One last comment: to hero, with regard to your statement about the different banners, I would not have any problem with a pagan community having such a banner. If two christians choose to live there and are offended, well too bad. But a community that has a total split should decide or even vote on such a thing, that is what establishes a community. The actions of a community should be what the community wants as long as it is not illegal. I have always hated that whole diversity thing because left to ourselves we will hang with our own kind. I am told diversity is natural, but if it is why must it be forced. Oh well, that is another topic. The constitution does not say that government officials are bound to stop what is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That makes absolutely no sense. What they cannot do though is cause anyone to be beholden to a particular religion and for that matter thay cannot make anyone beholden to no religion. By antagonists own parsing of the words if not banning religious speech constitutes endorsing it then it surely seems that banning it violates the first amendment's free excercise clause. That would be a Catch-22 so that can't be the right interpretation.
I am not a Bible thumper either as murph put it. I am not arguing for a theocracy. Boy, if it were I would be in prison right now had it not been for being burned at the stake. What this argument is really about is reading and comprehending the constitution and obviously we ain't never gonna agree. Why won't we ever agree? I want it interpretted just as it is written and the next guy wants to parse words and make it say something it doesn't. Is there an English major in the crowd that can conjugate this simple phrase. I mean is thereof modifying religion or establishment. I do not see why this is so hard. And I definitely do not see any unconstitutional behavior by those students nor do I see any by the school unless it was their idea and they enforced/required it.
Enjoyed the debate, but it is 0215 and I gotta be up early for my lobotomy. Take care now, ya' hear!
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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".
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
One last comment: to hero, with regard to your statement about the different banners, I would not have any problem with a pagan community having such a banner. If two christians choose to live there and are offended, well too bad. But a community that has a total split should decide or even vote on such a thing, that is what establishes a community. The actions of a community should be what the community wants as long as it is not illegal. I have always hated that whole diversity thing because left to ourselves we will hang with our own kind. I am told diversity is natural, but if it is why must it be forced. Oh well, that is another topic. The constitution does not say that government officials are bound to stop what is guaranteed by the 1st amendment. That makes absolutely no sense. What they cannot do though is cause anyone to be beholden to a particular religion and for that matter thay cannot make anyone beholden to no religion. By antagonists own parsing of the words if not banning religious speech constitutes endorsing it then it surely seems that banning it violates the first amendment's free excercise clause. That would be a Catch-22 so that can't be the right interpretation.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
I am not a Bible thumper either as murph put it. I am not arguing for a theocracy. Boy, if it were I would be in prison right now had it not been for being burned at the stake. What this argument is really about is reading and comprehending the constitution and obviously we ain't never gonna agree. Why won't we ever agree? I want it interpretted just as it is written and the next guy wants to parse words and make it say something it doesn't. Is there an English major in the crowd that can conjugate this simple phrase. I mean is thereof modifying religion or establishment. I do not see why this is so hard. And I definitely do not see any unconstitutional behavior by those students nor do I see any by the school unless it was their idea and they enforced/required it.
Enjoyed the debate, but it is 0215 and I gotta be up early for my lobotomy. Take care now, ya' hear!
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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!!!
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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".
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.