The officials who banned the signs should be banned. If there had been some gyrating sex dance hip hop demonstration, they would have embraced it with open arms. It is time to take back our schools and stand up against officials who profess "freedom FROM religion' instead of Freedom OF Religion!

I think that this is crazy..If you have a problem w/ the sign DON'T GO TO THE GAME!!! I think that taking prayer out of schools is one of the problems in todays time. I think everyone has forgotten that this is AMERICA and we are supposed to have Freedom Of Speech. We have so many people that have different religious beliefs and some people forget that GOD is who brought us here and I think that it is great that you have young teenage kids wanting to show scriptures from his book. I think that we should put GOD back in the schools where our kids can learn about him. Some kids don't have the opportunity to learn about him at home and that's what's wrong w/ kids today. If you don't want your kids to learn about our GOD then you can go back to your country or send your child some where that practices your beliefs. I went to LFO and I am glad these kids are following there hearts!! KEEP ON LFO GOD IS THE WAY TO GO!!! If they was wanting to do a very distasteful dance where they look cheap it would be ok but, everyone is saying no too GOD. That's what is wrong with the world today!! Follow your hearts & listen to God our Savior...

What happened to freedon of religion. Sure, I may not like watching Buddist doing their business, but you don't see me bi**about it.

I notice that the Ft. Oglethorpe resident who made the intial complaint is not named. Those liberals are pretty brave at times. One thing you can count on is that good liberals will find offense at ANYTHING that strikes of religion in their view.

Way to go...cheerleaders!!!

I would be proud of this if they were my children and this is much ,much better than the president's talk to school children or them being brainwashed by singing praises to the president of the United States.This is our country let's take it back now before a few nuts take it from us. Let these children have their signs, we need them to carry our country in it's future if we have a future.

One person forcing their lifestyle on the majority. This country is so screwed up. Maybe it has something to do with the war on God and religion in general.

Just wait everyone. If our "Dear Leader" (as I've seen it stated on this site so many times) has it his way, we will all be ceremoniously praying 5 times a day before his term ends. At least for now we can still pray to our own Lord.

This ban truly is a travesty, but we must continue to remain strong together to overcome such oppression in these times where sin reigns supreme.

Way to go LFO Cheerleaders!! Keep up the good work!

since no one has made a sane comment yet, i will. this is an undeniable violation of the separation between church and state. while the school may not have officially endorsed this activity, it is their responsibility to manage the student's behavior. i think it's perfectly acceptable for students who wish to pray before a game to do so, etc. however, this act forces religious material upon a large group of people by publicly displaying it. just as any mass message would need to be approved by some sort of official, so should such a sign. this is inconsiderate, arrogant, and probably just done to spite people who try to keep our communities inclusive.

If they changed the word, "God" [can I still print that??] to Allah and "Christ Jesus" to "Mohammad", there would be no complaints.

The anti-Christians in the crowd are afraid of scimitars in the night if they complain about Muslims...and remain silent. Cowards all.

"That...that man" is Dear Leader, indeed.

Does anyone actually understand why this practice is not allowed? Anyone here actually read the constitution and understand it?

If one religion, this instance it's Christianity, is allowed to be displayed in/on a government sponsored area (schools are run by the government), then all religions would have to be allowed. ALL relgions. Read it again...ALL RELIGIONS.

Jhenry - What exactly is the "war on god"? I would love to hear some examples.

Musicman375 --, If you think "This ban truly is a travesty" maybe you should brush up on history. When religion is allowed to run the government, we have terrific things like the inquisition and death chambers for people who don't like the state sponsored religion.

This "ban" is exactly what makes America so wonderful. NO ONE has to have YOUR religion. But it does mean there has to be some tolerance for other views. And maybe that is the real problem here. Closed minded literal thinking people with zero tolerance for anyone else not just like themselves.

bamagurl1005-- Prayer was not taken out of schools. Where did you get this nonsense? School lead prayer (ie, the teacher, coach, etc) is not allowed to lead prayer TO the students. Students are absolutely allowed to pray to any god they wish to in school.

bamagurl1005 -- "I think that we should put GOD back in the schools where our kids can learn about him." Exactly what can not be done in our schools. READ the constitution. America was founded on this - the right to practice any religion as YOU see fit. Not as the government schools see fit. Would you also like government schools to teach budism and islam? If they teach Christianity, they would have to teach all religions. Is that what you want? No, you want YOUR religion taught.

gfbfriend -- I'm trying to form some sort of response, but your comment just does not make much sense.

I was taught that in this country, the Majority rules, not the minority. If the majority votes to keep the signs, then I don't see a problem, except that the liberals won't like it. To bad. Go LFO.

"Render unto Caesar" folks. Public schools are not religious institutions and are paid for with taxes from all of us.

Thank you jimgreevy.

nativecitizen - "I was taught that in this country, the Majority rules, not the minority."

Were you ever exposed to the Constitution of the United State of America? Some very good reading there.

Unbelievable! Is this a thing in the south?? Does this mean all religious groups (including Muslim, Morman, Catholic, Unitarian, etc.) can post their own beliefs on the sports field's fences? Yes we have free speech - but we also have free speech for everyone! And by the way - cheerleaders should be not be causing devisiveness in their schools or communities.

ggeorge - Unfortunately the south has many people who think the world is a very small place, and they are the center.

FormerChattanoogaResident said "Were you ever exposed to the Constitution?"

Yes I was, and still am. Using a prior argument, the students are doing this, not the "leaders". There is nothing wrong with the cheerleaders having a "spirit" sign saying whatever the students want it to say. The person who doesn't like just needs to stay away. The liberals are killing this country. Go back and read what the founding fathers (oops, can I say that or is that discrimination?) were concerned about when the "separation of church and state" clause was drafted. The concern was what the king had done. This is not a violation of the Constitution, regardless of what some panny wearing judges say. Read the reason behind the clause.

By not allowing these chearleaders to display these banners is the government saying they support or promote the non christian religion. Are they saying they are forcing the schools to promote non christian religion. Because it seems to me that by saying you can't because it will offend a certain group is promoting that group while violating the rights of others. These girls did this on thier own they paid for it with thier money they took thier time to create these banners Leave Them Alone! Heaven forbid we should offend someone. If you don't like the banners LEAVE if you don't want to LEAVE DON'T READ THEM. These cheerleaders have as much right to display these banners as you do not to be forced to read them. It amounts to nothing less than non christian groups trying to force their beliefs on the christian groups and using the government to do so. STAND UP FOR YOUR GOD AND YOUR RIGHTS GIRLS. You have freedom of speach, freedom of choice and freedom of religion and a mountain of other rights and those freedoms and rights don't stop at the gates to the football field.

There is no such prohibition as "separation of church and state" in the constitution, jimgreevy. It isn't even eluded to. That is a completely distorted phrase taken well out of context of the private letter in which it was written.

Before and after the signing and ratification of our constitution, many states supported churches [money/politics]. Our federal buildings, the Supreme Court's included, contain religious figures and sayings. Federal business is opened with religious announcements. Our national motto -- and our money -- as well as our constitution itself contains mention of "Providence", etc. The list goes on and on...it is literally endless.

This goes on today. Get over it. We are a nation based in part on religious principles. We even have a right to no religion whatsoever as well as complete religious belief -- and everything in between. You would deny us that right while enjoying it yourself.

Actually, I believe the "separation of church and state" everyone is so riled up about is to prohibit the government from establishing a national religion. That said,if we want schools to control their students, how about they do the impossible (hard as they try)and keep them from shooting people, stealing, cheating on tests, doing drugs, that kind of thing.

I went to school in the 40's and 50's. We had prayer, Bible reading, and the pledge to the flag every morning before class started. I cannot cite you one instance of anyone doing any of the above. We knew better. Our parents would have killed us.

Putting prayer and Bible reading back just might help eliminate some of the problems we have in the schools today. Good for the FO cheerleaders, and for the football players, teachers, Ronnie Cobb, and all others who support them.

There's only one group of Religious people that want to silence Christianity. Can you guess? It's not Moslems! It's not Buddism! It's not Hinduism! This one starts with a T & J! This is the real enemy of Christianity! Thanks

Betcha the Empty Suits at Fox News pick it up and it becomes another Beck or O'Reilly rant. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. What happened to "Go Team!". Cannot a high school football game be about high school football and school spirit ("two bits, four bits, .....").

I guess the term "In God we Trust" doesn't apply to you, huh FormerChattanoogaResident? Why don't you get over yourself and your self-proclaimed understanding of a document that was written 200 years ago, when the English language was completely different than it is today, and READ what the banner says on the picture on this page. It IS a display of freedom of speech (which you undoubtedly know ALL about because you have READ the constitution), and is hardly offensive in nature.

When are the liberals in this country going to stop trying to kill any and all uplifting views? Seriously, if the cheerleaders went out there in skimpy bikinis, you wouldn't have anything bad to say about that would you? What is so wrong with students showing a little moral stability when we ALL know good and well that they aren't trying to force a merging of Chruch and State with their banner?

You need to get your priorities straight, sir/madaam.

what is "the non christian religion" ?? Judaism? Buddhism? Islam? Hinduism? etc. They are the majority in our world.

Correction: The phrase, "separation of church and state" was cherry-picked not "completely distorted"l.

In these times when we need to turn to God more than ever, we are letting a few dictate what we feel and what we believe in. If we look back it only took a Minority of people to take prayer out of the schools and every other building that THEY did not want GOD mentioned in. The Majority sat back and let this happen. I believe it is time the Majority took a stand and stepped up and let our true feelings as Americans be heard. If we look back in history, our country was founded on religious beliefs. Okay, if you don't believe in God than you can practice whatever you wish, but when the Minority rules, it is not good. Freedom of Speech is something our Country has stood for for decades. Everyone has a voice, but it seems the wrong voice is being heard. American's need to step up and be heard. GO TEAM...........You have the right idea.

Vandy --

With about 2 billion adherents world-wide, Christianity is the largest. [See wikipedia, et al].

Furthermore, there is a reason all advanced countries are Christian; it is not happenstance. The insistence on eliminating all references to Christianity in public coincides with our descent, starting with Madalyn Murray. [BTW, she was right -- but that is neither here nor there...she started it.]

Musicman - You are correct, the term "In God we Trust" doesn't have any particularly special meaning to me. Are you saying you don't understand a document written 200 years ago? English was not completely different then, as you say.

I will indeed try to "get over" myself as you suggested. Perhaps you too need to get over yourself.

What priorities did I possibly allude to that I need to straighten out, Musicman375?

religious brainwashing and cult worship has no place on the sportsfield. Church and state must seperate. Perhaps the muslims should have the right to put their Koran verses up at the games if it is truly freedom of speech. On the other hand keep all the religous garbage off the fields and you won't create the contreversy. Religion is the cause of brain rot among people who might otherwise have rational thought processes. Listen to the churchies whine about freedom of religion, but if you don't take your hat off during their prayer, their the first ones to complain your disrespecting them when in reality, their views are disrespectful of those who arn't brainwashed into believeing their god is so good. If their theory was worth a darn, he wouldn't allow the country down the road to socialism. Now some churchie will have a pinhead excuse for why it is happening. BAN the religous garbage form the sportsfield, school and keep it on the churchsites only. Thats my FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Allow me to repeat myself: What is so wrong with students showing a little moral stability when we ALL know good and well that they aren't trying to force a merging of Chruch and State with their banner?

This happened in a state where the vast majority of people are Christian. It was put together by underage students who don't understand the constitution as someone of your age and experience might. They were quoting that verse in hopes of uplifting their teams' spirits as they entered the game. Keep in mind the main message they were obviously attempting to convey is the first half of the verse. That's the correlation between the verse and the game, not the last part.

This banner is not the end of the world. And Rolando is correct. There is absolutely NO mention of seperation of Church and State in the constitution.

lmadams - "Everyone has a voice, but it seems the wrong voice is being heard." and "If we look back it only took a Minority of people to take prayer out of the schools"

Thanks for the laugh. The wrong voice you refer to is anyone with a different opinion than yourself. That's so classically conservative - thanks I enjoyed that laugh!

Again, prayer was not taken out of schools. Please stop repeating false statements. It doesn't help your cause any.

And furthermore, if you don't believe in our NATIONAL MOTTO, maybe you should change your username to FormerUnitedStatesResident.

Let them have their signs. Their school mascot is a warrior - something human and abstract -so at least they're not being hypocritical. Now if they were cheering on the Panthers, Tigers, or any other kind of animal, that would be a different story.

Those are totems taken from Paganism invoking the spirit of an animal. To promote that in any way is would be akin to idol worship. The example used in Exodus was a golden calf, but it could just as easily have been a cardinal, dog or wildcat That is an abomination before God which shall be punished with a plague.

I think they should allow the football team and the cheerleaders decide if they want the sign. Obviously the students dont have the problem it is an adult in the audience that has the problem. If that is what the students want then let them do it. Lets not limit their freedom of speech. If more schools would teach bible verses and right and wrong there would be less violence and vain activities going on in our schools. I say let the kids have their say. Let them show their feelings.

As long as it is STUDENT LED there is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. All schools should support this and quit letting the select few be the voice for the majority.

Pastor Martin Niemoller, who later became head of the World Council of Churches, and was an outspoken critic of the Hitler regime, gave a number of speeches in which he used various versions of the following well-known poem...

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

If a man won't stand for something then he will fall for anything. ~P.T.Barnum

Musicman - Students and moral stability is terrific. I'm all for it. But that has nothing to do with why their signs were rightly banned.

Of course there is no phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution. I believe that was more of an interpretation of one of the Amendments (#1 perhaps?) to guarantee the government would not sponsor/support a state (government) religion.

rolando, I said MAJORITY, not largest.

PS - Japan isn't advanced? Look at all the electronics and cars we buy.

Musicman - my belief or lack of belief in the term "In GOd we Trust" has no bearing what so ever on this discussion.

But nice try.

How so? You going to every nitpicky measure to keep Church and State seperate in your beliefs and you not believing in "In God we Trust" are correlated. It does have to do with this discussion since you have given your opinion like everyone else.

Musicman - I've tried to converse with you. You throw out incendiary comments. You skirt questions. I don't think you want a civil conversation.

You have a great big day.

FormerChattanoogaResident: you finally said something correct; "Of course there is no phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution. I believe that was more of an interpretation of one of the Amendments (#1 perhaps?) to guarantee the government would not sponsor/support a state (government) religion." And school students displaying a bible verse on a banner has nothing to do with a government supported religion. As was mentioned in above posts, if the leaders of the school had done this, it would be different. As this was the students, there is nothing illegal about it. Just as it would not have been illegal if the students displayed a verse from the Koran or a sutra from Buddhism. Believe it or not, people still have the right to express their views by using such banners. To say that they, as students, do not have the write is stripping them of their freedom of speech. To say that they are going against the constitution by doing this, that is just plain ignorance. Musicman had a good comment about the students showing moral stability. It's more refreshing to see them display a sign of encouragement to their team rather than a sign depicting the destruction of their opposing team. I don't care if your a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Universalist, Scientologist or Atheist. No one is pushing a religion down your throat when they simply display an encouragement banner in support of their team. Also, I have no respect for the Superintendent in Catoosa county. She is the same one who said that teachers cannot give their students anything less that a 60 on any grade. This is because we don't want to damage their self-esteem. In other words, your student who studies and tries his hardest but might not do too well, and gets a well deserved 70, only did slightly better (grade wise) than the student who doesn't show up to class, never does any work, and could care less about being in school, simply because we have become too "politically correct" as a nation to allow them to get their deserved grade of a 14.
enufisenuf, if you think that displaying a sign quoting a bible verse if brainwashing, you're a fool. The brianwashing is where we give someone a better than deserved grade in school because we don't want them to have low self-esteem. Boy, that says a lot for our future generations. They will keep getting "stupider and stupider".

It's not an uplifting view.

It's indoctrination.

This is for you FORMER CHATTANOOGA RESIDENT!!

There was prayer in school & teachers, Students, or whoever could pray..It sounds like you may need to go back and catch up on your reading. We are in AMERICA and there is only 1 GOD it don't matter how many religions there is and people can worship who they want but like I SAID IN AMERICA WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT WE WANT EVEN IF IT IS FROM THE BIBLE...I BET YOUR THE TYPE OF PERSON THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE WANTING TO LIVE AND PRAISE OUR LORD....HE BROUGHT YOU HERE IT DON'T MATTER WHAT RELIGION YOU ARE..

whoknows - The banner itself is fine. Wrap it around your home, yourself, your car. No problem! Displaying it at a state (government) sponsored activity (high school football game), that is the problem. To say it violates free speech is ignorant (to use your word choice).

bamagurl1005 - Not sure what reading I need to catch up on. But I do love to read.

Yes there was and is prayer in school. Anyone can pray now. Teachers/coaches can't LEAD student prayer. Who could possibly stop a person from praying?

I haven't been engaging in an uncivilized conversation. It disappoints me that you think so. We obviously have differnt religious and political views. That is completely fine with me. We are both trying to make our points, and we don't and aren't going to agree with each other on. That is fine too. I don't expect us to all be the same. If we didn't have our own interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, this discussion wouldn't even happen. Please keep in mind that interpretations are like opinions, which are like rectums; we all have one and no one person wants to hear the other's.
Shall we agree to disagree?

FCR wrote,

"Of course there is no phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution. I believe that was more of an interpretation of one of the Amendments (#1 perhaps?) to guarantee the government would not sponsor/support a state (government) religion."

"Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

You don't have a clue what you're writing about.

//Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances//

Note the word "Congress".

Note also "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

If the U.S. Congress had decreed that cheerleaders must display religious signs, then you might have something. It did not, and you do not.

No one is guaranteed freedom from being exposed to the religious beliefs of others.

In reality, this issue isn't really about religion at all. It is about freedom of speech.

Those kids should be allowed to put anything they want on THEIR sign, so long as societal decency standards are applied.

If someone is so offended by the religious beliefs of others that they want those beliefs silenced, then perhaps it is they who needs to learn a bit about freedom.

This "wall of separation" fantasy is merely a statist means to suppress religious activity and speech.

Yes I will agree that I disagree with many here.

The worst is people repeating, repeating, repeating totally false statements. That is how stupidity prevails.

Opinions are one thing, those will of course vary. I respect your right to have an opinion. Respect mine.

I don't respect the right to make false claims (ie prayer taken out of schools).

ScottyM - You are incorrect on many levels. However, unlike you, I will not call you a fool or tell you that you are clueless. Yet it says exactly what I think it does.

It is not a matter of freedom of speech. I'm surprised to read this went on for as long as it did before someone complained about it.

Mr or Ms. FormerChattanoogaResident,

As you said very accurately ... "School lead prayer (ie, the teacher, coach, etc) is not allowed to lead prayer TO the students. Students are absolutely allowed to pray to any god they wish to in school."

So what is the difference between students praying in a classroom and students holding up a sign on a football field? The "school" (ie, the teacher, coach, etc) is not leading either of them.

If you READ the Constitution, the First Amendment guarantees Freedom OF Religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. There is a fundamental difference. It also guarantees Freedom of Speach. I would say that some ignorant people are trying to violate the cheerleaders Constitutional Rights. But then again Liberals don't care about anyone's rights but theirs, and the people that follow them blindly. Kind of like taking care of sheep while you're leading them to the packing plant...

The First Amendment regarding religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Uhh ...last I checked, cheerleaders are not Congress; neither is 'making a sign' the same as 'making a law'.

FormerChattanoogaResident: Your thinking is so common and so wrong. If you know your history, you would know that most state governments (e.g., Massachusetts)had religious tests for public office; only the federal government (Congress) had no such tests. That's because a State Government is not 'Congress'; my point being that it is only until recently that people have become confused over the protection of the First Amendment for local and state governments to make all kinds of laws regarding religion. As for a national religion, Madison argued for the word 'respecting' because the other founders did not want to prohibit a national religion from occurring outside of the effects of law; in other words, there is not prohibition of a national religion, only a prohibition of laws respecting the establishment of one.

I don't know if cheerleader display of these signs violate the First Amendment. It's always seemed to me that the application to school sporting events of the establishment clause, intended to prevent Congress from establishing a national church, trivializes the First Amendment (not to mention frustrates the purpose of the framers, which was to protect state religious establishments from encroachments by Congress). But it is clear to me that these signs are an affront to anyone with a grain of religious sensibility. Does anyone really think that when the apostle Paul wrote "press on toward the goal to the win the prize for which God has called me in Christ Jesus" that he had in mind anything like scoring a touchdown in a football game? What a sacrilege! Next thing you know these cheerleaders will be exhorting their teams to "crucify" the opposition. If I were principal of a Christian school, with no concerns about transgressing the First Amendment, I couldn't have ordered these signs to be taken down fast enough.

Crazy comments on here.. very entertaining. All those who seem to be in favor of mixing public schools with religion must ask themselves if they'd like the Koran quoted on their campuses, or any other religion. My guess is "not no.. but hella no".

If the signs had a buddha or friggin quotes from the Koran then the Antichrist elements wouldn't have a problem with them which is complete BS! These friggin Libnut hypocrits who oppose any reference to Christ or the Bible while claiming separation of religion don't say a damn thing when it's Islam, Buddhism, Satanism or atheism/agnosticism! I applaud those cheerleaders for trying to bring back some kind of morality back into this Antichrist intolerant education system! Why are Christians any different than Muslims, Buddhists or atheists? The Christians, which were tolerated much more when I was in school, never tried forcing people to believe as they did? The best thing about school, when God was a part of things, was there was more respect for the teachers as well as each other! There was a sense of morality which is missing now and that's a big problem with schools nowadays and is contributing to the problems currently seen in public schools! The Liberal Antichrist version of education is a failure and doesn't work! Bring God back into the lives of those kids who welcome it, whether it's the Pledge of Allegiance or teaching about the Christian principles this nation was founded upon! Allow the Ten Commandments to be proudly displayed again! This has never hurt anyone and the only ones opposed have been extremists who don't give a damn about the well being of the whole as long as their Socialist Antichrist objectives of driving any reference to God out of this country are achieved! They are the ones who have caused damage to this nation and it's children and they are the ones who need to be driven out, not God!

FCR wrote,

"You are incorrect on many levels."

Please explain exactly how that is so.

Your assertion does not make it so. I've quoted directly from the relevant amendment and yet you refuse to admit that it is you who are mistaken. Perhaps before you enter into discussions about the founding documents, you should read them and the relevant history about the framers. You might learn that the modern leftist ideas about the motivations of those great men are profoundly wrong in many ways.

When placed in the context of early America, your assertions about "separation of church and state" are clearly non-nonsensical. When the Constitution was ratified multiple states had tax supported religions in place.

The first amendment bars Congress from establishing a religion to which all citizens must differ, and restrains Congress from interfering with the free practice of one's chosen religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

The first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, I see this as a "free exercise thereof" where the government is now prohibiting that free exercise. No where in this amendment does it say 'separation of chruch and state'. The school should not endorse or prohibit this behavior. What they should do, as required by law, is leave it alone.

The first amendment was created to prohibit the government from establishing a state run religion and forcing it on its citizens, not prohibit the expression of religion by its citizens, regardless of what religion, or where it is being practiced or displayed.

Having our kids singing in praise of Blobama is not indoctrination, but praising Christ is? Libnut hypocrites all!

this woman that had the children singing praise to Obama is the same as a cult religion. We need to file a complaint against that on the grounds of separation of church and state

Just a quick lesson on the Constitution. The First Amendment, in regards to the Freedon of Religion, states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or restricting the free worship thereof". Take note that there is NO mention of CHURCH or STATE. This is intended to be a direct injunction on CONGRESS to not establish a State religion, such as the Church of England was in the UK. (Whom you may recall we had just FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM FROM!)

For information regarding the Separation of Church and State, see my next post.

FormerChattanoogaResident:

Many find it amusing to watch the left-wing scam artists and pretenders come out of the woodwork now that one of their own has been elected President. Not wanting to ruin anyone's fun, I let your smug rants and make believe intellectual superiority linger before introducing real facts into the debate.

The 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There, now you've read the Constitution too, FormerChattanoogaResident. The answer is simple, these cheerleaders aren't members of Congess, nor are they making laws. These signs aren't prohibited by the Constitution. That's fact, not opinion. You'd have to find some lefty judge to twist those 16 words to mean cheerleaders can't quote bible verses on paper signs at highschool football games.

Honestly, I'm glad they banned the signs. I wouldn't want scripture and God thrown in my face every time I went to a high school football game. What if it was the other way around? What if every sign said "Do this for yourself, not God." or "God isn't helping us win this game, hard work is."

Wonder how long that would last.

To the people saying "file a complaint on the basis of separation of church and state" for the Obamapraise thing, do you understand what "separation of church and state" means? Obviously not. The church isn't even involved.

While I agree that kids shouldn't be made to praise the president using such ineffectual logic does not help your case.

if we had a just a little bit of this "RELIGION" in the schools maybe the black kid in Chicago would be alive today and the black kids that did it would not be in gangs.

"Piscean" who do you think gave those football players their life and good health. this show what kind of world you live in. Me Me Me. And a cult is a religion. these people yapping about Obama have made it a cult not me.

Just a couple of questions, to play the "Devil's Advocate"...

Are all the cheerleaders Christian? Would the cheerleaders be willing to have a non-Christian member of the team? What if a non-Christian member of the cheerleading squad decided she didn't like the bible-banners - would the rest of them be willing to stop the practice? Would they be willing to make a motivational banner representing that cheerleader's religion?

Say, for instance, that the whole cheerleading squad decided to become Wiccan. Would everyone who supports them putting bible verses on the banners be as supportive if the painted a large pentacle?

I'm just wondering if you're supporting them because it's tradition, because it's their idea, or because it's Christian. Just for a moment, read the supportive quotes in the article in the context of the above scenario.

The concept of Separation of Church and State came about when the congregation of Danbury Baptist association wrote to a letter to the newly elected President, Thomas Jefferson. In the letter, they addressed the rumor that was being circulated the Congress was going to establish the Congregationalist denomination as the State Church. President Jefferson replied to the Danbury Baptists and ensured them that the Constitution prevented the Legislature from enacting any such law and stated that there was a "wall of separation between Church and State". It is this phrase that was taken completely out of context and used as by the Supreme Court to establish a precedent that has been incredibly mis-used over the years. Even a cursory reading of the Constitution is understandable in this regard. Did the Supreme Court legislate from the bench instead of ruling on the basis of the Constitution? I'll let you decide that.

So, does the cheerleaders actions violate the Constitution and in particular the First Amendment? OF COURSE NOT, they are not Congress, they are not making any laws establishing a religion of preventing the free exercise thereof.

“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”- John 3:20-21

Who gave me life? My mother and my father.

My point still stands. If these were Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu quotes, you Christian fundamentalists would have a coronary running to try and file a complaint.

No religious views should be stressed at school functions. Wait until Sunday, or have a prayer after the game or something. Don't force non-Christians to read your propaganda.

Sure, it's uplifting to you guys, and if it wasn't a scripture it would have been to me too. Just leave the book, verse, and any reference to God out of it. You can be inspirational without name-dropping God.

Liberalism is a mental disorder. This is especially evident in its practioners like the ACLU who have made everybody ridicously sensitve to this form of expression.

this separation of church and state is a left winged fairy tale. We got showing how to put on condoms in school, we got kids being killed in school, we got the empire State bldg praising commies, we got sex education taught in kindergarten AND we got the Muslims taking over everything and you jerks worry complain about a few words. I heard that most of the illegals are going back to Mexico. they found out what this country has become and hate it. I say it again you are jerks. and to those hipping on beck, o'reilly, rush. just go listen to Cris Matthews, Ed Schultz or k. obermann. talk about hate. Beck does not force you to listen to him. He just does not agree with you and you got to whine, poor us. It's enough to make one vomit.

=====>>>> ATTENTION CHEERLEADERS <<<<=====

AT THE NEXT GAME, HOLD UP SIGNS FOR THE FIRST AMMENDMENT!!!

....................................................................................

I want to support the LFO Cheerleaders & the community - I find it really sad that these "kids" WANT to support the Bible and put a Bible verse up! It was the kids idea....it was not a parent who put them up to it - what does that tell you??? It tells you that these kids want to do something that encourages them. My nephew goes to that school and plays football......I found it absolutely beautiful that they say a prayer before the game - are you going to take that away from them also? Nobody is pushing anyone to participate in any church they aren't handing out any material!!! I hope the person who started this who is obviously not an AMERICAN goes back to the country they came from!!!

FORMERCHATTANOOGARESIDENT - glad you left!!!! Why are you commenting on something that doesn't have anything to do with your city!!!

LFO Cheerleaders....WE SUPPORT YOU!!! I hope we get the signs back!

i have nothing wrong with religon in public schools as long as its student lead. with that out of the way it makes sense not to allow these signs. if you dont already realize cheerleading is a organization run and provided by the school it self. meaning its actions reflects the school that provides for it. think of it this way, im sure many of you would not be pleased if the school endorsed a certain candidate or policy put forth by say a popular president. and provided funding to an activity that endorsed said candidate. the same idea applies here. so if we believe schools should decide our kids opinions and idea then they shouldnt tie funding with any group that leans to a certain priniple.

@jimgreevy (and others)

You say it's an undeniable violation...here's me denying your claim:

From the "Bill of Rights" (remember that?): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Separation of church and state exists for this purpose: TO PROTECT RELIGION FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, NOT VICE VERSA! Ironically, the opposite is occurring today because the free practice of religion is not protected from the government, rather the government attacks religious groups (Christians in 99.9% of cases).

The rest of your comment jimgreevy is ridiculous. It is the job of the school to educate, not manage kids ("1984" anyone?). Furthermore, your idea of any sort of message being approved by a government official (Obama?) smacks of totalitarianism and censorship. Churches post signs of verses outside their buildings for the public to see. They also have crosses on their buildings. All of these would be taken down in your universe. Go form your own country if you want to live in that sort of environment...

Haven't we Americans learned ANYthing from recent experiences in the Middle East? It appears to me that whenever religion dominates secular aspects of national life, all sorts of mischief occurs. I say keep religion in religious settings; don't make every high school athletic or social event an occasion for religious reminders. I want to be protected from religious zealots, Christian, Muslim, Zionist, whatever. Good Lord, deliver us!

There are so many things wrong with the comments on this story, I don't know where to begin. But I'll try. For starters, when I go to a football game (regardless of level), I go to see teams play and to root for my team and its players, and not to be preached to by anyone. After all, I pay to attend a football, game, not religious services.

As to the weak argument that the signs are made by the students and not the school, thus it is not a "school function," who pays for all the electricity, water fountains, restroom facilities, PA system, and the maintenance of the field at the facility? The taxpayers. Certainly not the cheerleaders. It is disingenuous to claim that the football game is not a school function.

Put those signs on every piece of private property around the high school and drown out the opposition.

jimgreevy - violation of the separation of church and state? No such guarantee exists in law. This concept is found in "The Federalist Papers" which has never been inacted into law - it was a series of articles written to convince the States to endorse the Constitution. What the Constitution guarantees is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Don't see separation mentioned anywhere. The government isn't "establishing a religion." These were cheerleaders - NOT THE GOVERNMENT. What is happening here is that a government agency (the school) is prohibiting the "free exercise" clause by these cheerleaders. What the Constitution guarantees is exactly what is being denied and what the Constitution prohibits is exactly what is being done by the government agency (the school).

Separation of Church and State. While it is true that the exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, neither do the exact words "freedom of religion, "fair trial," "separation of powers," "right to privacy," or other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles. The concept of separation of church and state is clearly contained in the 1st Amendment, the purpose of which is twofold.

First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach.

Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

KWVeteran observed: "I notice that the Ft. Oglethorpe resident who made the intial complaint is not named."

Based on the hate-filled replies to this article, do you blame the person? He/she probably fears for his/her personal safety or life.

What ever happened to majority rule? Most people want to see God back in the school like this. But because of a few unhappy atheists that hate God, we allow them to control the majority. Whats up with that? >

FormerChattanoogaResident - "If one religion, this instance it's Christianity, is allowed to be displayed in/on a government sponsored area (schools are run by the government), then all religions would have to be allowed. ALL relgions. Read it again...ALL RELIGIONS."

What's your point? That is exactly what the Constitution guarantees!!! It doesn't allow the free exercise of religion UNLESS IT IS ON GOV'T PROPERTY. Just in case YOU haven't read it, I'll post the entire 1st Amendment for you and then you can show me where this is prohibited.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How about a banner praising The Golden Rule? Any objections? Anyone?

Oh, and please try to get your language skills (or lack thereof) remedied. Learn the difference between "their" and "there" and "they're". Don't forget "your" and "you're" also. Embarrassing.

to jimgreevy:

In which Article of the Constitution are the words "separation of church and state"? I will save you some time....they aren't there. FYI, the First Amendment was included to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

My Lord and Redeemer is Jesus Christ and while I think it is a travesty that the cheerleaders aren't allowed to display their signs, another commenter is right when he/she says that if you allow one religion, you have to allow them ALL. I just find it ironic that the Ten Commandments are taken out of public places to protect the publics "rights" and things keep getting worse--try to tell me it ain't so!

Wow...I can't even begin to picture this happening up here. It would last one game, and then far more than 1 parent/person would have gotten the signs removed. A little scary to know this stuff is still common.

In my opinion, it's a matter of personal privacy. Those of you who are Evangelical...this is why non-Evangelicals don't want to spend time with you...no-one really wants to hear your views on a private matter. The Cheerleaders are just on a slightly larger scale. Freedom of religion has been interpreted to mean total inclusion (as in all religions get signage at the game) or total exclusion (no religious stuff at all).

The Law is not static, nor is legal precedent entirely reliant on the Constitution. Before people jump all over that, I mean that current legal interpretation doesn't have to be directly connected to Constitutional law...the current interpretation can get there through different means.

Enjoy your 10 Commandments in the courthouse, enjoy the tent-ish revivals. Keep your faith private, and more people outside your normal circles will respect you.

Remind me not to move to Chattanooga.

Desertman - yes I can deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. What it guarantees is the separation of State FROM Church. It only puts limitations on the Gov't NOT the Church. Any such limitations would be a violation of the free exercise clause.

SCOTTYM observed: "No one is guaranteed freedom from being exposed to the religious beliefs of others."

No, but in this sense, freedom from religion means freedom from any state coercion to practice or support any specific religion, or any religion in general.

grumpyoldb observed: "If you READ the Constitution, the First Amendment guarantees Freedom OF Religion, NOT freedom FROM religion."

Technically, as pointed out above, the words "Freedom OF Religion" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Think of this: Can one have freedom of speech if the government requires you to speak? Can one have freedom of the press if the government makes you own a paper? Can one have freedom to assemble if the government insists you assemble? Can a citizen have freedom of religion if the government makes you recognize and/or support a God?

You cannot have true freedom OF religion unless your government is free FROM religion.

Desertman - "Based on the hate-filled replies to this article, do you blame the person? He/she probably fears for his/her personal safety or life." While I haven't read EVERY comment here, I have read 80% and didn't run into a single "hate-filled" comment. I for one am tired of being accused of being "hate-filled" because I don't believe the same way as someone else. I reject this redefinition of the term "hate-filled."

rolando observed: 'as well as our constitution itself contains mention of "Providence",'

The only time "Providence" is mentioned in the constitution is when it refers to the Providence Planatation, which is now known as Rhode Island.

As a non Christian, I have seen nothing wrong with these banners. The messages are meant to inspire the players and fans and not a means to convert non believers. That the messages came from the Bible tells me that the cheerleaders were smart enough to find positive universal messages that anyone, regardless of their beliefs, can belive in.

Because religion is not taught in public schools, students do not get exposure to other religious beliefs. If schools were allowed to teach religon, other beliefs could be taught and perhaps the banners would include quotes from other religions.

The cheerleaders should have their banners back .

ChicagoGuy - I resent your dismissal of all of us Evangelicals. I have more friends and acquaintenaces that are NOT Evangelical than those who are. The people who don't want to talk to me are the ones who are so narrow minded they can't even carry on a polite discussion. They start yelling at me, call me names and then refuse to have anything to do with me.

This is still America which was founded on Christian principals. Despite the fact our current President says we are not a Christian nation,we are. I say right-on to those cheerleaders. Way to stand up for Jesus. It's about time somebody does. Soon it will cost something to be a real Christian, and not ashamed of the Gospel.

Spoc22:

Eh, I have 1 or 2 evangelical friends...one's a LDS, and one's a Jehovah's Witness. If they start rambling on about religion, I find a reason to be elsewhere. That doesn't mean we can't play golf.

Does it bother you that most of the world views things like this as laughable? Forget about the "world", but most of the non-South USA? That a school district would allow cheerleaders to display bible verses during a school-sponsored (taxpayer funded, therefore "State") football game is both risible and scary.

Having a whole chunk of our country put such faith in a not-entirely-original piece of mythology. Scares the Jeebus out of me.

SCOTTYM observed: '//Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances//

Note the word "Congress".'

Indeed. Please do. If you want to take this approach, only Congress is prohibited from prohibiting religion, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Any state, country, or municipality is, by your reasoning, perfectly and legally capable of prohibiting, abridging, or infringing on all of those rights. You can't just stop at the religious clause in order for the 1st Amendment to meet your narrow definition.

This nation doesn't belong to you because you are Christian. It belongs to us all because we are Americans.

Why do people feel that school events should be used to promote their religious beliefs? That is exactly what these cheerleaders did. They used their exclusive station within the hierarchy of the school to promote their religious beliefs. And to suggest that we allow this because they are just cheerleaders, what does that tell everyone, the Constitution is unimportant.

Have you noticed how unChristlike we Christians can become? What was the second law that was similar to the first? Love thy neighbor as you love yourself?

ChicagoGuy - what bothers me is that you truly believe that you speak for "most of the world" when you say my beliefs are laughable. Rather egotistical of you to think you have the ultimate right to determine what is/is not laughable and therefore unworthy of consideration.

spoc22:

A little egotistical, but it's backed up by a lot of commentary in various news organs. Again, privacy should be the watchword, not yapping about one's beliefs to all and sundry.

The cheerleaders were yapping about their beliefs. I'll almost guarantee that at least one cheerleader or football player didn't subscribe to those beliefs, and was offended, if quietly.

It's terrible to exclude kids based on something their parents believe in.

Re: Majority rule -- Sorry, that is wrong: the Constitution rules. Our personal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc., are enshrined in our Constitution, thus putting them beyond the reach of tyranny by the majority. If the majority rule concept applied to individual freedoms, we would have far fewer freedoms today.

Desertman - you are very good at building deflective arguments. How does yourcomment on "can we really have freedom of speech if the gov't requires us to speak" apply to the topic at hand? No gov't agency required the cheerleaders to speak. They chose to invest their own time and $$ in making the banners and for what purpose? To encourage the team to strive had. OH HOW TERRIBLE!!!

It is sad, disgusting and stupid that the hypocrites, under the guise of christianity, want freedon when it suits them but want to deny it to anyone who doesn't agree with them. Get deprogrammed you brain washed cult worshipers.

obviousman wrote: "How about a banner praising The Golden Rule? Any objections? Anyone?"

Insofar as the "Golden Rule" is a universal concept and is neither unique nor exclusive to any religion, no problem with me.

I am an atheist from NY. Thank god!

spoc22 wrote: "Desertman - you are very good at building deflective arguments. How does yourcomment on "can we really have freedom of speech if the gov't requires us to speak" apply to the topic at hand? No gov't agency required the cheerleaders to speak. They chose to invest their own time and $$ in making the banners and for what purpose? To encourage the team to strive had. OH HOW TERRIBLE!!!

How typical of you to take things out of context. My comment was in regards to the argument that we have freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

Regardless of whether a Government agency was requiring them to "speak," as cheerleaders they were, by proxy, acting as government officials and were promoting a specific religoius belief, Christianity, over other religious beliefs and non-beliefs, thus abridging the free exercise of religion of others..

to Chicago Guy: So moving somewhere where a Bible verse is displayed during a football game by the cheerleaders is worse than Chicago where tragically, a student is killed after school by being whacked in the head with a 2x4?

I will say this: If the Bible verse displayed is to praise and worship the Living God, then fine. If, however, it is to pump up the football team or imply that God is "rooting" for your team, I agree with the gentleman that wrote that it should not be displayed. This verse was written to encourage the saints to keep going in the face of adversity and true persecution (being killed) for their faith. It should not be used trivially.

To the person who keeps writing that "what happened to 'the majority rules'": that is mob rule, and I don't think you would truly like that. Oh and the USA is NOT a democracy, but a representative republic.

On: September 29, 2009 at 6:38 p.m., cfshack wrote: "This is still America which was founded on Christian principals."

Can you point out where these Christian principles can be found in the U.S. Constitution?

This entire thread of comments concerns me. I have school age children. I personally would choose not to have religion invoked on my child by a public school in whatever form of religion. Would likely be upset if a public school passed on dogma or theology in anything other than a strictly historical sense. On the other hand, being a devout and practicing Catholic, I have chosen to enroll my child in a private parochial school so that she can be taught in the relgious principals that I have chosen. If you wish to have your child partake in school sponsored or led religion, send your child to a private school and pay the price. I would tend to agree with the thought that if it was a nonchristian phrase used on that sign every week there would be very few people protesting the ban.

Who ever said "Majority Rules" oviously doesn't understand Human Rights.

In this world, Christians are a very small minority. So if the majority voted to kill all Christians, I guess that would be ok...right...because Majority Rules.

Think about it.

Wrong! The problem with Christians is not their religion...it is their stupidity.

I pay taxes which provides funding for this school and I do not want my children exposed to these crazy christian values.

If you think I should leave or move because I do not suport christianity, think again...because I am mega rich and it would be your loss.

I will take my money, my companies and your jobs with me, if I leave.

BTW, I was born into a christian family and my grand father was a southern baptist preacher and profesor of theology at Wayland Baptist University; however, the majority of stupid christians is what drives people away from your beliefs.

What the First Amendment Says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Read more: http://k12subjectguides.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_the_first_amendment#ixzz0SXAL3FaW

I am stunned these signs have been used since 2003. 6 years?

Doesn't anyone read the constitution?

Amendment 1 of the constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please read "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." There is no stipulation that religion couldn't be discussed or represented on public property... try re-reading the constitution and learning the meaning of the English Language. If you do not like what the founding fathers of this great country established and believed for the future of this country then please leave and go to the country of your choice. At least in this country you still have a choice, for now that is... Even now our supposed representatives do not understand the constitution they have sworn to uphold.

In my opinion, the case history on this whole subject is rather suspect. It seems that the current ruling against these cheerleaders flies in the face of the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment, and since it was done by students, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

The key precedent case for this goes back to states being barred from funding teacher pay at Catholic schools - which was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

We're a long way from the original legal foundation here. I'm for permitting the cheerleader's freedom of expression. If there is any doubt, I'd err in that direction.

FormerChattanoogaResident: Amen...

I support the cheerleaders. I believe in the separationof church and state. I believe this was the intent of the founding fathers, however, I believe their intent was to keep state out of church and not church out of state.

This nation was founded without argument on Christianbeliefs, not athiest, muslim, budist, agnostic or any other religion. If folks want to practice those that's perfectly fine, but this nation who's pilgrim forefathers came here to freely worship God built this country on Christianity. Their intent of keeping the state from telling them what they could and could not do worked until recently. Now it appears that state has told these Christian cheerleaders they can't worship God as they see fit... I often wonder what kind of conversations go on in heaven between some of the founding fathers and John, Paul and the other apostles?

cfshack needs to get his head out of its hiding place.

All you bible thumping peeps, ever read that scripture that says something like 'that which you do unto the lest of men, you do unto me?'

Jesus would be ashamed of you.

Jim Greevy, Former Chattanooga Resident, et. al.

You make some good points and you seem like reasoning individuals, so please take this message to heart: LEGALIZE THE CONSTITUTION!

You reference the constitution and caselaw that has turned "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" into a wall between church and state that is inpenetrable and taken to such an extreme that citizens, in a community atmosphere provided by the state, must supress their free speech and have to hide their religion. Tell me, do you think that is what the Constitution intended?

We are a pluralistic society. I would rather live in a diverse country where if there was a high school with 99% muslims they could display a Quote from the Quran in their community to show their heritage, just as I would be able to do in mine. If I lived in a place where I was the minority, I would have to understand those inconveniences are are my choice.

The whole argument about us having to give every religion equal time if we give any religion anything is deceptive as it is COMPLETELY INACCURATE. It isn't in the Constitution, and was put there by 9 unelected individuals who collectively act like a MONARCH. Really, the S.C. should LEGALIZE THE CONSTITUTION instead of change it if and when they see fit.

If they stuck to the Constitution here the signs would still be displayed and nobody would have anything to complain about....because holding up a sign DOES NOT EQUAL CONGRESS MAKING A LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU STRETCH IT. If anything, the only reasonable thing to say is that stopping the signs BOTH PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION & ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Don't think like a trained monkey. Think analytically and for yourself...regardless of what the Monarch has said in the past.

On: September 29, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. mltoran wrote: "I would tend to agree with the thought that if it was a nonchristian phrase used on that sign every week there would be very few people protesting the ban."

As a strict separationist, I would be oppposed to any religious phrase, regardless of the religious sect. The government must neither prescribe nor proscribe a religious belief.

I love all the comments on this issue!! Did anyone consider that the cheerleaders rights have been violated?? Have a rally I will be there!!!! Keep up the great work cheerleaders...help us find the way!!!

Serena: Are you trying to quote Matthew 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kindom of heaven;but whoever keeps and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." OR Matthew 25:40 "The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly, I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' " If it is the Mattew 25 text, He is talking about Christians treating other Christians well. However, the Bible also tells us to "Bless them that curse you". May the Lord open your eyes to the truth.
Love, A Bible Thumper

Hypothetically speaking, if I lived in a society with a highly predominate religion other than Christianity, I would not get mad if a public school had such a sign that represented their religion. I don't see how this sign is "forcing" anything on anyone, the cheerleaders are just expressing their views. Obviously whoever the person in the crowd that reported the incident is highly insecure with their own beliefs.

In context this story is not surprising. It's a small town in the bible belt. I bet the majority of churches in this area are Southern Baptist. Can you imagine anywhere else that this tradition could have lasted 6 years before a complaint was lodged?

First of all, there's NOTHING unconstitutional about these signs, contrary to the many lies of the left wing (the same folks who will tell you abortion isn't murder, that homosexuality isn't perversion, that the lies of evolution and "safe" sex should be in schools, etc.). This country, indeed, was founded upon God's Word, the Bible, and not this postmodern, self-contradictory, pluralistic nonsense that we see today.

Why does the trash that is the ACLU have such leverage in this country? It's because those in the know have been tolerant of evil and have blended in with the world instead of being the salt of the earth. Just look at the typical "Christian" Church today: Honestly, 95% of them are heretical, as are "Christian" radio stations, and "Christian" bookstores, as these liars and hypocrites do not promote the truth but instead lies and propaganda, i.e. "The Purpose-Driven Life."

As for "Separation of Church and State", it does NOT mean what the aforementioned dishonest left wing would tell you it means, and by the way, to the John Kerrys of the world, EVERY worldview is a religion. What these liars and propagators also don't admit is that only one faith is correct: Christianity... faith solely--solely--in Christ and what He did at the cross.

As for this particular newspaper, notice how it implies that the cheerleaders are indeed wrong, which they aren't. I'm not surprised. This very lunatical piece of yellow journalism once had Islamic propaganda all over the place, and I wrote in and informed the paper of what Islam is, which is nothing more than a religion of lies, lies, more lies, and calls for terror and violence--EXACTLY like what we saw on 9/11. (Just look at Mohammed: He was nothing but a liar, a thief, a murderer, and a rapist.) Some woman told me crustily that they weren't going to print my article because it might offend a muslim. I wrote the paper an e-mail and called her to task on her sorry, incompetent statement as well as the paper itself for its sorry propaganda.

It's like Roy Exum. This "Christian" guy once had some stupid list of things he was thankful for and stood in favor of abortion. (Then he gets lauded at First Presbyterian downtown, another heretical church, by the way.)

It's about time people spoke up and set these liars and left-wing militants and their unconstitutional agendas straight. Actually, it's well PAST time. If those in the know would speak up against the aforementioned liberal liars, like the ACLU, our constitutional rights would be protected. Yeah, they're the thieves, but we've held the doors open for them at night.

Want to speak to me directly? Write me at: vickis2quick@yahoo.com

P.S. Don't get me wrong; just because I referred to Roy Exum earlier doesn't mean I read or endorse this newspaper. I almost never read it, simply because it's of inferior quality.

And Ronald, you are the only true Christian in the world, right?

BTW, the Supreme Court would disagree with your assessment of the Constitution. If you want your religion to be promoted by the government then why don't you do it right and amend the Constitution to repeal the First Amendment and specifically the establishment clause.

Dear Perissos - Yes matthew 25 40. And I disagree that he (the King, Lord) was speaking of christians since that term is not in the bible. He was speaking of righteous people.

carriek, the cheerleaders rights have only been violated if you think that people have a right to use a government sponsored event to exclusively promote their religion. Were others allowed to take center stage on the field and promote their religious views? No, only the cheerleaders. So it looks like what you are advocating are special rights for cheerleaders and then to deny those rights to everyone else. We are all equal under the law or we are not. If the cheerleaders have this right and no one else does then we are not equal under the law.

There is no "law" in the first amendment that states there has to be a separation of church and state. This was actually written in a letter from Thomas Jefferson and picked up on somewhere in history. The Founders did not want a state run church. Remember, they came from a country in which you had to belong to the Church of England to belong to parliament. You can bet that the earliest schools had references to God and also the Bible. Historians are now trying to remake the Founders into secular people when they believed: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God." -George Washington

If only we were as rich as Ben1976Howard, who obviously thinks he is better than Christians. Or as smart as FormerChattanoogaResident, who is so condescending towards southerners.

As an Atlanta resident who travels to the northeast and Washington DC several times a month - northerners are as a rule rude and unfriendly, and most have a superiority complex. Yet where but you see the highest taxes, highest unemployment and highest migrations out of state? New York, New Jersey, etc.

As for Ben1976Howard - wow, your vanity is amazing. Your compnaies and your jobs! Why don't you just pay your fair share of taxes, put your kid in a private school and leave the kind, God-fearing people of NEGA/TN alone?

Alfred Alfred Alfred! What does your post have to do with the topic? Rude northerners, high taxes, and unemployment have nothing to do with these cheerleader signs.

"rnr"-- Get your facts straight, as opposed to buying all the rhetoric of the deranged, left-wing-inspired school system, not to mention the State-controlled media. Our country indeed was founded upon the Bible, not upon, as mentioned, this pluralistic, postmodern nonsense that we see today.

You do realize that the kind of society you endorse, whether you overtly mean to/realize you're endorsing or not, is total anarchy, right?

Now the parents and all the churches in Chattanooga need to ban together and take names of any leader local or national and vote them out and post their names all over the net, so when they move to a new city they can be kept from running for office of any type. This should be followed all the way to the Supreme Court and any Congressman or Senator that speaks against the display should be rallied out of their office. List this complaint on your local Glenn Beck site and the Lawmen's association. Any church that stands against the Freedom of speech should be vacated by the membership, since they would only be there for the monies.

By the way, a democracy, by definition, appeases the majority, not the minority. We have the exact-opposite scenario in effect today.

Of course, we have to stay within the Constitution and not let a majority have its way if doing so entails superseding our nation's Christian fabric. Unfortunately, though, we've allowed just the opposite... again...because, as mentioned earlier, those in the know have remained silent, and we've tolerated, among other things, judicial tyranny.

I will take my money, my companies and your jobs with me, if I leave. (If? Duh, I think we make your money for you not so rich boy)

BTW, I was born into a christian family and my grand father was a southern baptist preacher and profesor of theology at Wayland Baptist University; however, the majority of stupid christians is what drives people away from your beliefs.(Isn't this alway the case, poor kid gets burned by church and takes his ball and goes home.)

Ben most people would turn your money away They don't listen to a thing you say, They don't know you like I do I wish they would try to so Ben, take your money and run Being around you is no fun We don't need you in Tennessee So take your past and leave. Poor Ben.

Is Lakeview Fort Olgethorpe still home of the mullet hair style?

The Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding. He holds victory in store for the upright, he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Therefore I tell you brothers and sisters in Christ, do not get discouraged. Put on your full armor of God. You are not fighting a battle between flesh and blood, but of rulers of the darkness. Pray diligently that God will reveal to you your next steps. But stay focused and committed to your Lord. When you've done all that you can do, STAND.

Your signs are reaching further than you know.

There is nothing against the constitution in what the cheerleaders did. The SCHOOL cannot propagate one religion over another, but students ON THEIR OWN can as long as the school does not encourage or aid it. Despite what the bible thumpers may think, that also protects religion and stops it from being used by the government. The superintendent is well intentioned, but is mistaken in her interpretation. That being said, running over bible verses with a football team after they were put up by cheerleaders in skimpy short skirts hits me as so ludicrous that I have to giggle. It is a perfect testament as to the idiocy that passes for modern religious thought.

I agree with the Cheerleaders.. I notice you liberals throw this whole "Constitution" thing when it serves your purpose and only when... NOT when your Messiah is out to change that very constitution. You would rather place a blanket over everyone's mouth and dictate when they can talk and what they can say than to allow them to.... I'll use your argument.. Instead of keeping them all from posting something religious let them post "together". Your argument makes them all segregate their choices, keep it to themselves in order to build what I guess you progressives call tolerance. But if you REALLY want to build tolerance let them share their religion. Maybe there's a Muslim or Buddist cheerleader that would like to include a fragment from their Bible.. The only intolerance I see is from you Liberals who also tend to be Atheists. Every religion has something to share.. some commonality while yours is the opposite... INTOLERANCE. You would rather shut everyone up and force them to your ways than to truly let them share. A teacher could very easily call a prayer and allow everyone in class to join with their respective prayers... Allowing them to teach the class their ways and beliefs. The only ones that would be upset once again are the Liberals (Progressives) because they have NOTHING to share but intolerance. The teachers would be pushing no religion whatsoever just teaching the children to learn about one another. The separation of church and state was intended from keeping the church from dictating to the people like in centuries past.. to avoid dictatorial rule. Yet without the facet of religion being included you "Progressives" are more than willing to have BIG brother dictate all the rules they want.. What hypocrites! The forefathers themselves mention the belief in God in our very founding documents and our monetary system.

"...the message constitutes 'a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution for signs with Bible verses to be displayed on the football field.'”

US Constitution, Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which clause of the First Amendment was violated?

"...display of a Bible verse on the football field is a violation of federal law."

Which law? The school grounds are Federal property and subject to Federal regulation?

Furthermore what happened "no victim, no crime"? Tired of this do what your told crap.

Using scripture in the context of a football game is a bastardization of the Bible and its lessons, and could be considered blasphemous. Thanks to William_Dalton for pointing out that largely overlooked facet of this argument.

The use of the First Amendment argument, whether right or wrongly applied here, goes something like this: If the school receives federal funding (allocated by Congress), then displays of religion could be considered a defacto endorsement by Congress of that particular religion. It may not be the most logical conclusion, but it is, in my understanding, the reasoning for the rule. The debate here is whether or not this rule should apply because this particular display may be considered student-led.

Let me conclude by expressing how dismayed I am at all of the hateful speech and juvenile name-calling from people who profess to be Christian. If the goal of Christianity is to be more like Christ, those who are doing the name-calling would do well to re-examine your faith and actions. Keep in mind that it serves to invalidate your arguments as well as perpetuate the perception by the "heathens" you are decrying that the practice of religion requires the sacrifice of one's mind.

Sorry for going off topic with the mullet hair.

How many of those at this rally held a rally for the victims of the flood you just had around there?

And I thought this was the bible belt?

To GreenwichAvePink If you are an atheist then why do you "thank God"?

Thank you somethingorother and Mr Dalton for the decent comments.

Greenwich was probably being sarcastic. That was a hard one. NEXT!

I wish i was rich but im not but I do appeal to someone or some group to come up with the money to circumvent this stupidity. have a banner made with what ever inspirational verse the cheerleaders want and have it flown over the stadium on friday nites dont think the school board controls what is in the air.. lets see some hairbrain atheist come up with a way to stop that just a thought from someone who feels its time to take back our freedoms that a few think they own.

All I see here is a lot of hate, from both Christians and Non-Christians alike. The way I see it, using a quote from the Bible is a little out of place on a football field, setting aside all the political mumbo-jumbo of whether it's constitutional or not. I can tell you as both a student and an atheist that seeing a sign like that would not have evoked feelings of school spirit, but rather feelings of exclusion. I'm an American too. I might be in the extreme minority, but nevertheless, I should be able to go to a school function and not be made uncomfortable by a religious quote. I know, I would have the right to leave, I could just turn my head and look the other way, but plain and simple, I don't think that's very fair, especially when another spirited (but unreligious) expression could be used. I applaud the girls for being original and for using all their own funds and time to create the signs. I know they mean only good by their message, but I don't think they took everyone into consideration when they created them.

short of that wear a t shirt with a bible verse on it to the game. wouldnt it be nice to have someone print up about 5000 of them to hand out on the public road as they enter the stadium if the person so chose. let the numbers of the masses speak

Serena, Yes, it is true that Jesus was speaking to those who would be righteous. Thanks for pointing that out. I only referred to "Christian to Christian" because some have no Bible knowledge. Jesus was teaching future "Christians" (they--the diciples- were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26) He spoke in parables to the general population but explained further to his disciples.

So, it looks like the government's takeover of schools hasn't done much for freedom of speech, has it?

I hope someone does fly an inspirational message over the stadium over and over again. I hope the message is from Buddhism. A good one might be "Fill your mind with compassion"

But wait. This is the bible belt.

McG - Government's takeover of schools? They didn't take them over, silly. They RUN them. There was no "take over".

This one is easy. All of the fans show up with scripture signs!

Perissos

He was recorded as having spoken in parables. It would have been terrific to have listened to him while he walked the earth.

They should ignore the screwed up hypocrite-engineered rule and check in to the lion's den for a night. Let's update this faith thing!!!

To the Christians -- Forget the man made laws. Forget the cheerleaders' rights. Forget all that for just a moment, if you can.

Now imagine Jesus was in Laveview Fort Olgethorpe right now, or next Friday night, would he care about the sign at a football game? Would he be pleased to see his book scriptures used in such a manner?

Or would he be helping the sick? Perhaps feeding the hungry? Holding a dying man's hand.

Christians are called to become Christ like. I don't see Christ using his scriptures to enhance a football game.

Serena: I agree!

way to go cheerleaders! We are proud of your Christian stand. Stand strong in your faith in God. I hope this spreads like fire. The muslims sure are not stripped of their rights! Doe's any one else see where this is heading?

May I ask a question, here? I'll say up front that I applaud the cheerleaders for their devotion, both spiritually and to their high school, but what would be the general reaction, if, instead of Scripture, the cheerleaders had stood on tax payer-supported public property (the high school football field) with a banner displaying some other message which enjoyed equally popular support in the community? I saw a number of comments which said, in essence that the overwhelming majority of those attending the games were in accord with the Bible verses displayed and any people who didn't like the message presented were welcome to leave. The cheerleaders spent their own money to create the banners shown and the crowds loved them and that should be the end of it. [I am using "all caps" because I can not write here in italics. I am not shouting at anyone at any time.] But what if --and I KNOW THIS WAS NOT THE CASE, THAT THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SUBTLE JAB AT LAKEVIEW-FORT OGLETHORPE or anyone else who supports the girls-- the banners had been articulations of some equally popular community sentiments, like, "Deport the Illegals", "Burn the Puppies", or "Kill the Jews"? Would people defend as ardently the opportunity for the cheerleaders to "Use their own money" to create banners that the community believes in and supports?

I am not equating a positive affirmation of spiritual devotion to an incitement to murder dogs or attack the adherents of religions not one's own. I am suggesting that the argument popularly expressed here, that the audience liked it and the school didn't pay for it so quit bellyaching, is, however sincerely felt, nonetheless not the answer to the question posed by the superintendent's proscription, anymore than answering "peanut butter" is the correct answer to the question "What time is it?"

No Mongo I don't see where this is heading. Do tell.

What exactly do you wish to spread like wild fire? Cheerleaders with christian signs? Rallys to support cheerleaders? Details please.

That is, the government, be they Republicans, Democrats, Independents, what have you, is (collective noun so it gets the singular verb) legally obliged to avoid the endorsement, support, promotion, or elevation of any one particular religion over another on its property, its institutions, its supported activities -- i.e. high school football fields before or during a game) Yes, you will see "In God we trust" on currency and on courthouses across the country, but you will not see the 10 Commandments displayed in public buildings. Isn't that hypocritical? No. The reasoning is that "In God we trust" is sufficiently broad to be appealing to those of whatever religion, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, et al., without promoting one set of religious beliefs over another (say, endorsing the Five Pillars of Islam instead of the Trinity), which enshrining copies of the 10 Commandments would unquestionably be doing.

Denying a religion or its adherents access to government facilities and venues in which, on which, at which to proclaim spiritual devotion IS NOT DONE to punish said religion or to be discriminatory or mean-spirited or to suppress these people's faith. It is done only to tell these people, and to tell ALL PEOPLE OF EVERY RELIGIOUS FAITH ACROSS THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM, "In order to avoid the charge of favoritism, of endorsing one group or set of ideas over another, we, the government and all our buildings and facilities and activities, CAN NOT become involved with your religion because then we would be required to become involved with EVERY OTHER group who wants to use our stage, our platform to discuss, profess, proclaim, THEIR religion."

I know that most of the readers of this set of comments, and the majority of the high school community discussed in the article, will find nothing wrong with the idea of government endorsing, or appearing to endorse, one religion over another...as long as it's the religion that community and those readers themselves believe in. But that's exactly the problem: what if the mayor or the governor or the president got on TV and said, "Okay folks, here's the deal. We've got a bunch of Baptists over here, so these schools and the state house are going to be platforms for their religion, and there are some Jews on the east side, so we're giving them the park and and the DMV to promote their views, and the Muslims will get the north side police station and the swimming pool." How long before the Jews decided they wanted more turf, or the Baptists were angry that the Muslims were given a spot where there are guns, or any host of frictions and conflicts that one religion will find with another, not just in 2009 Chattanooga, but everywhere, every time, world without end.

It is easier to keep the peace by having the government JUST NOT GET INVOLVED in the arena of people's spiritual life. That is not to say the government is denying these people their right to believe in whatever god it is who speaks to them. It is to say the government recognizes that it is not up to a set of officials, be they elected, or as with the Supreme Court, appointed, to decide which set of religious beliefs is better, more worthy, more "real" than another.

Be honest and answer a question for me. Since I gather there is currently a great deal of anxiety, if not outright hostility, toward the current occupant of the White House and to what his middle name might indicate, would you feel perfectly comfortable with having president Obama or his duly appointed representative, decide which religion(s) should be allowed on public property? If you feel so strongly that it should be within the purview of the government and its offices an agencies (again, like public school teachers or high school football fields) to support, endorse, and promote religions, would you feel comfortable allowing president Barack Hussein Obama to allow his administration to tell you or your children's teachers which religion(s) could be taught in your schools? No, I didn't think so. I would not feel comfortable either. Nor should anyone, but not because of the specific man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but because it is not the business of a bureaucrat, be he the president, the mayor, a member of the local school board, or a school coach (ALL paid with taxpayer money) to endorse or authorize spiritual beliefs to an audience that MIGHT EVEN POSSIBLY contain non-believers or non-practitioners-- that's what they do in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. For those seeking the spiritual direction and advice and leadership of another voice, there are ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, and the like, ready and eager to teach, counsel and guide those who affirmatively seek out their help. The difference is, those who DO NOT want such help are not caught up in the communication of the ideas.

Additional: Video - GA Rep Jay Neal speaks at the LFO Cheerleader Rally in Ft. Oglethorpe GA http://www.chattanoogahasnews.com/videos/id_221/

LFO Cheerleader Rally Video http://www.chattanoogahasnews.com/videos/id_222/

Update: Location Change, Rallying to Support Cheerleaders’ Religious Signs http://www.chattanoogahasnews.com/dignews/display_article/id_16985

Allen! You make too much sense to bother posting here. Thank you for your wisdom.

Unfortunately it sounds to me that there is now a religious test to become a cheerleader at this school. And anyone who does not believe like the group need not apply. And to the writer who mentioned that "majority rules", I read an interesting story about someone visiting Hawaii who found himself at a school sporting event where the majority religion was Buddhist. The "majority rules" becomes somewhat different when you find yourself in the minority. Something worthwhile to remember that respect and tolerance of others will also apply to how others see you.

I believe the sign reads I PRESS ON, not people in the stands press on. I am sure all the cheerleaders and players pressing ON through the sign knew what the sign said. They are not asking you to do anything.They are telling you what they are doing.

Thank you Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School cheerleaders for a very uplifting verse. It is an inspiration to me. One I am going to memorize. I have cancer and when I get down I can add this to my GOD I NEED YOUR HELP RIGHT NOW!!!!

The sign violated the rights of those in the audience who felt that their religion was not respected by an institution that represents their government and is paid for by their tax dollars.

Consider: The constitution was written by religious men, and yet there are only two religious references within. The first gives the date, "The year of our lord..." and the second is the word "swear" in the oath for president. What may be more telling is that the authors included an alternative oath using the word "affirm" instead of "swear", presumably in the event that someone uncomfortable with "swear" were elected to the office. Why would people founding a "Christian nation" include this option?

Which do you think would Jesus find closer to his message; those in the majority fighting for themselves, or those fighting for the respect, tolerance and understanding of those in minority groups?

Some of the most prominent founding fathers, such as TJ, were Diests - They generally believed in one God, but not the supernatural interventions of that God on Earth in forms such as miracles or the declaration of Jesus being the son of God.

"In God we trust" was adopted in the 50's, not 200 years ago, largely in fear of the growth of the atheist Soviet Union.

This liberal lie of "separation of church and state" has to end. The Constitution states that the state cannot establish a religion, in the same vein as the Church of England at the time. The fact that liberals have been able to get activitist judges to read something into the Constitution that clearly doesn't exist is nonsense. This cannot be allowed to stand and the country stand. The first step to the takeover by a socialist/Marksist/Communist government is the elimination of religion from the public square.

rjn You been watching way too much Fox News!

@allen5565: Thank you for your wise, thoughtful, informative comments.

I will say it again, since I'm sure that many are not reading all the comments: Is it really appropriate for football players to run through then trample any Bible verse? Has God really "called me in Christ" to run through a sign with His words on them, trample them, and then play a football game? Please explain how that glorifies God. If I displayed a Bible verse, would it sanctify my actions if I were breaking into a car? I feel that the allusions to "the goal," "win[ning]," and "the prize" and how they could refer to a football contest trivializes the verse, suggesting that God is on the side of the LFO Warriors and, therefore, against their opposing teams. Such inappropriate use of scriptures dilutes their messages and weakens their effectiveness as tools for spreading the word of God.

Desertman,

Your logic that things can be "read into" the Constitution is exactly the kind of thinking that has screwed this country up. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution is left to the states, not made up by activitist judges and liberals who want the document to say whatever they would like it to. So, yes, I can argue against the Constitution saying everything you just pretended it says.

Serena, funny, that's the response most liberals have when confronted with the facts. But, actually reading the Constitution helps. You should try it. Also, lay off the NPR if you really want to know what's actually going on.

somethingorother,

I tend to agree with you that this isn't the proper use of the verse. But, the fact that one person being offended by it can claim it's a volation of federal law, when clearly it isn't is another issue altogether.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - Article I of the US Constitution.

Perhaps if more people actually read this document, they would understand that the only violation of the Constitution being perpetrated here is by the government in prohibiting the free excercise of religion in the form of withholding of federal dollars from the school district.

When you are finished reading this document, perhaps one should take some time to read Patrick Henry's speech to the Virginia Revolutionary Committee on March 23rd, 1775. It was called "The War Inevitable" speech, better known as the "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. It seems quite relavant to our county's current condition.

Wouldn't you agree, Former Chatanooga Resident?

allen5565 @September 29-09 10:05 p.m. wrote,

"But what if --and I KNOW THIS WAS NOT THE CASE, THAT THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SUBTLE JAB AT LAKEVIEW-FORT OGLETHORPE or anyone else who supports the girls-- the banners had been articulations of some equally popular community sentiments, like, "Deport the Illegals", "Burn the Puppies", or "Kill the Jews"?"

allen5565 overshoots the shark tank and lands on Mars.

The insults are mostly coming from one side. Has anyone else picked up on that?

@rjn16: I don't know if I would agree with your assertion of "clear" in this situation. How about partly cloudy? Mostly sunny?

Because LFO (and/or the school district) accepts federal funding (disbursed by Congress), the concern becomes legitimate, whether raised by a single person or many. The issue really is whether or not this rather large, public display can be considered student-led. That issue is clouded by the size, prominence, and location of the display versus the fact that the cheerleaders paid for the signs themselves. Finally, one must consider whether such a tradition would exclude, prevent, or discourage non-Christians from joining the cheerleading squad or attending the games, which I assume are funded, at least in part, by the school and, therefore, federal funds.

Really, I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. While not "Constitutional," I think we could all use a big dose of tolerance. Some of the vile, immature, hateful things that have been shared in this forum are shocking coming from people on both sides of this argument. Allegedly religious people spouting judgment and personal personal insults is both unhelpful and hypocritical.

I will end with a quote from Ghandi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

This is precisely why we need vouchers. Let the angry lib go wherever he/she wants, and let the other kids parents' pick the schools of their choice, including schools where such signs are embraced, rather than eschewed.

This is F--king hilarious the same people complaining about these poor little girls would be asking for there heads if the signs used evolution metaphors on there signs. So stop whining when some one pulls this crap on you.

"Serena, funny, that's the response most liberals have when confronted with the facts. But, actually reading the Constitution helps. You should try it. Also, lay off the NPR if you really want to know what's actually going on." Username: rjn16 | On: September 29, 2009 at 10:43 p.m

Glad I provided you a chuckle. I've read the constitution along with the bill of rights and other worthwhile documents. Thank you for your concern, even though I said nothing to you about the constitution.

My comment was directed at this remark of yours "This cannot be allowed to stand and the country stand. The first step to the takeover by a socialist/Marksist/Communist government is the elimination of religion from the public square." Sounds like hysteria and something Fox news would say.

As far as NPR, I've never given them a thought. I will check them out.

Hey drinkmoxie - You nailed it on that one!

..Anti-Christians try to lump everything into The First Amendment but always neglect to use the word CONGRESS. ..It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercize thereof . . ." Key word, CONGRESS. Not a particular State nor city, county or district. If the State made a law, so be it. If a county made a law, so be it. If a city, then also so be it. But none of these latter enitites have banned the free exercize of religion.

I think the young ladies might consider making signs with appropriate excerpts from the constitution, bill of rights, etc. Who could sue?

God Bless

SCOTTYM @ 10:56, thanks very much for reading my comments, but what part of that section leads you to think I am not sincere about the example being strictly hypothetical? It was not meant to ridicule, to insult, to demean, denigrate, or make light of the firmness and sincerity of conviction of the people who endorse, support, and believe in the girls and in the display on public property of posters such as were used at the high school football games. I thought I was fairly explicit in pointing out that what followed after I wrote,""THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A SUBTLE JAB AT LAKEVIEW-FORT OGLETHORPE or anyone else who supports the girls" [ED: AL CAPS because I can't use italics, not b/c I'm shouting] was meant as an illustration of how, if the message were different, the justification for, and defense of, said message would be seen as unsupportable. My choices of examples (puppies, jews) were not a suggestion that I believe the cheerleaders or their supporters also hold such beliefs. I am sorry if you inferred such, but it was fairly clearly laid out that I did not imply any such thing. Let me be unambiguous so there is no misunderstanding -- I did not create those examples to suggest cheer leaders and their supporters believe such shocking ideas, I created them to illustrate the speciousness of answering, "We like the message. If you don't, go away" to the charge that government can not endorse or promote religion. It sounds like a good answer, but it is actually not addressing the matter at hand. Just like it doesn't matter how much a person might like skateboarding, might have devoted himself totally to skateboarding, might have made it the cornerstone of his philosophy and the basis for how he leads his life. [ED: I am not trivializing a person's spiritual beliefs. I do not personally equate skateboarding with a person's religious life, let us be clear.] No matter how central S/Boarding is, the person is still not legally permitted to engage in the pursuit on a highway. There are plenty of places where it is legal, but a highway is not among them. Similarly, there are plenty of places where professing one's devotion is legal, but gov't institutions and their sponsored events are not among those places.

Im sorry if you felt insulted. It was not my intent.

On: September 29, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. rjn16 wrote: "Your logic that things can be "read into" the Constitution is exactly the kind of thinking that has screwed this country up. Anything not spelled out in the Constitution is left to the states, not made up by activitist judges and liberals who want the document to say whatever they would like it to. So, yes, I can argue against the Constitution saying everything you just pretended it says."

LOL. Its not what I pretend it says, it was what Thomas Jeffersons says it means, as well as what the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, has said it means on numberous occassions. And, the 14th Amendment extended the principles spelled out in the Constitution to include the states. Separation of Government and religion is one of those principles.

The argument, from the school board, that the signs violate the 1st Amendment is bogus. These girls aren't promoting a specific religion, neither is the school by allowing the signs. I'll point out that there are several, specific Christian denominations. This country has a "Christian identity" and the Bible is a widely excepted historical - albeit religious text - quoted several times throughout history by elected government officials. The Supreme Court building has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments. The Liberty Bell is inscribed with a Bible verse. Presidents and members of Congress are sworn in with their hand on a Bible, saying "so help me God". "In God We Trust" is everywhere in government buildings, not to mention our legal tender. Heck, there's even a chaplain on the public payroll. The "separation of church and state" metaphor is a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment - it's not law. Now, if the state of TN (or any other state) passed legislation that prohibited followers of certain religions from attending certain public schools or rezoned school districts for religious reasons, then one would have a violation of the 1st Amendment.

If you follow the logic that these signs violate the 1st, one could then argue that a student wearing a crucifix on a chain around his or her neck would also be a violation of the Constitution. Or, that students can no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the word "God". I know...I know...they're trying.

This is another example of political correctness run amok. To remove our Christian history and traditions from all aspects of government is an attempt to rewrite history by liberal "do-gooders". This is the best country on the planet - founded by mostly Christian people. We the People (the evil Christian majority) are happy to let others practice whatever peaceful religion they choose. We don't force atheists to believe an any religion. One could say we "tolerate" other religions - why can't the minority religions and/or atheists tolerate a sign displaying a Bible verse?

Mr. Reese does not have a responsibility to protect the school district from legal action - he's not a judge. He has a responsibility to educate the students. Let the complainant file suit and let the courts decide. If anything, it will be an educational lesson in civics.

Ok, here is my question, Why is it OK to bust through then rip up scripture? Which is what the football team is doing.

"Why is it OK to bust through then rip up scripture?"

I would tend to agree with you, Capt. But, that argument is a little off topic

They've been doing this since '03 and the local community (for the most part, I guess) seems to be okay with it. The local youth minister doesn't seem to have a problem with it either.

FormerChattanoogaResident | On: September 29, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. "Does anyone actually understand why this practice is not allowed? Anyone here actually read the constitution and understand it?"

Do you? Do understand the history of the founding fathers? That history has to be understood in order to understand the reason for what the Constitution refers to as "separation of church and state". Let's explain again ....

Once upon a time in England, there was much travail, hardship, and cruelty perpetrated on the citizens of that country over religion. Whatever "religion" the monarchy chose, was the "religion" that the people were required to practice. They were persecuted for not complying with that mandate. At one time the government and monarchy chose Catholicism, at another it was Protestant. The early settlers left that country in order to practice religious freedom. The "separation of church and state" did NOT imply "absence" of religion, but rather that the government could NOT declare Methodist, or Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran etc, as a GOVERNMENT sponsored "religion". This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. There are many "religions" in this country that are not of the Judeo-Christian principles, however they are free to practice their religion here without interference from the government. Having said that, we are who we are, and our country was founded with God foremost in mind and heart.

Do you want to know why the terrorists want to pretty much hammer the western society? The sign up there, that's why. In the intelligence community, the briefings center on terrorists and the Muslim community in the Middle East believe the U.S. and others want to Christianize them. In essence, they think we want to dilute their religion and they want to protect their religious beliefs. That is why we have a Jihad or Holy War.

Are Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddism and other beliefs inferior to yours? Really? Did Jesus, who was born a Jew, became a Rabbi and also died a Jew, with no intentions of not being a Jew, really believe that everyone else was inferior? Really? The Last Supper, that wonderful symbol of Jesus's last meal. That little meal was a thing called Passover... The fact that many of the Christians are not tolerant of Jews, which Jesus was, does that make sense? Really? Is that what the Bible teaches? Really? I think Jesus would have been pretty pissed that his message of peace and hope caused so many to be so divisive instead of divine by looking down upon other people's beliefs.

When you preach and force your opinion on someone and it makes them feel bad about themselves, that is not a message of love. That is fear marketing/advertising, similar to Aspirin companies. Religion is something that is private, personal, etc. Not something that a pimple faced, mini-skirt wearing kid should be displaying a on a field where gladiators in pads with intentions of causing bodily harm to one another should be displayed. Is that really respectful of peaceful teachings? Really? So, when the players run through the sign angrily and tear it up, is that respectful? Really?

I really think this is disgusting even though I'm a republican. I think this is reminiscent of the bleached hair fat guys in mullets with their gaudy gold leafed furniture on stage crying crocodile tears pleading with senior citizens (on fixed incomes) for their spare change thinking this will get them into heaven. This stuff is disgusting. I literally can't wait until all of you meet the maker and he says, Really? Is that what I was about? Hurting people and preying on scared senior citizens for their last dollars? Hmmmm? I'm thinking, elevator down and bring your hot dogs and marsh mellows to affix to your horns.

If the girls want to display Bible verses then they should have attended a private Christian school. Jewish kids, Muslim kids, Hindu kids, Buddhist kids, non-religious kids, and all their parents shouldn't have to be insulted in a public space just because the majority is against them. Public schools should not endorse any religion, period. It is the law of the land and has been that way for quite some time.

On: September 30, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. murph wrote:

"These girls aren't promoting a specific religion, neither is the school by allowing the signs. I'll point out that there are several, specific Christian denominations."

They are all still CHRISTIAN denominations: a SINGLE religion.

"The Supreme Court building has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments."

The Supreme Court building wasn't constructed until the 1930s, and there are other figures--all"lawgivers"--besides Moses. In addition, the actual words of the 10 Commandments can be found no where in the Supreme Court building.

"Congress are sworn in with their hand on a Bible, saying "so help me God".'

There is no REQUIRMENT for them to be sworn in on a Bible (in fact, one Congressman was recently sworn in on the Koran), nor are the words "so help me God" REQUIRED to be uttered.

On: September 30, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. murph wrote:

" 'In God We Trust' is everywhere in government buildings, not to mention our legal tender."

"In God We Trust" did not become our national motto until 1956, (due to McCarthyism and the Red Scare) and was not placed on currency until 1957. While the phrase was initially placed on some coins in 1864, it appeared sporadically on coins until the early 1900s.

"Heck, there's even a chaplain on the public payroll."

Yes, over the objections of James Madison, author of the 1st Amendment. It was the first violation of the 1st Amendment.

"The "separation of church and state" metaphor is a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment - it's not law."

The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ with you.

"Now, if the state of TN (or any other state) passed legislation that prohibited followers of certain religions from attending certain public schools or rezoned school districts for religious reasons, then one would have a violation of the 1st Amendment."

True, but that is not what is being done here. However, the reverse is true: When a Government entity promotes a specific religion (Christianity in ths case), it is also a violation of the 1st Amendment.

"If you follow the logic that these signs violate the 1st, one could then argue that a student wearing a crucifix on a chain around his or her neck would also be a violation of the Constitution."

Not so. Wearing a crucifix on a chain around one's neck is a personal choice. Your logic is, well, illogical.

"Or, that students can no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the word "God". I know...I know...they're trying."

Actually, students already have the right to NOT recite the pledge. The SCOTUS decided that way back in 1943, 11 years before the words "under God" were even illegally inserted into the official pledge when Congress passed a law respecting religion (also a result of McCarthyism and the Red Scare).

"He has a responsibility to educate the students. Let the complainant file suit and let the courts decide. If anything, it will be an educational lesson in civics."

Yes it will be. Especially when the school district looses.

Joe Joe-

What is this "law of the land" you're referring to? We have Christian symbols all over the "public space" (government buildings). The school is not endorsing or promoting any specific religion because these cheerleaders are holding a sign with a Bible verse! If you, or anyone, is insulted by a Bible verse, you should think about getting a life.

Who said "the majority" is AGAINST Jewish kids, Muslim kids, etc? It's just the opposite - they have a right to peaceful practice their religion.

To jimgreevy: I know you were only trying to impress us dumb hick backward right wing nut-job conservatives with your vast knowledge of our constitution, however there is a small problem with your rant. There is no such thing as separation of church and state. Liberals made that up to gain an advantage for getting God out of the picture. I would encourage you to read the constitution and try very hard to comprehend what it says. I think once you really see what it says you will have to agree there is nothing that keeps those kids from expressing their religious beliefs in a school. Not one solitary statement forbidding it. Now what the constitution says (I'll tell you since I know you won't go read it and I will also paraphrase so you can follow along) is the federal government is not allowed make a law that establishes a national religion. See that subtle little difference there Jim. Sheeeesh, send them to school and they still cannot read.

Its disheartening to see such zealous generalizations thrown around among patriots; upon liberals, conservatives, christians and atheists.

Genuinely we have the right to free speech, but we do not have the right not to be offended. The first amendment reads that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. so without judicial review, those girls have the right to show those banners, if the field is public property than they have the right to demonstrate their religious views and peaceably assemble,I think the confusion most have here is differentiating the school's involvement.

That being said, how would you christians feel if the cheerleaders held a banner stating " Slaughter the panthers like Jews on Jesus."

Well JayZ, what you suggest now becomes an issue for the State to decide, not the feds and it is not a constitutional issue. Each community with limited guidance from the State should be able to decide what they will allow when no laws are being broken. If the majority of the community have no issue with this practice and it is not breaking any laws then it miust be allowed. Remember the key words and tricky phrase is "not breaking any laws".

The only people in the wrong here are the school officials who let this nonsense go on for years, knowing it was illegal. They should reimburse the cheerleaders for their expenses and issue an apology to them. Religion has NO place at a public school function! If you want to drag Bible verses all over a football field, go to a religious high school. Heads up folks, this is NOT a "Christian nation". No, really, it's not. Enjoy your religion to your heart's content in your home, your church and your parochial school, but keep it out of my taxpayer funded education system, thank you very much.

For those of you who falsely claim the 1st Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a "national" or "state" religion, consider this:

The plain words of the First Amendment say exactly what the First Congress meant for them to say. You change the words, which is the only way you can make the Establishment Clause say what you want it to say. The words "a state" are not in the wording of the Establishment Clause. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or government, not just "a state" religion. If the meaning is plain, why add "a state"?

If the writers in the First Congress had meant to say "a state" religion, they would have written those words into the sentence. James Madison and the other five congressmen on the committee which drafted the final wording of the First Amendment knew the difference, and they wrote what they meant.

You also molest the Free Exercise Clause. The word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from the meaning of the Establishment Clause. If the Establishment Clause means "a state" religion, "thereof" must also mean "a state" religion, which would make the Free Exercise Clause read "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise of "a state religion." Yet, "a state religion" is just exactly what you say the Establishment Clause prohibits!

BaldEagle--

"...it is not a constitutional issue."

I didn't realize the 1st Amendment to the Constitution had been repealed.

"...when no laws are being broken. If the majority of the community have no issue with this practice and it is not breaking any laws then it miust be allowed. Remember the key words and tricky phrase is "not breaking any laws"

So, I guess you don't consider the U.S. Constitution to be law?

Nay, Nay, Nay RealAmerican. Since the federal documents do not forbid it please tell us exactly which law they are breaking and pleeeeeeeeease do get out that old "Separation of church and state" thing again. It does not exist. The constitution says not one word that should make anyone with even 8th grade comprehension believe their is anything there about that separation. I know, I know the liberals and other secularists think that is what it says. Someone told you once that it said that and now you can't get it out of your head. I think that is called the law of Primacy, "The way you first learn something is the way you are most likely to remember it, even if it is wrong".

If your community decided tomorow that it wanted to abridge speech, of course that would be unconstitutional. If they decided to make a law that the town only be available to Judeo-Christians again that is unconstitutional. However if some students decide to hold up signs with bible verses for the football players to run through then what law has been broken? If you want to create laws at the state level, fine, but nothing unconstitutional has taken place.

Desertman, you are not paying attention. There is no such thing as separation of church and state. Read the first amendment and tell us what contitutional authority has relevance here. No law established a religion a national religion, therefore the constitution has not been violated!!!

Sigh. The pesky thing about reading the Constitution is you actually have to read--and understand--the whole thing.

For those who are interested in learning, a skeleton sketch of the 1st Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion: 1. The 1st prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" the establishment of a religion. That has always been understood to: (1) mean favoring any one religion over another, and (2) apply to any act of the federal government, not just the actual laws of Congress. The amendment would be toothless if it didn't recognize that giving favor to one religion over others could be tantamount to actually establishing that religion as an official state religion. Similarly, limiting the 1st to actual acts of Congress would improperly ignore that Congress early delegated much of its legislative authority to different agencies and authorities of the federal government who develop policies. That's why the local Social Security Office can't decide to pay claims to Pentecostal Christians less than to Orthadox Jews.

1. The 14th Amendment took most of the provisions of the bill of rights, including that first amendment, and applied it to the acts of STATE governments. And once ratified, that 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution too. So the whole not promoting or favoring one religion (or no religion over religion, for that matter) applies to your state government too.

2. A public school is part of the state government. School events are subject to all those pesky Constitutional concerns. No promoting one religion over another, no promoting religion over no-religion, and no promoting no religion over religion. In other words, leave religion out of it, or make it inclusive for ALL beliefs without denigrating anyone else's beliefs.

3. A football game is a school event. That seems pretty obvious. The government (in this case the school) is responsible for making sure its done constitutionally.

4. Bible verses are religious speech. Agreed?

5. Bible verses being promoted as part of a football game is government promotion of a religious belief over other beliefs in direct violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. In other words, its pretty un-American.

oh and by the way, one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to protect the MINORITY from the tyranny of the MAJORITY.

Desertman, here is what the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am not exactly sure how you are parsing the word thereof but when I went to school it meant "pertaining to" so in that statement thereof is referring back to the word religion. So it just means can't make a law establishing a religion, and you can't make a law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. Again, I am confused how you all have made this into something it is not.

The only place I can see this becoming an issue is when we have laws in place that now discriminate against a religion that was not here when we started making these laws. Muslims come to mind with their attire. It seems rather superfluous to have a law that you must obtain a pictured State Id and then let the applicant completely cover their face.

This argument is not about Christianity...it is about Americans who are not educated trying to force their beliefs on to everyone else.

If you are educated and understand the law, Christians will call you an arrogant liberal and ask you to leave. Since when do Christians have that authority…911???

It is impossible to have a logical conversation with people who believe in magical talking bushes, talking snakes, an ark which can hold two of every species, and the son of God being born to a virgin women who dies and then ascends into heaven.

These Christians are illogical and there is nothing you can do to educate them. The most you can do for them is to give them a job, a day to worship their god, and a few holidays to celebrate, Christmas, and Plebeian (labor) Day etc.

Thank god, our founding fathers, which were called “Separatists”, experienced this same problem and made laws to prevent future generations of mob mentality and ignorant plebeians from screaming “majority rules”.

Who ever screams the loudest wins. Is this our demoCRAZY. Paint a mustache under the Presidents nose and call him a communist and you win.

Liberal…we don’t need another alcoholic, born again Christian running this country into the ground. Never forget what W. did!!!!!!!

The Christians, after 911, are worse for this country than the Muslims terrorists who knocked down a few buildings in NYC. I love NYC but buildings can be replaced...3 trillion dollars on a war against imaginary weapons of mass destruction cannot be replaced.

Sometimes it is better not to react than to over react to an imaginary fear.

Osama Bin Laden won by getting these crazy Christians to destroy the very thing that makes our country great. Every time a Christian expresses their superiority over others, the terrorist won. The United States is not the shining city on a hill that it once was no matter how nostalgic it is for these hillbillies to see their daughters in short skirts holding up Christian slogans.

Desertman-

I know the history of "In God We Trust". But yet, there it is - still. And, the chaplain (Christian chaplain, I might add), paid with taxpayer dollars, still says a prayer to open each session of Congress.

As far as I know, they haven't scrubbed the Liberty Bell of it's Bible verse. Shhh...don't tell the ACLU.

The Supreme Court often begs to differ with itself! The SCOTUS reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment over the years is unconstitutional in itself - contradicts the 10th and the 14th. Funny that Moses still sits atop the building in which they preside.

Again, displaying a Bible verse does not constitute promoting a religion - more importantly it doesn't promote "establishing" a religion. To be honest, I don't think the school should be a federally funded government entity to begin with. But, that's a completely different Constitutional debate.

Yes. Wearing a crucifix is a personal choice, but wouldn't the same student, insulted by a simple Bible verse, also be insulted by a piece of jewelry depicting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?

I don't have a problem with students declining to recite The Pledge - for whatever reason. I imagine such students are ridiculed for this in most parts of the country. And, Congress passed a law adding "under God". If illegal, why hasn't the SCOTUS ruled so in 50+ years?

Are you trying to say that this country wasn't founded on Christian principles or that it should not have been? The words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", doesn't mean we should remove all references of Christianity or religion from our culture. It was added to guarantee civil liberties - to guarantee that no future president nor congress could enact a national religion and force the citizenry to follow it. People are FREE to peaceably assemble and follow whatever religion they choose or not worship at all. They are also free to ignore or simply tolerate a verse from the Bible.

I agree, the school district would probably lose if a suit is filed. It would probably go all the way up to the SCOTUS. Let them rule against the school too - and while they're at it remove "under God" from the Pledge. I think it would cause an awakening of the silent majority in this country. My point is/was, the school superintendent should not be the judge based on one individual's complaint. Especially if she "regrets" having them change/remove the signs.

I'm no Bible thumper, BTW - far from it. But, I am a traditionalist and a constitutionalist. I think they refer to us as paleocons these days.

Hero, your points are cogent but, those students are not part of the government. I could see if the staff ordered them to do what they did that would definitely be unconstitutional, but on their own. If they lived in a predominately Jewish or Muslim or whatever religion you want to think of community then I would have no problem with those students excercising their free speech rights in their public school. I do not mean changing laws, I mean as a matter of preference but not with staff or school board endorsement one way or the other.

It doesn't matter if they where trying to promote something you think is positive. it doesn't matter if you agree with there message. it doesn't matter if EVERYONE there agreed with it and was happy with it.

It's illegal.

get it? illegal. a school can not promote religion. a school can not promote Christianity, buddhism, satanism, shamanism, heck it can't even support NON religion or atheism. it stimply must remain neutral on the subject of religion. it's not exactly hard to get. I can promise every last person at that school would be up in arms if these where satanic verses but because it's THERE religion they think it's ok.

no it's not.

how hard is it to get. mix religion with government (and a public school is government) and your religion becomes controlled by the state, and your state controls your religion.

these cheerleaders can present there views one on one to there fellow students (and if you support this message you should suggest this) and they can even hand out after school or even DURING school this message. but they can not do it as an official representation of the school, and thats exactly what they are acting as in this case.

"I love NYC but buildings can be replaced"

What about the 3000 lost American lives, Ben? Can they be replaced? Or do you think it was just a bunch of arrogant Christians? Are you really comparing Americans (Christians) to terrorists? That is beyond imbecilic.

How do you bring W into this debate? He's gone....get over it...find someone else to blame! How come Obama bin Biden hasn't gotten us out of Iraq yet. Three trillion dollars? Obama spent that in seven months. How come they haven't shut down Gitmo? How come they haven't repealed the Patriot Act and stopped illegal wiretapping? Oh...wait...now you have someone new to blame.

I believe our current president is a "born again Christian" too. OMG...the horror! I've heard him say, "God bless America" several times now. Or was that "G-d D-mn America"?

I can't make any sense out of the rest of your ignorant rant but I know you don't want to have a sensible debate. You just want to spew your vitriol.

But BaldEagle, its a school event. The school has a responsibility to ensure the school event is legal. No one has claimed the students should be prosecuted, but the SCHOOL is proper in taking the necessary steps to ensure that the school event does not promote religion.

Personally, I agree that students should have the right to speak in school without government restriction. That refers to a different part of the 1st Amendment about speech, not religion. Courts have decided that students in schools only have some free speech rights, not complete rights. However, even if they did have full rights, its proper--and legal--that doesn't mean they get to speak whenever they want, just that they have to be given the opportunity to speak. Expressing that right while performing a school sanctioned function (cheering) may not be proper. At the very least, the school would have to also similarly accommodate anyone else who wants to similarly speak. So those football players better be ready and willing to ru through the Atheist banner, the Pagan banner, the Christian Scientist banner, the Mormon banner, the Jewish banner, the Catholic banner, the Muslim banner, the Agnostic banner, and on and on.

Clearly not every single student, employee and community member at the school and in attendance at the school event had the same religious beliefs, so I'm not sure how you decide which views get be promoted, and which are silenced?