WICHITA, Kan. — A Muslim student athlete who refused to observe the national anthem for religious reasons at a basketball game in Kansas has been kicked off the team following altercations with a team supporter, who accused him of disrespecting the American flag, and a coach.
The case has ignited concerns over whether Garden City Community College violated the First Amendment rights of 19-year-old Rasool Samir, who continued shooting balls after his teammates returned to the locker room during the anthem at a Nov. 1 game against Sterling College.
Samir withdrew from classes after losing his athletic scholarship and has since returned home to Philadelphia, said Lauren Bonds, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas. The ACLU contends Samir did not participate in the anthem because he believes his Muslim faith prohibits acts of reverence to anything but God.
The college's attorney, Randall Grisell, told The Associated Press that Samir's dismissal stems from a violation of team rules and had "nothing to do with his conduct during the national anthem, as far as the protest or any stance that he might have taken."
Samir was confronted on the court by longtime fan Jim Howard, who said he told the player to "respect the flag or leave." Both sides agree that a security guard eventually intervened and escorted Samir to the locker room, where head coach Brady Trenkle told Samir to return to his dorm.
If this were really a religious thing then we would have heard whines about it long ago.
Perhaps, doesn't negate the right to exercise your religious rights though. "Freedom Of Religion" doesn't mean, "Freedom Of Religion, (but only the religions we like)".
.
Would the kid have been kicked off the team, after claiming his religious concerns as the reason for his actions, if he had been Amish or a Quaker or a Jehovah's Witness instead of Muslim?
.
Religion poisons everything.
So you would be leading the charge against any Amish, Quaker, or Jehova Witness who follows their religious beliefs and does not pledge allegiance to our country’s flag?
You are attempting some relevant point, but there is none.
The Anthem and Flag are not religious symbols.
The same thing would apply to any religion in the U.S. that does not honor our Country.
The case has ignited concerns over whether Garden City Community College violated the First Amendment rights of 19-year-old Rasool Samir, who continued shooting balls after his teammates returned to the locker room during the anthem at a Nov. 1 game against Sterling College.
Sounds to me like the whole team disrespected the anthem.
Would Republicans have the same feelings for this student if he was a Jehovah's Witness and his name was Tim Davis, from Whicita?
When one refuses to respect the customs and mores of the country they are in, and the traditions and rules of the sport they which to take part in, they should go to live in some other country where the customs, taditions, rules and mores are more suitable to them.
In many cases that would be the country they left.
What country did he leave?
We weren't talking about this kid in particular.
Are people with ethnic names not American, or does that apply to non-white people names that did not originate in Europe?
Why is it different if someone is non-Christian or non-caucasian? The US is a melting pot of immigration, but apparently, for some people, it should only be people from western Europe.
90% of people can't pronoun my surname correctly. I had to write it out phonetically the start of every school year for the teacher/professor. The Klan and Neo-Nazis don't have a problem with me because I am a shockingly white blue-eyed blonde.
I'm just glad that this future terrorist is no longer allowed on a basketball court, you know, be around other kids that he was probably thinking about killing. The coach is probably lucky to still be alive.
Customs, morals and traditions are all subjective. No where in the constitution does it state that all citizens MUST obey ANY of those things, (in reality, the constitution says that people do NOT have to follow those things you listed). As to rules? I agree, rules should be followed, but I am not seeing a rule that was violated here. He is a Muslim and we do have freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. The USA is great BECAUSE of our different cultures. Many different cultures built this country, Muslims included. The minute we start telling people how to act, speak, dress, which morals to follow, which traditions must be adhered to, etc.. This country is doomed. Our differences are a strength, not a weakness.
Way to go!
Respect is earned, it isn't something legislated. With the new rise of white nationalists, Donald Trumps abject failure as a President and the systemic disparities in our justice system, it's hard to respect at the moment. There are no laws that enforce some sort of "respect" for country here as there are in Dictatorships and other fascist nations, and that's a point of pride for America, the home of the brave and land of the free. Comparing us to countries that have no respect for their people just shows how little you actually respect America and what it stands for, like a shining city on a hill, a beacon to people who wish to be free of that sort of oppression found in the countries you list. We are a melting pot of cultures, ideas, faiths and colors that make us a vibrant nation and the envy of the whole world, at least we are when we don't push such ridiculous white nationalist agendas as this administration has been doing. When we ban other religions from coming here out of fear, when we build walls and incarcerate more people than any other nation, we are giving in to the xenophobic fears of the worst America has to offer.
The United States of America is MY HOME as well, and if you hate our freedoms to stand or kneel during an anthem or to salute the flag or not, then you can get the F out because you obviously don't understand what it is that our soldiers have given their lives to protect.
Part of our freedoms is the freedom to not show respect, whether we agree with the reasons or not.
And I'm getting tired of so-called patriots telling ME, a veteran, how I should think.
Show ME some respect
My, my; how very autocratic and dictatorial that is. Have you ever read the Bill of Rights, patriot?
It's sort of sickeningly amazing that our staunchest "patriots" don't seem to understand that. And yet they come bursting out like this every time something like this happens. I don't remember them having so much trouble with those white supremacists flying the nazi or confederate flags and marching around yelling "Jews Will Not Replace Us." Weird sort of "Americans," they.
See, this is what I don't understand.
Why wouldn't you WANT to show respect?
Why is that such a hard thing for some to understand?
Some folk really do seem to miss the good ole days.
What has that got to do with you showing some fucking respect for others who don't walk in lock step with you?
Sorry, i was under the impression we were talking about the USA. Different countries have different rules. And btw? I have been to those countries.
BTW...you choose to go to the shitholes because of your job. Don't try to tell the good people here that you are currently a member of the uniformed military
How unamerican. You talk about freedom, but clearly think certain freedoms should be curtailed. The day we don't allow freedoms we may not agree with, like being able to show disrespect or forcing compulsory respect from an individual, is the day we actually become like Saudi Arabia or Thailand, or similar such countries.
It's how they go about it, not that they are doing it. By the way....why wasn't J.J. Watts man of the year anyway.
Have you?
If you don't give it a shit, then stop telling others what to do
you're not the boss of us
That's entirely up to the individual. People have the freedom to show respect or not. You don't have to like it or agree with it. Just as long as the freedom itself is there.
I agree with you.
Funny story - I attended a Catholic wedding a couple weeks ago. It had been a while since I have been in a cathedral, and regardless of the denomination I never participate in religious rituals during wedding ceremonies, like kneeling, or all those snappy comebacks the congregation is conditioned to respond with, or dipping my hand in some germ filled pool of water before entering the cathedral, or communion. In this wedding there was very little of that crap, but the priest did ask the guests to participate in one brief symbolic moment to welcome the couple into marriage, which I rashly decided I would also participate in. He asked that everyone raise their hand towards the couple to symbolize blah blah blah or whatever. As soon as my arm was up I realized how awkward that moment was. I turned to look and the whole place was essentially doing a Nazi salute to the front of the church. We had a really good laugh about it at the reception.
It sounds like the same kind of Catholic wedding I had, no Mass.
So you got out of the Catholic aerobics session, did you? LOL!
Not only that, but the priest actually told a funny joke I can share. He said he once overheard a couple kids at one of his weddings talking in a pew. One asked the other how many times are you allowed to get married. The other said sixteen times - four better, four worse, four richer, and four poorer. Lol - not bad.
that's a good one
Trout - are those Hatch chilis'?
Yes, Sir. Straight from Hatch, New Mexico
Every confederate memorial is a "display of disrespect" for our country, they literally tried to destroy our constitution and wrote their own in a treasonous display of disrespect. Every confederate flag flown is a display of disrespect for our country and constitution. But you seem to want to take offense at American citizens kneeling in silence during the anthem. How did those confederates respect our nations anthem when they were trying to burn the Union to the ground? How were the confederates respecting our nation and constitution as they conspired to assassinate the President?
That's why it's traditionally only done at the wedding reception with a glass of champagne in hand so it doesn't look so fascist...
I think you meant "goose step"...
ok
that works too
I know all about our freedom.
But, that was not my question.
Even with having the freedom to sit, squat, kneel while the Anthem is being played why would you want to? Just to say you have this freedom?
I have the same freedoms you do, but yet I want to stand for the Anthem because I love our Country and want to show respect for our freedoms.
So why were liberals outraged by Tim Tebow taking a knee?
I have no desire to go to Alabama or Texas.
I didn't care.
I admire the Amish. They are a minority, and although they don't assimilate into the general society they obey the laws of the land, and they do not try to push their customs and traditions onto others, forcing the majority to comply with THEIR standards.
Change "not to show respect" to "to disrespect" which is the situation here - throwing baskets while the fans are honouring the anthem is showing disrespect.
My free speech rights say that I don't have to respect you, the country or the flag. That is what freedom means.
Your enlistment oath said that you will defend the Constitution from all enemies'. It didn't say that you only defend the people or the views that you agree with. I took the same oath in March of 1988 in Parris Island.
I blew out my knees at Christmas eve midnight mass. Those kneelers can be hell.
I've been trying to make that point throughout this article, but there are members here who twist the whole thing around by saying he has freedom of speech. That's not the point. The point is that he didn't have to do anything that was a sign of disrespect, because all he had to do was stand there and do nothing - he didn't have to sing the anthem, he didn't have to put his hand on is heart, just fucking STAND there, or do what he was SUPPOSED to do and go to the locker room. However, now he and the ACLU are trying to set this up to be an argument about freedom of religion which has NOTHING to do with shooting baskets.
And that freedom means that the state will not put you in jail.. It in no way means that you won't get kicked off the team.
Exactly Buzz, spot on.
Thank you. I always like your logic.
Are you suggesting that taking part in the national anthem is required for being an American?
Not at all, but shooting baskets while the fans are standing with respect for your country and anthem is not exactly what I would call respectful. He chose to mock the anthem and thereby your country and the fans who DID show respect by doing that. Seems to me that "respect" is a bygone virtue these days, in more situations than a basketball game.
His actions are protected free speech. We are not in any way required to pledge allegiance to the country, or to respect the flag. Texas v. Johnson says that we have the right to burn the flag. A public school cannot punish him for his decision.
We are under no requirement to respect the country, the flag or the national anthem because that would violate our free speech rights. He also has a reasonable religious argument for his actions.
Why is it that conservatives only support free speech or religious freedom rights when they agree with the speech, religion or action in question? If you don't support the right of others a to act in a way that is 180 degrees from your own then you do not support equal rights.
Maybe, maybe not. The school can disipline him and kick him off the team for yelling and cursing and disrespoecting the coach.
You're right. Americans can burn their flag, stick up their middle finger while sitting on their asses while the national anthem is being played, they can spit on photos of their Presidents, run to their safe rooms and play with their play-do when they feel they're offended, scream and shout down anyone who has the fucking nerve to lecture about something that doesn't please them, despise their police and and armed forces, swagger around wearing guns like movie cowboys, and whatever else and I don't give a shit if it leads to an America that's an absolute chaos of a dystopian jungle, because I'm not an American and I don't live there. So Americans can bless their "rights" to do all those things and see where it leads. Fuck respect. Fuck honour. Fuck pride. Fuck decency.
If you had your way, we would still be burning 'witches' at the stake too!
G'morning Sheply, donut?
And, you are right!
Don't know where all of this going, but not a good place.
Actually they are not, he cannot "act" anyway he wants and expect his actions to be free of consequences.
You mean how the left supports the free speech rights of Ben Shapiro? Ann Coulter? Milos Y.? S. Truett Cathy? Any other right wing speaker or group they don't like? And you mean how the left supports the religious freedom of the iwners of Hobby Lobby? The Little Sisters of the Poor? Of the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa? The Washington state football coach?
Please get real. The biggest group that try to stifle both free speech and religious freedom are the liberals.
Pardon me but your hypocrisy is showing!
A job is not a constitutional right, unlike free speech at a public school.
Brandenburg v. Ohio says it wouldn't work today. Texas v. Johnson says that we have the right to burn the flag.
You don't have the right to tell others to leave if they believe differently from you or anyone else.
Well, I know that must be wonderful news to those who get their kicks out of disrespecting our Country.
He didn't tell anyone to leave. His statement said they didn't have to stay. Sounds reasonable to me.
ACTUALLY......WE.....Americans that is......DO !
Isn't FREEDOM Great.
You seem to want go give a donut to everyone. Are you in the donut business?
We don't have the right not to be criticized. We don't have the right to discriminate in a public business because of the owner's religious beliefs.
The Little Sisters of the Poor sought to trample the rights of their own employees in favor of their own so bringing them up wasnt a good idea.
HUH?
How old was the brownie.....
Ah! Rioting in the streets or threatening violence if someone is scheduled to talk is not criticism.
And exactly what rights did they trample?
The SCOTUS gets it wrong occasionally. Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and Kelo are the most obvious examples.
The pengiums of the poor refused to sign the guaranteed birth control exemption in the ACA because they didn't want their own employees to have birth control,e even when it would have been provided to them by the government and not by the employer-provided medical insurance.
He is not obligated to leave because of the bigotry. The US isn't just for WASP conservative males.
Did you notice that the student never said that he wanted to leave the country?
Free speech is a wonderful idea. We have that right just for situations such as this when the actions or speech might be unpopular with the majority.
Who said it was ? Are YOU still here ?
If so, that kinda makes your statement a "Baiting" statement.
We actually have the "Rights" to do all those. The law may say otherwise though.....AFTER the fact.
I was always taught...."Choose your battles" ! Some battles are just too stupid to even contemplate arguing against.....Since the "STUPID" have been running the asylum for decades and decades.
It always comes back to bite those asylum lords in the ASS though.
REFERENCE TRUMP WINNING THE PRESIDENCY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now wasn't that a REALLY HARD KICK right through the ass and into the stomach ?
Sort of like when Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter give speeches right?
So show me where it is a right to have someone else pay for your (editorial) contraceptives or any other medicine or medical proceedure. Be specific.
You are outraged that people publically disagree with you. I'm glad to see students being politically active.
Did you forget to defund colleges that teach evolution, American history, political science, general theology, human sexuality, and logic as well?
Cut your hair, ya hippie.
s/.
The b-ball player never hinted that he wanted to leave the US. Anyone can leave if they want to, provided they are locked up.
I'll defend your right to speak, no matter what you say. I may criticize what you say but you have the right to say it and not be arrested or fined for your words.
Even far-right justice Scalia supported the right to burn the flag, even if he said that they deserve to get their butt kicked for doing it.
If you don't support the right of speech that you may find offensive then you don't support free speech. Protecting free speech that the majority may find offensive is precisely when the First Amendment exists. It isn't there to protect speech that people may not find offensive because that speech doesn't need to be protected.
:double facepalm:
Did you sleep through your HS civics requirement?
Free speech only protects your right not to be fined or arrested by the government for your speech. Obviously, it doesn't protect you from being fired or your actions at a private school.
No, I'm not. I have a minor in political philosophy. I have been encouraged to consider law school.
LGBT marriage was based on the previous decision of Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage. Either interracial and LGBT marriage is protected or it isn't because both decisions are the same.
I doubt that you could explain why Roe' was decided as it was.
The ACA was only in the SCOTUS because of partisan reasons. There was never a legal problem with it.
There is a public good that underlies both Medicare and Medicaid.
The ACA gave the Penguins a guaranteed religious exemption, but that wasn't good enough for those religious bigots. They refused to sign the paperwork and they wanted to deny their own employees access to birth control because of their own religious opposition to that medication. The religious need to learn to mind their own business instead of trying to inject their religious beliefs into the lives of others, unless they want to allow others to inject their religious beliefs into theirs.
That was incoherent partisan rambling. Take 5 and try again when you can construct a rational argument.
Did you bother to read my statement before you replied? The Little Sisters did try to deny their employees medical coverage that included birth control.
There is no evidence that we have an eternal soul.
I don't hate god because there is no evidence that a god exists. That is precisely why I am an atheist.
Logic 101, You don't haz it!
Again show me where you have a right to have someone else pay for any of your medications.
Gee! You are so respectful. /s
LOL. Agreed to in spades. As Shakespeare wrote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
LOL. Agreed to in spades. As Shakespeare wrote: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
and to me as well.
Just because a person has the right to do something, why is it those who seem to want to silence everyone else are always wanting to express their rights by showing how much they hate this country?
Well, I hope the law doesn't change. I just wish the people who have such hatred for this country would come to their senses and realize how good they have it and stop such foolishness.
And he had the right to offend the fans who were standing in the stadium for the anthem. So much for respect for others, but then maybe he feels he has the right to change the customs and traditions of Americans to be the same as his.
What episette means to say it is fine with them to steal our money without our consent.
Now don't be too hard on them about that. They deserve a lot of credit for it. LOL
It doesn't appear that his goal was to offend anyone when he chose not to take part in the national anthem. Others took offense in his actions and that is where the problem occurred.
Most people think the same until they need the services a lawyer.
Health insurance is a normal and expected part of a person's pay package.
Referring to a nun as a penguin is very common. It is a reference to their black and white habit. It is not meant to be insulting.
I meant or suggested nothing of the sort. I'd appreciate an apology.
If it has anything to do with love of country or the things that made this country great, they're all for it working their tails off to fight against it. You know the Soviet Union was 2/3 atheists and they went out and killed many pastors, Catholic Priest and worshipers of all faiths.
I'm not saying all Atheists are bad. We have some Atheists on this site who don't care if you have a religious faith as long as it doesn't harm others, but then you have these militant Atheists who want to rid the world of any mention of God or anything that has to do with religion. Those are the people that went out and killed the faithful in the old Soviet Union.
Typing in capitals doesn't improve an incoherent reply.
Trump won the election because a lot of people believed his constant lies.
Who are the militant atheists that you are referring to?
Please list them,
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
Okay, you're right, lack of respect for others, not being concerned about the feelings of others, by shooting baskets in front of the fans while the anthem was being played, was either something his culture never taught him (but I thought he lived in America) or else he did it intentionally to stick his middle finger up at the fans who were showing respect for the anthem.
These nuns refuse to fill out the form because they claim that even that is a violation of their religious views. They need to learn how to get along with other people because they can have their lawyer fill out the forms and sign it to get the guaranteed religious exemption for birth control. If they don't want to fill out the form then they can pay the fines. The government gave them a guaranteed religious exemption, but now the nuns want even more.
They don't want their employees to get birth control because they view that coverage as supporting birth control, even when it is their employees. These religious extremists want to make medical decisions for others based on their religious views. I wonder how they would feel if other religions got to make their medical decisions based on their beliefs? This is the problem with conservative religion because it rejects logic.
And in America they will find a reason to sue if they get a hangnail. Actually, they don't have to look too hard to find a lawyer, there's always an ambulance chaser, a lawyer roaming the rooms in funeral parlours, the halls of the Orthopedics departments in hospitals, the police stations waiting for persons who have been arrested. Tell me that isn't true.
That does not make it a right nor is the coverage provided subject to any rights.
Just because it it common does not make it respectful.
The nuns are opposed to the ACA's birth control mandate, even though religious people and others have an automatic religious exemption to birth control. They don't want others to have birth control because these religious nuts believe that birth control is the same as abortion.
Birth control prevents abortion but these celibate religious people still claim that abstinence work, despite the empirical fact that abstinence programs always raise the rate of abortion and teen pregnancy. It is impossible to have a logical argument with someone whose religious belief requires them to reject logic.
I need to stop replying to you.
The nuns can believe whatever they want. Their religious rights end when the religious or secular civil rights of others are impacted.
The nuns have the right to make their own medical decisions and the right to the birth control exemption for their religious order, but they don't have the right to make medical decisions for others, especially their own employees, who have the very same religious rights that the nuns enjoy. Your employer doesn't get to make your medical decisions just because you work for them.
Accusing atheists of hating God is kinda like accusing them of hating Homer Simpson.
Your emotional claims are very amusing but these are the facts of the case.
I never did like the Simpsons, even when it was just a skit in the Tracy Allman show.
Ever think the real reason might have been that you were a crappy basketball player? Just askin!
Your ad hom attack aside, prove there's a soul and/or a god.
They didn't make any medical decisions for anyone else. They are not preventing their employees from anything they are just saying that there are some procedures that they will not pay for some of them. What makes you think that anyone has a right to have someone else pay for what you want?
You're absolutely correct. You have my apology.
Just because you are wrong again doesnt mean you have to go away. You never do answer the questions posed to you anyway so it wont be any loss
Where did that happen?
I have yet to see an on-topic and logical arguement in reply from you.
Thank you very much.
All the Little Sisters needed to do was to sign the provided paperwork and they wouldn't have to comply with the mandate because of the automatic religious exemption from birth control. How much did it cost to sign the paperwork?
The nuns and the ACLJ were more interested in attacking the availability of birth control for others.
The ACLJ is a conservative religious mouthpiece that tries to mimic the ACLU to the religious and gullible.
I asked you simple and direct questions. You have answered none of them but you did try to duck them and pretend you did. You dont like it and get huffy about it and make a lame excuse.
The Antifa, Occupy and BLM cannot violate your free speech rights because free speech only applies to preventing the government fining or arresting you for your speech. Trying to fine or arrest those groups for their opposition to your ideas is a violation of their same 1st Amendment rights.
If the Antifa oppose you it's because you are fascists, so stop supporting fascism and you won't have a problem with the Antifa.
The basic fact of atheism is that God doesn't exist. I cannot reject what doesn't exist. Believing in God doesn't make god exist because belief is an emotional and subjective decision based on emotions and not empirical fact.
The etymology of the word should tell you that. A-theism.
Apparently, you don't know what an atheist is or anything about atheists.
And all I am saying is for someone who rejects Gods existence you all sure do spend much of your time criticizing Christian beliefs.. So its quite obvious your obsessed with God.
Is there a way to be an atheist without using the word ‘god’? I don’t think so.
If there were large groups of Americans claiming that we need to ban masturbation because Homer Simpson said that sperm are potential humans that are being murdered by callous (pun) young men, you might get into an argument about whether or not Homer Simpson existed.
When groups push their religious beliefs on others, such as the belief a fertilized egg has an invisible soul which is why abortion should be banned at conception, then atheists have every right to stand up and challenge the existence of that unproven soul. When you push "blue laws" in States that ban alcohol sales on Sundays because some believe in an unproven God, atheists have every right to challenge the existence of that God who is apparently so petty he'd be angered if you drank on Sunday, but every other day of the week is okay.
When the religious attempt to ban other religions from the country or try to ban the building of a Mosque but have no problem putting up a Church on every other corner, or demand their 10 commandment statues be placed for all to see when entering some court houses, or go ballistic every time someone say's "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" at the mall, atheists have every right to stand up and challenge the unproven invisible sky fairy that is apparently demanding it's followers to inject it's religion into nearly every aspect of public life.
We have Halloween decorations covering the oval office, a Christmas tree on the white house lawn and Easter egg hunts there in April, at at tax payers expense. But when some of us stand up and say "Should we really be doing this considering the constitution specifically forbids any establishment of one religion over another?" the mindless drones pushing their Christian sharia scream "It's a war on Christians! We're being abused! You can't do this to us! We're being persecuted for our beliefs!".
No one is persecuting Christians in America, we just wish you'd shut up about how righteous you claim to be and holier that thou you think you are versus all the reasonable, thoughtful, educated atheists who simply don't want your religion using the government, our public schools or our justice system to force your personal opinion that there is an invisible sky wizard watching over us and that you think you know what's best for everyone else because of it. Is that really so hard to understand?
Logically I cannot reject what doesn't exist unless I also reject leprechauns and unicorns? I was raised in those idiotic beleifs and those beliefs intermingle with much of American society, so despite the fact that I am an atheist, I have to deal with the Christian religion on a daily basis. You logically can't be an atheist in the US if you don't understand the Christian religion. Most Atheists understand the Christian religion better than the believers.
Theistic religion is the socially acceptable rejection of logic and empirical facts in favor of belief grounded in subjective emotions. Put it another way, theistic religion is a group delusion.
I am obsessed with logic. God doesn't exist and your belief in God doesn't make god exist. Claiming to talk to something that does not exist is the definition of a delusion. Psychology can treat that mental disorder.
The mental illness of a persecution complex is common among religious believers for a good reason. Ethnic and political persecution complex are also common. Can you say KKK and TEAparty, boys and girls?
Speak for yourself.
The KKK hasn't been democratic since the 1950s. The Klan members were Dixiecrats when the Democratic party rejected their racism, and then they became Republicans.
The liberal northern Democrats were progressive and the southern democrats were only Democrats because of shared economic policies. The southern Democrats put their racist social policy over economics when they became Dixiecrats. The GOP supported their racism when they welcomed the Dixiecrats during Nixon and then Reagans administration. This was the GOP's Southern Strategy to flip the south red.
Was that your "TRY" at an !Ouch! moment ?
The word of your day ?
Incoherent........
There is a legal precedent for opting out of flag ceremonies and the national anthem for religious reasons. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, The student in question was a Jehovahs Witness.
You don't have the right to tell anyone to leave if they disagree with you. His actions are constitutionally protected by the very same religious freedom that you and I enjoy.
He was a student at a publicly funded community college so the college cannot punish him for not taking part.
The principal and superintendent didn't like a piece of artwork that I created in high school. They threatened me with suspension or even expulsion if I didn't destroy it. The retired art teacher went to bat for me and threated action by the ACLU on free speech grounds for my artwork, even if she didn't like it because of the subject matter. It was a tense few days but the school backed down.
Freedom is always a little messy and occasionally someone's sacred cow is brutally gored by the First Amendment. Emily Post didn't write the Bill Of Rights. That is what so great about the US.
If you don't support the right of others to stand up and say no way in Hades will they go along with the masses or even good taste, then you do not support equal rights and freedom. You seem to want every to get in line and meekly go along with the majoirty. That idea is the opposite of freedom because the rights and freedom of the minority are squashed in favor of uniformity and class rule.
They have the very same right of free speech, even at the same time, as Neo-Nazis, Ann Coulter and Klan members. The right of free speech doesn't mean that other people cannot vocally oppose you.
Why do you believe that Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling? Do you understand what constitutional right is the legal basis of that ruling?
The Klan began to leave the Democrats when Truman desegregated the military in 1948. The desegregation of Little Rock's Central High School was a turning point in the eyes of the southern racists.
The southern Democrats supported slavery. The northern democrats split before the war and opposed slavery. The Republicans only tuned against slavery in the 1850s.
The current GOP welcomes the Klan and other racists.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
So a defense attorney poking holes in the prosecutions case means they believe their client is guilty? How exactly does that work?
None of your post refutes my comments premise of religious persons pushing their religious agenda on others claiming they should get to legislate their faith. Abortion was just one facet where many Christians push the theory that a fertilized egg is a human. I didn't say there weren't any atheists who are pro-life.
I wasn't going on any tangents, I was simply pointing out to the many ways in which the religious have inserted their faith into civil society and the reason why an atheists might refute those injections of unproven faith without "believing in God" as you claim their debating does. You were not able to address my primary point relating to your example of "Homer Simpson". If people were trying to tell you that you had to drive only 45 miles an hour because Homer Simpson said so, you might well debate that person as to the existence of this so-called "Homer" they weren't able to prove existed and the reason why you have to only drive 45 mph. Does that mean you believe Homer exists because you debate his existence? Of course not. It's ludicrous on the face of it.
"You all believe in God.. You all seem scared to death that he does exist.. You all are obsessed with the need to talk about him all the time."
Utter nonsense, no atheist would even bother responding to the religious if it weren't for the fact that so many religious attempt to push their faith into civil society and legislate their beliefs. The religious wish everyone else was as "scared to death" as they are which is why they have to attempt to force their beliefs on others. They need validation for their faith, otherwise they realize they're spinning their wheels and wasting a lot of their time for no reason. They want to feel like other people see them being "righteous" and will pat them on the back for their efforts. It's the only reason someone might invent the spurious claim that atheists actually believe in God based on the fact that atheists poke holes in the religious fantasy.
I did believe for a very long time, I was a pastor for over a decade so I've been on both sides of the fence. I've read the bible cover to cover at least three times in my life. It took reading many other books from other religions and investigating my faith thoroughly to understand how many holes there were and the other pastors, ministers and priests I talked to all said you just had to fill those holes with faith which wasn't an answer at all. They all said basically the same thing, reason and logic can't fill the holes or mend the contradictions in the bible, you just have to believe harder in the placebo that is religion and it will all go away, stop thinking so hard about what's not there and think about what is. But that's like telling someone who's skydiving without a parachute to think about what is there, the air, the skyline, the wind rushing through your hair, the ever approaching ground, but don't think about the missing parachute and just have faith and you'll be okay. It's pure insanity.
The school didn't claim that he assaulted the coach. He didn't say what the team rules that he violated. If he threatened the coach he would have been arrested by police for his behavior, but he wasn't arrested.
Why did the coach change his story?
Admitting that would totally destroy their agenda. Only things that make others look bad can be said
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The founders understood that America was NOT a "Christian nation" and they explicitly forbade any governmental establishment of any religion. They recognized the problems Europe had with the Church making laws and the massive amounts of bloodshed and oppression because of it. They wanted to avoid that here. It's not that you can't talk about religion in public, just don't try and legislate your religion forcing others to accept your religious beliefs. That's all any atheists ask. It's not complicated.
No, it's spot on!
19 were hanged in Salem
"Considering that it has been the foundation for the majority of America since its founding."
Establish: verb - set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.
I'd say claiming it's the "foundation" of America would be claiming it's "established".
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams
"John Jay our first Supreme Court Justice said that we should vote for Christian people. That is where I stand.."
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" Article six of the US Constitution
What you seem to be complaining about isn't that you haven't been able to practice your religion, obviously you have. You seem to be complaining about not being able to use your religion as a weapon to beat others over the head. To claim moral superiority, to force your religion into court houses, State houses and into our laws and the very fabric of civil society. If you hadn't noticed, it already HAS been injected, unconstitutionally, into almost every aspect of society but when some question this you get all hurt as if you're being attacked. It was injected by the religious into our pledge in 1942 and onto our paper money in 1957. The original pledge was "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.". That's how it should have stayed, but the religious strangle hold on society couldn't leave it like that, it just HAD to inject itself everywhere. Why? I believe it's because of the sad insecurities of most Christians, they can't keep their religion at home, in Church or in their personal lives, they need validation from everyone. They think they know what's best for everyone else so they take it upon themselves to police the nation with their religion being the arbiter of truth and law and not the constitution as was intended.
The separation of Church and State gives us the freedom FROM religion as much as it gives freedom OF religion. It means religion can do as it likes as long as it doesn't force itself on others. When it does it should expect to eventually get some backlash from overstepping its bounds.
The whole conversation here started with the simple point I made which apparently got you very riled up because you've been unable to refute it, of atheists not believing in God. It's pretty simple. You claimed they MUST believe in God if they refute his existence because if they truly believed God was a fictional character like Homer Simpson then they wouldn't bother even arguing about it. I pointed out that when that fictional character is being used as a cudgel to dictate civil law atheists have every reason to stand up and refute it's existence debating the reason why they must be subjected to a fictional characters whims in a civil society that bans any establishment of religion. You've still not been able to refute that. Do you claim religious laws don't exist or that Christianity hasn't been injected into almost every facet of American society? If so, then say so and I'll link the long list of blue laws that have been enacted by overzealous Christians wanting to force their faith on everyone else in the form of legislation contrary to the establishment clause.
How so?
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams
I believe you have the right to stand up on a stage and talk about how raping kids should be legal, and I have every right to shout at you for promoting such a vile and horrid sentiment. Your rights are not being infringed by my right to not listen to nonsense and to shout vile hateful speech down. It's your right to march with tiki torches waving swastikas and confederate flags chanting "Jews will not replace us!" and it's everyone else's right to stand in front of you and shout "Get out of our country you fascists!".
Those who actually break the law should be thrown in jail, but to claim "all of them" need to arrested proves you are just lumping every peaceful protester out there objecting to fascism with the few who vandalize and throw punches. I've seen many videos of the antifa members and yes, some do break the law and should be held accountable because it lowers them to the fascists they are protesting. But don't act like every one of them represents the thousands of other peaceful protesters like there were in Charlottseville. Just because one white supremacist drove his car into the peaceful protesters killing one and injuring dozens doesn't make me think every white supremacist should be arrested and thrown in jail for it. Sure, he was a good representation of the Nazis, KKK and white nationalists that gathered there, but until they commit a crime they should only be met with peaceful protesting.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Explicitly forbidding any law respecting an establishment of religion is a very clear indication the establishment clause was protecting our government and it's people "from" religion.
Respecting: preposition - with reference or regard to.
Establishment: noun - the action of establishing something or being established.
synonyms: foundation, institution, formation, inception, creation, installation
By all means, believe in your religion, practice it freely, but don't think for a minute that injecting your religion into law is constitutional. That is clearly what the establishment clause forbids. That means keeping our government free "from" religion.
I also notice you conveniently avoided discussing article six as apparently you had nothing to refute it with. And as for the treaty of Tripoli, what John Adams said was no less true when that wording was removed, it was still his expressed opinion.
As for questioning article 11 that states "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State" I think it's very clear how it got there, but that wasn't what we were discussing now was it?
If your comment about article 11 was meant for article 6 then you're just completely off base as it did and does "truly exist" and has nothing to do with the 'dey of Algeirs'.
John F Kennedy addressed the question of a religious test forbidden in the constitution:
"Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
. . . Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President.
I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views – in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.".
We are not a theocracy, thank goodness, and I will always vote to keep it that way. We shall never accept Christian sharia law to be forced on America and you should be thankful of that as well. Just keep your religion out of our laws and government and we'll be fine, you can keep worshiping the way you want to and I can continue to ignore you. When you cross the line expect a reaction from those of us who love the constitution and what our founders intended, a country where you can be any religion or none without the fear of being forcibly converted either by the sword or illegally established religious law.
You logically cannot reject what doesn't exist. There is absolutely empirical evidence that god or even Jesus ever lived. I have asked many times and yet there hasn't been one person when even gave me a scintilla of evidence to support the existence of a supernatural religious deity.
Did you ever think that sin only exists because God created it, so how can Jesus die rid you of original sin when God gave it to you? If your god truly loved you and was an omnipotent as you cham hew could have rid the world of sin, but he won't do that. He would rather send you hell to roast for eternity than to rid the world of sin and disease. Why do you call such a miserable and violent psychopath god?
Theistic religion is a logical exercise that most people fail.
Are you calling Jefferson, Adams and Madison liars?
What empirical proof do I reject? There are no first-person accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospels were written 2-3 generations after the fact and do not all agree.
The Earth was created over millions of years from interstellar dust clouds and not in the manner described in Genesis. Do you sincerely believe that the great flood happened?
The Bible is a collection of ancient myths and moral parables. It is not a factual history of the Earth or even the middle east. The idea of a dying and rising savior born of a virgin birth was plagiarized from religions before Christianity. Look up Isis, Horus, and Ra.
I have no room in my mind for belief. God doesn't exist and the fact that I discuss it doesn't mean that I am inching closer to believing that mythology.
Then I will just leave these two final notes:
"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." - Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University
I always found such forced displays of nationalism to be rather profoundly un-American or better suited to a fascist regime.
What "force" to be a nationalist? Instead of shooting baskets while the anthem is being played, which many would see as insulting and disrespectful, do NOTHING. Just stand there. Nobody required him to sing or hold his hand over his heart. Then there would not have been ANY issue.
Naturalized citizens are required to pledge allegiance to and sign an oath of allegiance to the United States ... after doing so they receive protections. If I remember correctly one can get out of the oath signing for religious reasons ... However, the pledge to support the Constitution is written in stone.
Is this forced Nationalism?
Here is the interesting part .. the team had returned to the locker room before the anthem was played - thus leaving Mr. never intended to offend on the court alone shooting baskets during the anthem.
I can respect a High Ho and Fuck you .. but this student was begging for disciplinary actions, perhaps thinking freedom of religion would protect him? I am sure that this is not the last 'we' hear of this story - but it should be, the young man violated the athletic programs rules of conduct.
That's what make its so egregious. Rather then going to the locker room with the rest of his team, he purposely stayed on the court to disrespect the anthem publicly.
hes an attention seeker.
Since they're not yet citizens at the time they take that oath, not all the same constitutional protections apply.
What does that have to do with forced Nationalism?
I can go digging - but I believe that the 'protections' are pretty much a given once on American soil .. is that not why so many fight against having detainees from Gitmo brought to the US?
I think that the 'protections' are from deportation etc ... as after the pledge of allegiance to the United States, one is a citizen..
Most civil rights do apply to all persons, but this is an example of a difference between citizens and non-citizens. Another such difference is in consequences for political speech.
It's unbelievable. Give a logical reply that makes utmost sense, and those whose political or religious views differ absolutely refuse to admit what is so obvious a credible response. Most of the political and religious article comments are such garbage it's not worth even going there.
It's unbelievable. Give a logical reply that makes utmost sense, and those whose political or religious views differ absolutely refuse to admit what is so obvious a credible response. Most of the political and religious article comments are such garbage it's not worth even going there.
And no where in the Constitution does it say he has the right to play basketball for that school nor does it say he can disrespect the coach without consequence either.
Really? Please cite where you find that.
Do I have to follow your religion and your customs?
Never said you had to follow my religion. I do expect you to be respectful of it and our customs. Being respectful does not include continuing to shoot hoops while the anthem is played.
BTW as far as folliwing custom try going to a strictly Muslim country and not wear the proper head covering if you are a woman. See what happens if you get caught with booze in your possession even in your own residence. Try to observe Christmas in Saudi Arabia.
Do you respect Islam? Paganism? Any other religion besides Christianity? So why the hell do I have to respect yours?
And I don't live in SA and never will...so can you let that poor horse die already? Jeesus!
Can you tell me where in the Bible it says that you have to respect the National Anthem of the United States? Don't worry, I know it isn't in there, just making a point.
How bout following a bit of Federal Law??? Work for you?
36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem
Should: auxiliary verb - used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement.
So the "law" specifies what someone "should" do, not what they "must" do. There is no legal requirement to stand and no penalty for not following the polite request made in the law.
You're right, it's not mandatory, but it's respectful not to shoot baskets while the anthem is playing, don't you think? Or is "respect" and "politeness" passee these days?
You're right, "should" and "shouldn't" are not MANDATORY COMMANDS., but there can still be consequences, so...
You should flush your toilet after you shit in it. So don't bother and live in the stink.
You should take a shower at least once a week. So don't bother and nobody will want to come near you.
You shouldn't curse your best friend. Because if you do he won't be your best friend much longer.
You shouldn't give the middle finger salute to an inebrieted person who's bigger and stronger that you.
No criminal charges, after all they aren't laws - but there sure as hell will be consequences.
I was responding to the post claiming "How Bout Following a bit of Federal Law???" which implied not doing so was "against the law", which it isn't.
As I have said before, respect is earned, not demanded under penalty of law (in America at least). Thankfully we aren't one of those fascist dictatorships that demands respect while trampling all over the rights of their citizens. The coach or others who take it upon themselves to punish citizens who exercise their freedom not to salute the flag or not stand during the anthem are violating the ideal of American freedom.
Even "freedom" has its limits, DP. There are criminal laws, by-laws, common law, that are limitations on "freedom". It is not abbolute. Common decency, respect, honour, integrity can all be abrogated by an inflated sense of "freedom", so we will see what that will bring to the USA in the future.
There's one law in this incident and it has nothing to do with should or shouldn't. It's the rule that the players go to the locker room during the National Athem by the school and to threaten to fight your coach is reason enough to be kicked off the team no matter whether you are religious or not or whether you are a Christian or a Muslim.
End of story!!!
I'm having a problem with the formatting of your seed, Jeremy. It runs cut off the right margin and I can't read the entire article
I noticed it this morning. I don't know what the hell is causing it.
Yeah - me too.
Had this problem as well, do you, at the bottom of the malfunctioning seed have a bar with arrows on either side? It took me a while to figure it out, but the arrows allowed me to center the article I wanted to seed..
and @ 1stwarrior
Are you referring to the 5th paragraph from the bottom?
The whole page. It's like the formatting split the page in half and only gave me the left side to read.
So...I clicked on the source and read the article. Apparently it was only a fragment because it didn't go into great detail. The young man was wrong for not going back into the locker room with the rest of the team. He disrespected the people that wanted to respect the anthem while being played
On mine it only happens at the point I mentioned. There was some kind of advertisement that partially copy. I don't know how to mess with the formatting in the least (maybe that's a good thing).
At any rate I think the coach didn't want to have the same controversy the NFL is facing with the kneeling in combination with the argument (everybody knows that in sports Coach is the final word) so he chose to drop the kid from the team.
seems like a reasonable request
What religious reason? Where in the Q'uran does it say you should refuse to show respect to your country, your host, or anyone else for that matter? No one is asking him to worship the United States.
You might want to learn about the various SCOTUS rulings regarding Quakers, JWs, etc in regards to the Pledge, flags, oaths and the national anthem.
It's absolutely incredible. Here I am, a Canadian, and I have more respect for your anthem and your flag than so many Americans have.
Sorry to say it, But, That kinda says something about actually living here.
Not to be glib. But actually living in this ideologically devided mess the politicians and media have created to further their own interests can Suck.
Most of the country is sick of the government and it shows.
Unfortunately, instead of directing the hatred and displeasure towards the problem we are still in the process of directing it at each other (as the politicians and media desire and profit from both in power and wealth,) we are still their PAWNS and we dont seem to know WTF to do about it. Just voting isn't changing anything. Both parties are corrupted.
But, I'm thinking tearing each other down isn't the answer. Having less respect and pride in the country at this time... I think that's kinda to be expected.
I think that we can have pride in our country but, we don't have to have respect for the leaders we have, at this time, the Democrats have started a movement, actually it has been started by some young members of the party, evidence of this is in Virginia and, Oklahoma and, in other states were the "establishment" politicians are being challenged in races this year and, hopefully into next year. You want things to change, run for office, make a difference that way.
That's because you don't understand American values. Forced displays of nationalism are anathema to many thinking people here.
Forced? All he had to do was stand there and do nothing, or go to the locker room, which was the rule and he wasn't FORCED to do that - even though there were consequences for not doing it. Nobody can force him to sing the anthem or to put his hand on his heart. What he chose to do was to insult and disrespect the fans who DID respect the anthem by shooting baskets during the anthem. If he had got down on his hands and knees facing the East with his forehead touching the ground, then THAT might have been a religious issue. Shooting baskets has nothing to do with his religious beliefs.
No worries Buzz, a clear majority still respects the USA and the traditions that go with her. It's just a loud, whiny minority that doesn't. Them and the ones trying to tear it down.
If the majority was ever truly forced to stand up and fight, we would crush the whiners. No doubt about it.
"A Muslim student athlete who refused to observe the national anthem for religious reasons"
Is that the "Hate America Religion" ??????
In professional sports, when a US team plays a Canadian team, both sides stand for the national anthem of the other team. That doesn't mean they are turning their back on their own country. In the Olympics, they play the anthem of the winner and everyone stands and is respectful. It's just good manners. I see no problem with requiring such behavior of student athletes.
Requiring that behavior would be unconstitutional because the requirements are at odds with our free speech rights. Respectful behavior should be encouraged, but not required even when people exercise their rights to disagree.
E.A BRILLIANT!!!
I love that, .... there is a World of Difference between Federal, State, County, Community, Regulation/Laws, Ignorance is the " The Forte of the Ill Informed!"
IE: The Basic rights of the " Community " are the MOST Powerful in the LAND, all other Laws have to fall in LINE with that!
I think you are brilliant!
E.A LOL Shucks,... thanks Mam, I'll Try not to Blind Folk :-)
YW, but to be honest, half of the time I don't know what you are talking about. I try to analyze, but I realize you are far ahead of me. THEN, wham, I get what you are saying.
E.A yes that is the part you mentioned " Brilliant " Wham I am Blind,, then a few minutes later Epiphany, Yep that is how it works :-)
It would be blatantly unconstitutional for a publicly-funded school like the "Garden City Community College" to have such a requirement.
Such a "rule" would be unconstitutional in the context of a public school. A private school however could get away with it.
No wonder some of the children in this country are in the condition they are in. LOL
You're going to have to come down to our level EA and learn how to fuss over the reason a ball player who broke the rules and wanted to fight the coach at a ballgame got kicked off the team while we debate with people who are basically defending his freedom of speech. LOL
As a general matter, sure, but when you are part of a team and wearing their uniform, you can be required to comply with their codes of behavior. In this case, the student not only represents the school, he is also taking part in a school function. The school and the coach are both well within their rights to regulate the behavior of students if they want to take part. Team membership is a privilege, not a right. If the student doesn't want to stand for anthems, he doesn't have to be on the team.
I was referring to what this school actually did, not to some irrelevant hypothetical.
I love free speech protections.
I've been a card-carrying member of the ACLU since the early 1990s, so you are very wrong.
The ACLU-Kansas is asking questions why the student-athlete was dismissed,
The SCOTUS has a different opinion.
The fan started that altercation.
The mission of the ACLU is to defend our civil rights in the US Constitution, so many conservatives should stop trying to trample on the US Constitution and you won't have a problem with the ACLU.
He didn't HAVE to participate in the national anthem. He didn't have to sing it. He didn't have to hold his hand over his heart. All he had to do was do NOTHING. I cannot understand why anybody keeps saying he didn't have to participate. However, throwing baskets while the anthem was being played is provocative. He intentionally created the problem. He is from Philadelphia, not from the planet Mars. He HAD to know that what he was doing was sticking his middle finger up at the fans, the anthem, and the country. He WANTED to cause this to happen.
This school is a public community college, so their actions are that of the government. This is defined by the state actor doctrine.
The limit of free speech is when that speech causes an imminent threat to others. His refusal to take part in the national anthem doesn't come close to an imminent physical threat. The actions of the fan in response to his refusal was a threat to his life.
But, the FL team didn't do that in England. They stood for the British anthem and sat for ours.
Seems rude.
Speaking as a Canadian, I believe there isn't a Canadian who would not show that respect. Although I'm not at all happy with Canada's present government or Prime Minister, I would never show disrespect for Canada's flag or anthem, which are permanent symbols of my country, whereas governments and Prime Ministers are only temporary. I would consider myself a fool if I were to announce that Justin Trudeau was not MY Prime Minister, even though I dislike him.
I've seen it in the NHL. Both US and Canadian team honor each others anthems. To the point that there are some US born players that sing the Canadian anthem and vise versa. I don't watch baseball enough to notice and quit watching the NFL (for obvious reasons) so I really can't say how thing are going in those sports.