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.
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.
You know, you should think about getting paid to write fiction...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
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,
Actually, I specifically mentioned Satanists, not just "non-Christians". Yes, I "charge" that this would either be a problem immediately in a fraction of the schools out there or would quickly become one. One of the posters here who is on your side of the debate agreed. That, to me, weighs more heavily than your assumption that no one was bothered by a Muslim leading the prayer at one school, one time. It means that even someone who thinks these cheerleaders should have the right to put religious promotions on a school banner will concede that we cannot expect Satanists to be as privileged.
Lastly, I didn't disregard your experience. I said it doesn't mean we can expect it go down like that anywhere else, especially if you replace a Muslim prayer with a Satanic one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Moving religious expression over a few meters (not allowing it to be on the school's banner) is so NOT prohibiting free speech
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
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.
It wasn't meant to be taken literally, I apologize. What I was saying is that every time Christians are given the green light to incorporate their personal religious beliefs into school functions, Satanists are as well, for they can use the same (ridiculous) argument to get their way. Even as an atheist, I'll readily admit I do not want my son reading Satanist doctrine from the school's banner. So, naturally, I wouldn't want any religious doctrine there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
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?
Besides what I said above, I'm just amazed that so-called Christians would so freely open the gates for every other religion. This precedent is all them. I really don't think most of them are thinking far enough ahead to realize what they've done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
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.
Again, it makes no difference that these cheerleaders did it "on their own". They are representing the school. The uniform and the banner both represent the school; I don't see how you can deny that. And I won't get into an argument over semantics with you; I'll just state again that adding restrictions such as the one I've proposed doesn't come anywhere close to infringing on people's freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
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.
No one should get the microphone for religious purposes at a high school football game, either literally or metaphorically. Doesn't mean they lose their freedom of speech in the slightest. It just means they can't use taxpayer dollars or misrepresentation of the school itself in conjunction with it.
Tired of asking; I'm just gonna say it: There is nothing wrong with them putting up a banner from the stands. That they insist their religious views be on the school banner makes me suspect they're intentionally trying to mislead people into thinking their views are more official than they really are. Haven't gotten a better explanation for it, anyway, after all this time.
Cheerleaders in a Texas town will be allowed to include Bible and religious messages on signs at sporting events after receiving a temporary restraining order against a high school’s ban.
The Kountze Independent School District banned the messages this month after the Freedom From Religion Foundation accused it of violating the Constitution.
No, the SCOTUS is laughing at you and all of the others who apparently lack of reading skills of a 4th grader, and who are also apparently dense enough to accept that UP is actually DOWN, simply because some political appointee hack on the court makes the claim.
Sure. "Include all viewpoints and not offend any viewpoints" makes absolutely no rational sense whatsoever. I swear these anti-Christian fanatics have committed intellectual suicide.
And voluntary cheerleaders voluntarily displaying Bible verses at a voluntarily attended football game - even if they were cheerleaders for the taxpayer funded National Federal Congressional Presidential Football League - is light years removed from anything the founding fathers meant by "establishment of religion".
You are very correct.
The restrictions on an establishment of religion were only intended to prohibit the federal government from creating an official state church like the Church of England.
As for our cheerleaders, any sincere and truthful person would agree that they are obviously speaking on their own behalf and are not attempting to represent the school in an official way.
Moreover, what they are doing in no way prevents other religious individuals from freely exercising their own faith.
That's ONE town. great I bet if the families were not so prominent, the story might be different. Even if not, that's good that your town is more tolerant, but the exception doesn't prove the rule. Point is it seems people get all jolly when Christians get their way, not so much when they don't or if other groups want the same preferential treatment. Here in Oz, I don't think I've ever heard of a public event having a public prayer beforehand. Nothing wrong with saying one privately before ( I used to).
I guess in the scheme of things, this isn't a huge deal, I just noticed that lots of people only celebrate "free speech victories " if they agree with the speaker.
What part of the Constitution requires me to pray "privately"?
As for free speech, the only time I have an issue with someone else's speech is when that speech is intended to silence others or otherwise restrict their rights.
Insisting that others pray privately so as to not offend religion haters would be a fine example of an attempt to stifle free speech and free exercise of religion.
As for our cheerleaders, any sincere and truthful person would agree that they are obviously speaking on their own behalf and are not attempting to represent the school in an official way.
And how do you know this? I don't see any other explanation for insisting that their religious views be on the school's banner instead of to the side. What is the difference, other than that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Moreover, what they are doing in no way prevents other religious individuals from freely exercising their own faith.
Neither does disallowing religious doctrine to appear on anything representing the school, including their football banner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
What part of the Constitution requires me to pray "privately"?
LeaveWI didn't say the Constitution did; they just said nothing would be wrong with it, which is correct. Further, Christianity tells us when you pray, do so in private. Just sayin'...
There it is. Millions of dollars spent on hearings so that republicans can have a new "tag line"...
Your hard earned tax money at work.
Just think of all the money we could have saved if the administration had simply went with the truth from the beginning.
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.
No one should get the microphone for religious purposes at a high school football game, either literally or metaphorically. Doesn't mean they lose their freedom of speech in the slightest. It just means they can't use taxpayer dollars or misrepresentation of the school itself in conjunction with it.
