Hi there vbscript2 @ 03:28. I’m afraid I have to disagree with your logic there and say I think my point is indeed germane. My query, asking if there would be support for government-endorsed/imposed religion at the hand of president Obama was an extension of the earlier part of my argument, which you seem to have not included when you quoted my text, in which I theorized on a situation where, contrary to fact, reality, and federal law, government could legally allow religious speech on its property and through its offices. If that were the case, (“Were” because it is a statement contrary to fact) which a shocking, horrifying number of these comments seem steadfastly to believe really is the case, that religious speech is okay on public property if the community endorses what’s being said, then that would mean the government must have the right to be involved in religious speech. If that last were so (again, a statement contrary to fact) then why would it not follow that the chief governmental officer, Barack Obama, or his cabinet-level appointee, the Secretary of Religion, would be allowed to decide which religious tracts, beliefs, etc were going to be the set of beliefs officially supported by the government? Protestantism, Unitarianism, Calvinism, what have you. If the government allows religious events or speech to take place on its property, then it is involving itself in religion, agreed? If it involves itself in religion, what is to stop it from deciding it wants to endorse one or another religion?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
Hi there vbscript2 @ 03:28. I’m afraid I have to disagree with your logic there and say I think my point is indeed germane. My query, asking if there would be support for government-endorsed/imposed religion at the hand of president Obama was an extension of the earlier part of my argument, which you seem to have not included when you quoted my text, in which I theorized on a situation where, contrary to fact, reality, and federal law, government could legally allow religious speech on its property and through its offices. If that were the case, (“Were” because it is a statement contrary to fact) which a shocking, horrifying number of these comments seem steadfastly to believe really is the case, that religious speech is okay on public property if the community endorses what’s being said, then that would mean the government must have the right to be involved in religious speech. If that last were so (again, a statement contrary to fact) then why would it not follow that the chief governmental officer, Barack Obama, or his cabinet-level appointee, the Secretary of Religion, would be allowed to decide which religious tracts, beliefs, etc were going to be the set of beliefs officially supported by the government? Protestantism, Unitarianism, Calvinism, what have you. If the government allows religious events or speech to take place on its property, then it is involving itself in religion, agreed? If it involves itself in religion, what is to stop it from deciding it wants to endorse one or another religion?
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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?"