Religious Freedom Victory for Cheerleaders in Texas Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court handed a group of Christian cheerleaders a victory in their lawsuit that involved run-through banners that included Bible verses.
The cheerleaders have won their case at every level-district court, appeals court, and the Texas Supreme Court, ruling that they have a First Amendment right to display religious messages at school events.
The dispute began in 2012, when middle school and high school cheerleaders at public schools in Kountze, Texas, began writing Bible verses as a way to inspire athletes on banners that the players run through before football games on the field. The school district, banned the banners after reacting to a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), and the cheerleaders filed suit.
Trending: SHOCK PHOTOS: Kavanaugh ‘Protesters’ Caught Getting Paid Hard CASH
The cheerleaders have received overwhelming support from Texas’ top Republicans and Christian groups, as well as legal support from the First Liberty Institute , a Plano-based nonprofit.
First Liberty’s general counsel and attorney for the cheerleaders, Hiram Sasser, said last Friday:
“As the football season kicks off across Texas, it’s good to be reminded that these cheerleaders have a right to have religious speech on their run through banners — banners on which the cheerleaders painted messages they chose, with paint they paid for, on paper they purchased. School districts everywhere should learn an important lesson from this failed litigation. Stop harassing cheerleaders and accept that they are free to have religious speech on their run through banners.”
Beaumont attorney and co-counsel for the cheerleaders, David Starnes agreed with Sasser saying, “No school district should be able to censor, ban, or claim ownership of the private religious speech of its students,” he said in a statement. “Hopefully, this will prevent Kountze ISD from spending another dollar on attorneys intent on filing yet another frivolous legal attack on cheerleaders.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the move is “a win for religious liberty”, noting that the free exercise of one’s faith is the very principle upon which America was founded.
“The Kountze cheerleaders case involved personal expressions of faith and an ill-advised school district change of policy that mislabeled their expressions as government speech,” Attorney General Paxton said . “Religious liberty is the foundation upon which our society has been built. The Texas Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the Kountze cheerleaders and other cheerleaders across the state will be able to display their expressions of faith on banners at football games.”
Tom Brandt, Kountze ISD’s attorney, said that he was disappointed with the decision but held out hope his clients would possibly have a chance to appeal.
“We’re not happy with this result, but I’m not willing to say that there’s no possibility we can change this,” Brandt told The Dallas Morning News. “I don’t think the case is completely over.”
The cheerleaders’ attorney, however, said the Supreme Court’s decision was final.
“After more than five years of litigation, our clients are relieved that the Texas Supreme Court has brought an end to the school district’s scorched earth litigation tactics,” Sasser said . “As the football season kicks off across Texas, it’s good to be reminded that these cheerleaders have a right to have religious speech on their run through banners—banners on which the cheerleaders painted messages they chose, with paint they paid for, on paper they purchased.”
Sasser pointed out that the case could have an impact throughout the country.
“School districts everywhere should learn an important lesson from this failed litigation by the Kountze Independent School District: stop harassing cheerleaders and accept that they are free to have religious speech on their run through banners,” Sasser said.
The case is now being sent back to a lower court judge, who will determine attorneys’ fees.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
I love their sign because it implies that god said "fuck that other team, they are pieces of shit". And of course, what happens when you lose?
That was my cynical thought. If the Christian sects in question believe in predestination then the religious banner is irrelevant. The score would have been decided by their sky famillenniumnium ago.
This action could also fall under student-led prayer in public school and as such is also unconstitutional
The entire belief structure is not only illogical, but makes this life pointless.
The thread @2.1 is huge. We should continue from this thread so that 2.1 can be closed. That will greatly improve performance.
Replying to: livefreeordie @ 2.1.257
At 3:15 pm tomorrow you will open the Bible to read.
If this is knowable (i.e. the future is knowable) then how would it be your choice to open the Bible to read tomorrow at 3:15 pm?
If you could choose to NOT do that then the future is not actually knowable.
Replying to: Drakkonis @ 2.1.261
Note what Phoenyx stated:
Replied to calbab @ 2.1.260
I disagree. At the core, this has nothing to do with God so put your Bible down and think. It is simple logic. It is all based on the following:
If the future is knowable that means what will happen can be known . Thus the future is determined and free choice is an illusion. Free will is impossible if the future is knowable.
Take your pick. To have free will the future cannot be knowable. To have a knowable future there cannot be free will.
I am pleasantly distracted right now—family gathering. Talk to you tonight. (Smile.)
Suffice it to say, that is just it - having picked the Bible up, the writings of other spiritually aware men and women, we, believers, can not ignore it as a non-believer can CHOOSE to do. We KNOW better than that!
You are capable of engaging in a question of pure logic though, right? You do not need the Bible to do arithmetic or drive a car. Well here you do not need the Bible to discuss a question of logic. The logical question involves two posits:
Neither posit requires discussion of God or religion.
If the future is knowable that means what will happen can be known. Thus the future is determined and free choice is an illusion. Free will is impossible if the future is knowable.
The entire thread should also be migrated to a new seed since it has nothing to do with the main article itself.
Not so easily done.
Yeah, like anyone would flag it for being off topic...
Maybe just a SQL "select into" statement, depending on how your tree records are organized so that the range can be properly selected?
The underlying structure involves several tables and the tables are structured as a store rather than a typical table (i.e. the columns are meta: key and value). This was done no doubt to ease extensibility. For performance reasons (I presume) there is redundant data in each comment (and in the article) that would need to be properly recalculated. After that we would need a UI to assemble an appropriate article construct to host the thread. No doubt this would be a new type of article that we would want to treat as a special case. Ergo ripple effect changes ...
I like the idea actually but it is a bit involved.
I don't want to go too far OT here but it sounds like there might be some underlying DB design issues if it's not fully normalized. I wonder if they're doing client-side queries which result in joins across multiple tables? Is so then there are probably better ways to improve performance than using redundant data, like a multi-step stored proc.
Virtually all db operations are properly on the server and then injected into the HTML. Sporadic client-initiated requests are typically very quick checks and notes. The denormalized style was intentional (I am fully convinced of that) and the platform has a complementary layer of functionality that works with these special data store tables. It does have its advantages - especially in extensibility. Quite a bit of careful optimization code is in the platform.
On the redundant data, I have never found that appealing (quite the contrary) but I accept this as a different and legit paradigm only because the platform techs are solid professionals. It did take some getting used to I will admit.
Ultimately the server performs exceptionally well. It is the client-side processing that hurts us - essentially the load on the browsers. Ergo the collapsible threads functionality (and other things under the covers). The client side needs more lazy loading, but no quick fixes that I see.
Also, NT's liberal support for HTML is a real burden on the browsers. Provisioning for videos (enabling them to be played), in particular, is a killer.
That never sticks for me, at least with Chrome. If I post a reply or close and reopen the browser all the thread trees are expanded.
This is a discussion of God. Hellooooo! You're CHOOSING to talk to religious people, namely Christians, about religious freedoms, God, and the Bible. God is a sentient being who has directed believers to live by faith (trust) in God. Please tell me where you find a pure logic discussion on our God of faith. And another thing, you write (at best) of a deistic god who has walked away from creation; believers write of the God who interacts with his creation according their needs and God's plan for humanity. Big differences, I'd say.
God is not having a pure logic discussion with humanity and specifically not with you, me or any member or visitor to this website—emotions remain intact.
The threads auto close when the comments get large. But also you can explicitly close threads.
The threads will be automatically reopened if they contain comments on your tracker. To keep the threads closed discard those comments from your tracker.
The system assumes that if you have a comment still on your tracker that you will want to have that comment available when you return to the article.
My question all along has been: 'is the future knowable?'. You answered by including God so I went with that. You could have simply answered 'yes' and that would have worked too.
You complain if we talk about this with respect to God and you complain if we go secular. Seems to me all you have is complaints (and diversions).
I guess I assumed it worked the other way, that if a new reply was posted to one of my comments then that thread would be automatically expanded when I reopened the article.
Your assumption is correct. If a new comment of any kind (from someone else) appears in the thread that will auto open that thread. The reason is that the new comment put an entry in your tracker.
Yeah. Your complaints about me are stacking up. Does it strike you odd that some atheists on this site sneer and BITCH a lot about what people of faith write and do not write, while we could care less what you do in your non-believing realities?
It is plain and clear that some atheists bring an agenda. And these atheists cloak their true intent it with time consuming tactics and tricks. What concerns me is these atheists can not afford to concede not one iota to people of faith—that alone changes the rules of engagement significantly. There is something, dare I say it, diabolical about all the time and effort (work) that "faith - it is not for me" folks put in to this epic fail!
If the future is knowable then free will is impossible. There can be no free choice if the choice is known before it is made.
Got anything of value to say on that?
I feel like we have seen this comment dozens of times on Newstalkers over the past year or two. In fact, I think Calbab has seen it addressed to him dozens of times, or at least many times.
Tig, you engage in semantics and then when people don't agree with you , you tell them they are wrong. People have the opinion that they have free will , and it can be demonstrated that they do.
This is part of a definition of free will
"the ability to act at one's own discretion"
Not only do human beings have that ability, they have that ability every second of their conscious lives, until the second they die. We not only experience free will, it CANNOT be otherwise.
Am I using semantics, perhaps, but no more than you do when you say there is no free will.
There is no proof that we know of that any human being can predict the future (pre-cognition) , but religious belief sometimes claims that God knows all, past present and future. Let's assume God knows the future. How does that impinge on your free will? It doesn't. The important thing is the experience of free will, which is constant and ever present in a human being, not a semantical argument about what free will means.
I am quite aware that people have the opinion that free will exists. This is a debate John; this is the dialectic in action. To go beyond opinion it is usually valuable for opposing sides to engage in intellectual discourse. And opposing sides means disagreement.
To that end, my posit is that if the future is knowable then free will is impossible.
Go deeper now; make an argument. How do you know that free will is not an illusion? How do you know that "it CANNOT be otherwise"? How could anyone possibly distinguish between what appears to be conscious choice and true conscious choice? Without being able to see the future how do we make the distinction? This is why the question of free will remains open. (Neuroscience, however, is delivering some early evidence that we do not have free will.)
Now, notice what I have posited. I am not simply stating 'free will does not exist'. Rather, I have made a conditional posit:
IF the future is knowable THEN free will is impossible.
That posit is entirely different from the claim that free will does not exist. And that posit can be inspected with logic.
By now you should know that I have not argued here that there is no free will. (See above if you still are under that misconception.)
That said, do you have anything to say about what I have been positing? If the future is knowable, how could we have free will? Note the 'IF'.
These are the two defintions of free will according to the Oxford English Dictionary, possibly the pre-eminent dictionary in the English language.
The first one is in line with what I say, imo, and the second is in line with what you say. So it is a matter of semantics, imo.
1. Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others. Esp. in of one's (own) free will and similar expressions. † in one's free will : depending on one's choice. See also of one's own (free) motive will at motive adj. 4 .
2. The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc. Also: the doctrine that human beings possess this power and are hence able to direct and bear responsibility for their own actions. Frequently opposed to determinism n. 2 , predestination n. 1b .
You say if the future is knowable then free will does not exist. I would ask "knowable by who or what?"
If I knew your future you would have a better argument. If God knows your future I don't think you have an argument. If we look at your life as a whole , from start to finish, someone who had the power to see the effects of time as a whole and not as an ongoing stream would be able to see what choices you made, that is true. But we don't know whether or not God has that ability , presumably it does.
How does that effect your experience of free will?
It doesn't.
'Your' definition (as you deem it) works fine with my posit:
IF the future is knowable then [Spontaneous Or Unconstrained Will; Unforced Choice;] is impossible.
Happy to go with 'your' definition. If the future is knowable the will is constrained and the choice is forced. If the future is knowable there is no choice - we are simply actors in a film. Rewind the film and play it again. The same 'choices' will be made.
It does not matter if anyone knows it. That is the point. If the future is knowable then the future is determined. That is the point.
I am afraid you will have to simply use logic.
Note that you brought in God, not me. But it does not matter if any entity actually knows the future. What matters is if the future is knowable.
Do you want to debate the omniscience of the biblical God or do you want to debate free will given a knowable future? I do not care which you choose, but we should be clear on what we are debating.
Thanks for sharing John. This is all some atheist mind "massage" where believers, weak believers, are supposed to 'bolt' for the church doors out into the surrounding world and never the two shall meet again! Consider it: A God's loss is Atheist gain strategy.
Richard Dawkins says it himself in words to the effect, 'I will die old and rich off of holding conferences for my fellow atheists where I supply them with interesting thought massages they can practice on weakly latched-on believers in hopes they will abandon any semblance of faith in a God they can not see.' Okay, that is more of a summary of what Richard D. has said across the spectrum of his conferences, but spot-on conceptually.
There are two paramount tactics occurring from the atheist side of these never-ending 'fog' debates:
What you are observing more and more is a pattern to atheist dissent:Their lines of attack are becoming strained and hackneyed (overused). Their columns stale from over-saturation.
would that be before or after the non-believers are condemned, told they have reprobate minds, are going to burn for eternity, etc ?
in fact, on this very site, i was told that no matter how good of a person i am nor how many good deeds i do - i will be condemned to Hell for eternity, tortured and burned for all time, just because i am considered a "non believer" ..... doesn't really sound like that believer could care less about my reality, huh ?
One can engage in debate or one can shout from the sidelines - emoting conspiracy theories and evil intent.
Posit: If the future is knowable, free will is impossible.
You have chosen to abandon your debate position on this posit. Understandable. Okay by me. But instead of moving on, you are now spending all of your time lashing out at those who disagree with you and dare raise intellectual challenges.
Not really the best way to handle this.
Tactic: Confuse the discussion by 'crying foul' and repeating fake challenges endlessly.
Tig, I will make my case the way I choose, when I choose. The day you can 'dictate' to me how to carry forward will signify the day of my departure from all discussion. If what I say does not fit, you can choose to ignore it. Otherwise, as the saying goes, "Thou doth protest too much."
You are just complaining about atheists. At least admit that you are not even attempting to engage in thoughtful discourse. You are not discussing anything, you are simply emoting.
Do you not understand that you come to these articles to read such? If you do not come-the article or the comment does not chase after you. If I do not wish to be 'bothered' by what atheist critics write its 'easy-peasy' —stay away from non-believing websites and articles. (Of course, I go because I read everything. That is just me.)
I do not comment on atheist websites or comment boards—I read. I do not go there to antagonize those folks. Let them 'hate' and instruct each other all they want. It's their privilege and right.
Sunlight is good disinfectant, they say. Atheists are no more free of emotions than people of faith I am told—by atheists on this site! Atheism and its lack of believe is a part of thoughtful discourse. Surely, you are not emoting over that, are you?
Write an article on atheists.
This is not your article to admonish others is it? As to your recycled statement,
Posit: If the future is knowable, free will is impossible.
It has been answered ad nauseum up above. Why do you keep writing it? My answer is the same, you can read it above.
U repeat urself consistently and non-stop. It is almost as if you are attempting to set me and others up for a flag violation. That's disturbing. I hope I am wrong.
. . . .
wait.. are you seriously suggesting that i purposefully come to these articles so i can be condemned by believers and told i'll burn for eternity no matter how good of a person i am ? seriously ? you better be careful with that statement.
yes, i tend to read everything too and i ask lots of questions due to curiosity.
so by asking questions of religious people - you are suggesting that i am purposefully seeking to be told that i'll be condemned to Hell, burning and tortured for eternity no matter how good of a person i am nor how many good deeds i do ? wow.... how very... "christian" of you... thanks. At the very least, i have never condemned you, but it's nice to know you fully support, and advocate condemning me just for asking some questions about the religious and their beliefs.
Agree to disagree.
so you honestly believe that i come to these articles purposefully seeking to be told that i'll be condemned to Hell, burning and tortured for eternity no matter how good of a person i am nor how many good deeds i do -- and you fully support, and advocate condemning me just for asking some questions about the religious and their beliefs.
wow.. thanks.. i'm not sure exactly how to respond to this or if i should possibly report it... (if my statement is incorrect, this is your chance to fully and clearly explain your position)
IMPASSE.
No, Cal, you simply agreed that the future is knowable and declared that 'partial' free will exists. You simply claim and have never offered a direct explanation of how this is possible nor have you refuted my argument. Citing bible versus totally misses the point since this is not a biblical question.
I doubt I am the only one who noticed that.
And if you do not wish to entertain this posit that is fine. But pretending that you have is not.
[YESTERDAY:]
2.1.239 calbab replied to TiG @ 2.1.237 yesterday
That is your mind attempting to place logical boundaries on God. You can not. We will not. At some point, feeble (and small) human minds must surrender the point that God is infinitely more knowledgeable about existing in the present in all times —you, I, we, can not phantom such a model.
God has crated creatures as God sees fit! With partial free-will. And yes, God has assented to the natural states of "highs and lows" that you see in this world through human choices and activity. Of course God knows the plans God has for the world and the surrounding universe. God, by definition, is the Ultimate Designer. What mortal can be better? Human designers come and go, that is, they are born, live, and die off. God is forever. Better to learn one's role in the larger scheme of existence; and, try not to become over confident in one's assessment of one's self or humanity.
Surely, God could have made us different in any myriad of combinations. We can assume God could have supplied this human design with "titanium" bodies that do not require us to eat other existing plants and animals. We do not have that. We are what you see. Humanity with responsibility for his or her actions! You can not get away scot-free by vain attempts to create a 'logic-trap' for God. It is us who lack information—not God.
Lastly, human logic alone can not fully explain God to any of us, because we do not have enough information. Where the Bible stops sharing —believers stop. It is our faith. Non-believers can press on and hold to any positions you wish! Holding said stances won't make them so.
The Bible makes it clear that God saw Abraham's faith and counted that faith as righteousness. So one could ask why a logical God would turn to a faith model for humanity knowing God? Jesus said have faith (trust) in God again sidestepping holding physical evidence of God's existence throughout time. And yet, lives are changed daily through the faith model—for the better. It is undeniable. Though some nonbelievers foolishly attempt to tell believers there is no God and do not bother trusting in God.
How God knows the future is unknowable to us. It is God's purview. What the Bible informs believers is - God says: Choose good or choose evil. So we have a choice to do so, whether we fully understand how time works around these activities or not!
God is has placed parameters around what we can do in the Earth; it is evidenced that God is not standing looking directly over your shoulder at every detail of your life! Else you would be a believer too already!
Why would God be interested in the day-to-day minutia of any one man or woman? Better God guide and govern the "big stuff" so to speak!
Agreed. Not the point.
The point is that God knowing the future (regardless of how) means that free will is impossible.
1. Read or reread the above.
2. This is a religious freedom article.
3. Nearly every commenter, especially you, has responded in a pro-con fashion on the character and nature of God. (Moral or immoral; existing or nonexistent; omniscient or non-omniscient; God)
4. Therefore, it is squarely appropriate for me to answer in a fashion appropriate with religious freedom, spirituality, Biblical statements on the subject, et ceteras.
5. You can not arbitrarily establish rules for how I shall frame or 'turn-in' my comments. Special pleading status denied.
Note that the question TiG is asking is really about physics as much as it is about epistemology or the philosophy of mind. The underlying question is that as the universe transitions from current state A to the next state B, is state B consistently predictable or is there ambiguity? The assumption of course is that the observer is capable of analyzing the current state of the universe.
There's a separate question of whether "mind" is merely an attribute of a sequence of brain states or if it's something else, and whether those brain states are predictable based on the prior state and the current sensory input, current hormone environment, etc. That factors in to whether free will exists or is merely an illusion.
That means, Cal, that I do not expect you to ever try to seriously and honestly debate me on this posit. And I am perfectly content with that.
What is not okay is you pretending as though you have actually engaged in the debate. You have not. I think pretty much anyone who has seriously read this knows that you have not.
My po sit: If the future is knowable, free will is impossible has nothing to do with God (or even the grandest possible entity).
The instant you start talking about God you expose your argument as yet another strawman deflection.
And you write on religion articles, why again? If you want to discuss PURE LOGIC - you 'own' a critical thinking group on NT, you could start a discussion about pure logic there, in my opinion. That deflection you keep imaging, . . . is a Christian on a religious freedom article helping to keep "scoffers" from bashing the Christian faith I love and live unabashedly.
Here is the situation: I really do not mean to come off arrogant, because I am a guest on Perrie's site and HA's article. But you persist in trying to get a rise out of me.
When Christians discuss free-will we do so using elements of our faith: The Bible. Our faith is now a part of us. We should not excise it to speak to an atheist simply to make said personage emotional content. I can promise you this, I will not comment on your pure logic discussion on your critical thinking group page. How's that for my not being a hindrance?
Is there some sort of pre-requisite for being allowed to discuss religion? Must one actually be under the sway of religion in order to comment on it? I guess that would make it a lot easier on the "religious" among us, eh?
No, but. . . should atheists really attempt to dictate the rudiments of my faith in God? That God does not exist? Should any atheist on a routine basis with abandon denigrate and insult practitioners of Christianity, God, the Bible, Prophets, Apostles, Church, Synagogue, Temple, and so forth? Is it reasonable to expect an atheist to insist people of faith in God devote their online discussion time to conversing in "pure logic"?
Discussion is fine. But, let's get real. Religion is in the title - its a proper subject for the article, free-will, and more.
Good grief man ... endless gratuitous drama.
that seems to be what it boils down to... and in the end - playing the "victim card" because everyone is "persecuting" the religious by asking logical questions. it amazes me the lack of information that the religious have on the very entity they claim to love and worship.
REPLY to lennylynx @ 2.1.307
I agree that most do not seem to have read the Bible. But then there are those who read it and (somehow) rationalize away all the blatant signs that this is the work of ancient men (not of the grandest possible entity). No matter what is in the Bible they will translate it as 'good' and 'divine'.
Even (believe it or not) to the point of defending the fact that the God of the Bible never condemns slavery as immoral. Posing arguments such as:
And when presented Bible passages where God states that a slave is the property of the master so it is okay for the master to beat the slave as long as the slave does not die from the beatings within a few days, we can observe some (believe it or not) focusing on the two day grace period as 'softening slavery' while ignoring the declaration of 'property' and the level of beating allowed. And of course ignoring the fact that the arbiter of objective morality (God) made screwing the goat an offense punishable by death, yet beating one's slave to a pulp (as long as the slave survives after a couple of days) is perfectly okay. God states that one must not covet another's property but is okay with that property being another human being.
So, in short, even reading the Bible is not enough for some to consider the possibility that this book is not divine but rather is the work of ancient men alone.
Odd. A new subject "dump" onto the playing field. Blah!
But it is interesting, right? Imagine someone actually trying to rationalize slavery as 'sometimes' moral in defense of the arbiter of objective morality never condemning the owning of another human being as property.
It is okay to own another human being as property, just do not covet your neighbor's slaves.
Yeah. A new subject "dump" onto the discussion field. Blah!
If you think that's what's happening that tells us you have one of two (or possibly both) problems: 1. a bizarre but self-serving fake victim complex, and 2. uncertainty about or weakness of your faith.
Jesus, HA...how many different versions of you are there now? You can't possibly think you're disguising yourself. This is just plain desperate and silly.
My so-called, "faith problems," do not have any solution/s you can address. I am nobody's victim—especially do not use me or my faith in any pretext to an insult. Weak faith? Weak faith?! As compared to what? No faith or spirituality whatsoever?!
What is the point in having faith in what you can't prove or even support? Faith and belief to me in the public rejection of reality and logic.
OMG..another constitutional crisis...damn those cheerleaders
Do they even serve a purpose?
Did you not make the team?
The cheerleaders and god.
They serve a purpose for the players and youth ministers as sperm recepticles.
Lol, nah, football and baseball for me. And it's funny you mention that because there was no cheer team at my high school, they got rid of it after half of the team was pregnant by December. I take it you were a cheerleader and still think it was somehow significant?
Only 1 cheerleader in my class managed to make it to graduation.
I wonder why you despise cheerleaders. Did one turn you down or steal your limelight? I am sure it was football jocks that impregnated your school's cheerleaders. Probably you.
A little on the crude side there, Deva...
from the article;
The school district filed appeals...
Nice slut-shaming there...
Because they serve no purpose.
Lol trying to wound my pride somehow? That would require me to still give a shit about high school in the first place.
While I put in my work, fortunately I was never one of the unlucky ones.
True, the religious chicks always put out...praise Jebus.
spirit bunnies
The First Amendment and the US Constitution are ideas that matter greatly to many people. Why did you choose to post in this thread if you don't want to take part in a meaningful discussion of the separation of church and state?
You get those cheerleaders...losing our constitutional rights lies in the hands of these children. First they want to pray at games, then they want to kneel for God, now this.....BANNERS...omg this is worse than children dying at a high rate from drugs.
But this, this should use our resources of time and money for legal dumbassery. BANNERS are at a crisis level.
The girls have the same religious rights that they have always had to pray either individually or as a group privately before a game.
They can kneel but not publically as a school-sponsored group. If the cheerleader's banner referenced Allah, Buddha, Satan or Vishnu you would not be so calm about it but as long as it is Jesus being praised at the 50-yard line you are fine. Maybe next year it will be Allah on the banner and the crowd will be forced to get on their knees, face Mecca and recite the Shaddah before the coin toss. How would that religious mention play in Texas or Oklahoma? All relgions must be treated equally in the US, so if you open the door with Christian prayer at football games, don't get mad when the other religions walk through that same door with religious beliefs that abhor you. Maybe the Satanists will bring Baphomet on wheels and shut the lights off while it turns red, howls and emits smoke during the halftime show and for touchdown celebrations. Be careful of what you wish for because you just may get it.
Prayer does not prevent or cure either overdoses or addiction.
You may not understand what a legal precedent is but that doesn't mean that others do not. Public endorsements of religion are to be kept out of public schools. If you want to prayer at school then send your children to a parochial school on your own dime.
After 100 years of high school banners all of sudden they are a threat to the First Amendment. Truth is some jackass lawyer wants to make a few dollars wasting money on this nonsense when the money could be put to better use for a real threat to our children...drug programs.
America's priorities have been fucked up by these asshat lawyers.
did someone say it did? are you reading things not written?
Nobody is forced to do anything...I am sure no one is forcing kids or the crowds to do anything. Are crowds part of banner writing these days?
A wee bit dramatic are we?
The cheerleaders banner is a state-sponsored religious endorsement. That religious endorsement might be acceptable because it is Christian in conservative Texas, but how would it be received if it were Islam, Hindu or Satanist, in conservative Texas, despite the fact that all religion must be treated equally in the US? All people have the very same religious rights so the state is not to be endorsing religious belief over non-belief or endorsing one belief system or sect over another. Obviously, the cheerleader's banner is an endorsement of religious belief and an endorsement of the Christian faith.
The separation of church and state is to keep religion and government separate, so this banner is unconstitutional, despite the fact that many in the school district may agree with the religious message.
I am a supporter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I'm also a member of the ACLU.
The cheerleaders legally are state actors because they are organized and supported by the public schools and taxpayer money. The use of a religious idea is a statement of religious belief in the same way that school prayer is a state endorsement of religious belief. Engel v. Vitale prohibits school prayer and that same idea applies to this situation.
When they are acting as a group and in uniform, they are most certainly state actors because they are members of a public school endorsed and organized group.
Are you sure of that? Recent Court rulings show otherwise:
"Kavanaugh, acknowledging that cases he’s lost “still stick in my craw, too,” went on to soothe Cornyn’s concerns about the high court’s hostility to religion. He cited more recent cases, involving the use of public school facilities for an after-school Bible club, legislative prayer and public financing of religious facilities, as evidence that the court had become, perhaps, less hostile to religion — a trend that he implied he would continue should he be confirmed."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/09/07/to-trump-kavanaughs-testimony-about-religious-liberty-made-him-worth-the-pick/?utm_term=.5ba9b9ed660c
Wow. If you wonder where slut-shaming and rape culture are, look no further than some of the comments in this discussion.
yep still deep within the liberal culture. High school girls can get pregnant all by themselves apparently? Maybe they don't know how their little dicks function.
Seriously? Just reply to me directly, don't be a pussy.
lol....so you do know how it works.
I wasn't referring to you....you are having fun and mean no malice. I wouldn't say that about other comments.
Dude, EVERYONE likes fish sticks. And for real that is true far as I can tell, never met a single person that doesn't like them. They are goddamn delicious.
All I ever said is cheerleaders are completely worthless and serve absolutely no purpose. Oh, and god too.
I didn't address or quote you specifically. I don't think a debate about whether or not we should have cheerleaders would be related to what I wrote. I was thinking of the comments about sex with these minor age females, including references to teenage pregnancy, gang rape, and generally the image of young girls as being good for nothing but sex. And these comments are coming from people who might normally purport to be defenders of women.
I was merely absolving myself from the slut shaming.
Seriously though, my sophomore year half our cheer team got pregnant in like the first 4 months of the school year so they got rid of the entire program. That shit is absolutely true.
Man, you are after the moose knuckles? I mean, smart, you won't find much competition.
Rape?? I know it was starting to get a little crude, but don't recall any rape allegations.
If you only knew where this finger has been...
I wonder at people who feel the need to be so public with their faith, to the point of pushing and flaunting. No different than pda's in my opinion, which I also don't care for. Perverts the whole message. Personally I don't care, but I know a lot of people do get uncomfortable constantly being forced to watch or participate in public religious displays. School should not be part of that at all, and really, what does god have to do with cheerleaders? There is just no place in competitive sports for god, it cheapens and disrespects spirituality. Especially pissed that same religions want input and control over female fertility and sexuality when their own have no qualms going after children. We all have own own beliefs and I doubt many of those cheering want to be forced to be part of mine or something like the satanic temple. Stupid waste of energy, one can pray and nobody has to know.
That is what Christians are taught to do.
Matthew 6:6
Ooops. Sorry. I posted my comment below about this before I saw yours. Isn't it kinda funny these people seem to know almost nothing about the teachings of the person who founded their religion and whom they believe is god?
It's not a problem.
I've said it many times that conservative Christians would claim to be victims of religious persecution if they were required to live by the teachings of the man that they claim to be the son of God and their personal savior.
Jesus had something to say about ostentatious prayer:
I don't believe in gods but this Jesus fella had some great teachings.
This need to have their "faith" constantly reinforced in the public square and forced onto the public square seems to indicate an actually weakness of that faith.
Instead of spreading a 2000-year-old myth you should be spending you time teaching kids how to read important books such as Harry Potter or The God Delusion.
Teach your own kids whatever shit you want. Just keep that pile of superstitious bullshit away from mine.
If these cheerleaders were Muslims.... Ho boy, the right would be screaming that religious freedom does not apply on publicly funded school property.
That is a generalization....a false one
If they where Muslims, they wouldn't have been targeted.
I dare you to prove that claim.
A victory for Christians, NOT for religious freedom.
It may be a victory for fundamentalists, but not all Christians oppose the separation of church and state. If the message on the banner was that of another religion, such as Islam, Buddhism or Satanism, the same people supporting it would be howling about the 1st Amendment being ignored and tax dollars being spent to support religious belief.
You would be defending it use with all you have.
Why would I as an atheist and a vehement supporter of the strict separation of church and state support a religious message from other religions in a public school?
Do you feel that this situation is a slippery slope attack on the religious rights of American Christians?
No, it's about some other attacks as well … and their perpetrators support and are supported by overt and wolf-in-sheep's clothing defenders, apologists, silent religionists, and, politicians who blow dog whistles and throw red meat!
Let us not be deceived by flag-wavers and bible thumpers; until "Christian" messaging becomes more overtly Christ-like, religiosity in the public space, and, political-pandering, are divisive at best, and worse, incendiary-ethnocentric tribalism used by opportunists to divide America!
Only residents living in a psychotic La-La Land could possibly believe that Jesus expedites "Hail Mary" touchdowns or causes interceptions and fumbles.
There is only one utilitarian religious-doctrine bottom line … all the rest are meaningless if it's not our individual mantra …
John 13:34
Put that on a banner and fly it as a FLAG FOR HUMANITY!
i am wondering (out loud) if the citizens of this country have more liberties and personal freedoms than we know what to do with them. Instead of "Don't worry—be happy," the tune that rocks us is "Jonesing" for what these other guys and gal have!
[deleted]
[deleted]
How very "christian" (small case intentional) of him.