion to a school function that every football player (no matter their faith) would be obligated to participate in?
It's a banner that is shredded after the first person ran through it.
Quote:
And you don't have to wait until a student or parent complains to realize that this pushes religion into a place it need not be and giving it a function it need not have. As explained already, most teenagers do not want to be singled out because they "spoiled the fun" by complaining that something offends their religious views, particularly when it seems they're the only ones who have a problem with it.
No, it does not have to be here but people are free to express their beliefs even when it is somewhere not absolutely necessary.
Why didn't you just say "It doesn't matter how it's paid for. I agree with it"?
Because it does matter how it's paid for.
I believe that citizens of the United States have a right to exercise their freedom of speech as individuals, and as private groups using private funds. I believe that those rights exist in private settings and in public settings. I believe the right of freedom of speech must extend to religious expressions as well as political or social expressions. I therefore believe that a group of high school girls should be free to write quotes from the Bible on banners or posters, and should be free to display those banners or posters in a public forum. I believe the football field is a public forum, as people from the public are invited to attend games. The people from the public aren't being asked to write quotes from the Bible on banners or posters, the people from the public aren't being asked to bow their heads in prayer, the public isn't being asked to share in religious ritual. The football players don't have to burst through the banner. If a football player doesn't want to, he can hang at the back of the pack when the players enter the field, or he can run around the banner. The question isn't can high schoolers engage in religion at school or school events. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech requires that they be able to do so. The question isn't can schools compel students and anyone else to engage in religion. Schools cannot compel anyone to engage in religious activity, because that would deny some people their religious freedom. The question is, are the cheerleaders an extension of the school's authority? Do the cheerleaders represent the authority of the school? On the face of it, no. A cheerleader in uniform can't send another student to detention. A cheerleader in uniform can't speak to a reporter as a school official. A cheerleader isn't a school official. 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.
I would rather err on the side of freedom of speech, then err on the side of suppression of freedom of speech. And I think the guidelines I'm arguing are rational and defensible.
No, I understand no such thing .... and I consider the very idea complete and total foolishness. Furthermore, I don't think you'd find a single framer of that constitution to agree with that nonsense either, if they were around to ask. Unfortunately, they are all in their graves ... but I'm certain they are rolling in them, based on the claim you just made. And if you thought about it for five seconds ... and I mean REALLY THINK, instead of buying these obvious BS stories .... you might understand why it's such an absurd idea.
As for myself, as a strict constructionist ... which I am positive that the framers of the constitution intended the Laws of our land to be treated, the Supreme Court's role is to hear and decide the constitutionality of laws legislated by congress, based on constitutional challenges brought before the Court to be heard. It is not the SCOTUS role, nor do they have the legitimate authority to "re-interpret" the language of the constitution itself, to fit their own political or ideological agendas, or the agendas of those who appointed them to the Court. If that were indeed the case, the constitution itself would be rendered useless and non functional for the purpose it was created. And you can automatically reject such foolishness out of hand, based of the arduous process prescribed by the framers necessary for amending the constitution, which requires (currently) 38 State legislatures to agree to any changes. One can thereby naturally and safely assume that the framers would totally reject the notion that 5 appointed Supreme Court Justices could bypass that process altogether, and make whatever changes they saw fit to make, over morning coffee, and without input or agreement of those 38 State Legislatures.
If "yes" can be re-interpreted to mean "no", or "shall not" be re-interpreted to mean "yes we can", all based on the arbitrary choices of a simple court majority, we would no longer have republican form of representative government, based on constitutional law, but a judicial dictatorship, consisting of 5 men deciding what the law is, rather than what the constitution defines the law as.
This is sometimes referred to as "legislating from the bench" ... but that is way too mild for what can only be defined as pure treason against the United States of America, and the American people, by direct violation of their oaths taken to protect and defend that constitution.
Yes, we indeed have domestic enemies sitting on the Supreme Court today, which includes, but is not limited to that TROLL Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She just happens to be one of the most arrogant, and unapologetic traitors who freely reveals her personal hostility toward the US Constitution. Some of her open remarks should have long ago landed her traitorous rear end behind bars, at the very minimum. That she is still a sitting Justice only proves the depth of corruption that exists, and the level of intelligence of the general public for failing to at least demand her removal from the court. But she is not alone, and there have been others before her.
You might find it absurd, but it is the current system of laws in the United States.
Clearly in the Supreme Courts decision of 1954, the court reinterpreted the language of the 14th Amendment. They determined that separate but equal, as decided (interpreted) in Plessy v. Ferguson, was not constitutional.
If you don't like how the system currently works, then you either need to convince enough other people to amend the Constitution or wait for the day the Supreme Court decides they don't have the right to reinterpret the Constitution.
I am 100% for separation of government and religion.
I am also 100% for freedom of speech.
The cheerleaders are citizens just as you and I are. And as such, they have just as much right to express their ideals as you and I. I don't see how the cheerleaders "have made it clear that to participate in football at this public school you must engage in religious ritual." Because I don't see the banner as a religious ritual. I'm not a regular church-goer, so perhaps I've missed the ritual where the congregants hold a banner with scripture written on it across the aisle, and the choir members burst through the banner on the way to their space at the head of the church. Do they sing "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" as they run up the aisle, too? Do they spike the hymnals at the altar?
The banner isn't a religious ritual. Prayer is religious ritual. I don't think the school should ask the people attending the game to bow their head in prayer. The school shouldn't initiate any religious activity. But students should be free to initiate religious activity as long as they are doing it on their own, at their own expense. And I've said, very clearly, that the question for me is about the degree that the school supports, financially, the cheerleaders and their activities. Are the uniforms paid for by the school? Because that's often not the case. And if the school's not paying for those uniforms, then wearing the uniform doesn't make one a spokesperson for the school. Does the school pay for the pom-poms and other equipment used by the cheerleaders? Because that's often not the case. Does the school pay to send the cheerleaders to training camps where they receive instruction on safety protocols as well as the latest cheerleading moves? Because they often don't. That's why cheerleaders hold fundraisers. To pay their own way. If what they are doing is patently offensive, that's one thing. I don't see a quote from the Bible written on a banner as patently offensive.
As a Christian I find it offensive. But whether or not I find it offensive is immaterial.
It ceased to be a personnel expression when they hung the religious based banner across the entrance for the student football players at a Public school.
Students wishing to play football at a Public school should be free to participate without engaging in a religious ritual.
No one's really addressed the fact that any atheist cheerleader or football player at this school would be forced to make a difficult decision regarding whether to just smile and participate against their convictions or risk being treated differently by opting out of it in a way that cannot help but be obvious to all the others.
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.
The atheist has numerous choices:
1. Participate anyway, even though disagreeing with the banner.
2. Simply NOT PARTICIPATE and join the game on the field.
3. Don't play football or cheerlead.
4. Transfer to another school.
5. Attend a private school.
6. Homeschool.
Furthermore, the individuals involved have a right to religious expression, as does the school itself under the Constitution as written and understood by the founders. Public money has nothing to do with it. The public has a right to religious expression as well.
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.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 10-02-2012 at 09:58 AM..
Please! The only difference between me and your side of the argument is that I'm saying since all views cannot be represented this way, NO views should.
Please explain how that isn't totally contrary to the 1st Amendment you are claiming to uphold.
Group expression requires a group. If the Hindus don't have a football team of their own, they can't express their Hinduism in the same way at the same school. But no one is restricting them.
Requiring that free expression of multiple religious views be expressed "in the same way" or not at all is, quite simply, an underhanded way of eliminating religious expression altogether. Zero religious expression in the name of religious freedom. Stalin would be proud.
Quick question. The absolute absurdity of strict constructionism aside...I believe you mentioned in another thread that you were quite the fan of Justice Scalia. Ever wonder what he had to say about that position?
The first thing is, I would advise caution in automatically considering everything you read on Wikipedia as being the gospel truth, and infallible. The page at your link above was last modified on September 27, 2012 ... some 5 days ago, for example, and that's the trouble with Wikipedia ... given it's easy modifiability by users, it really only serves as a reference point for sources, and therefore is not a reliable source itself, as far as content is concerned. Just saying ....
Back to the point ... you may have misunderstood, or maybe you've missed the context of previous remarks I may have made regarding Scalia, that leads you to this erroneous conclusion that I might agree with everything Scalia believes, or that I ought to. Fact is, I cannot recall anyone that I'm in 100% agreement with all of the time, which, based on my ability to change my own mind about matters, includes me
More to the point here ... there are differing opinions and forms of what constitutes a "strict constructionist" viewpoint ... just as there are many definitions of what constitutes "conservatism". I identified myself as such in a more broad sense of the term, which could be broken down much further, though that would be a topic deserving of it's own separate discussion. Therefore, I would suggest that if you want to know what philosophy I subscribe to, or what my individual opinion is on any particular matter, I could better advise you on that than Wikipedia or Scalia could,
But I would definitely disagree with the idea that "constructionist" means only X .... because "Textualism" and "Originalism" can both fall under the label of constructionist view, while Originalism can be further subdivided into "original intent" and "original meaning", which themselves differ in very nuanced ways. But if I HAD TO define my views using those relative terms, I would most closely identify with "Textualism", which is also considered by most to define Scalia, insofar as statutory law is concerned. If Scalia departs from that philosophy when it comes to Constitutional law, and I don't know that he actually does so on a routine basis (you'd have to ask him about that), then I might disagree or I might agree, depending on the context and subject. It's not an all or nothing scenario, you know ... textualism and originalism both have appropriate roles to play in constructionist interpretation. The trouble only comes when they are misapplied.
You see, here's the deal .... modern legislation differs greatly from the constitution in both verbosity and ambiguity, most often characterized by a lot of legal mumbo jumbo designed by lawyers to confuse the average lay person, making "Textualism" a veritable necessity in interpreting the law. Given it's confusing nature, it would be an exercise in futility to claim to understand the original intent as held by the several hundred congressmen who voted yes for it's passage, particularly since none of them even read the legislation they vote on these days. By contrast, the Constitution is much more concise and straight forward, demonstrated by the minimalist manner for which it is written. Because of that straight forward nature, most of the time there is simply no need to engage in the exercises of "interpreting" the original meaning, because the meaning is clear, and does not needing an "interpreter", if read by honest men who do not intend to superimpose their definitions to suit their politics. So it's not a case of being "wrong" philosophically to consider "original meaning" or "original intent", only that it is most often unnecessary. Only in the rare instances where some ambiguity exists, is "interpretation" called for, and that ambiguity usually comes into play as it pertains to the applicability of constitutional law relative to a statutory law under review, and not the actual meaning of the constitution itself. There are exceptions, like the "commerce clause", but these are rare, and certainly doesn't exist in the 1st and 2nd Amendments, which have been subjected most often to these types of attack.
Though the constitution has been under constant attack by way too many Supreme Court Justices who have routinely engaged in efforts to "re-write" the constitution to fit their ideological or political agendas, this has been rooted most often in the transparent effort to expand federal powers far beyond the limitations imposed on it, by the constitution. Imagine that!
And nothing more clearly defines that transparent attack on the constitution than this backassward modern day interpretation of the 1st Amendment as it relates to religion and free speech.
But if you haven't noticed the flagrant and constant attack on the constitution and all of our constitutional rights and civil liberties these days, then you haven't been paying very close freaking attention.
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.
