Well said. I'm a public school teacher and an atheist, but I was not hired for my beliefs. I completely support my students' right to express their beliefs and to engage in individual devotionals as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other students.
I appreciate your bringing up Jefferson and Madison. They as a tandem do articulate the exact reasons why separation has been a guiding principle. Jefferson considered organized religion a threat to government and to freedom and opposed its encroachment in that direction. Madison, conversely, considered government a threat to religion, stating in essence that the state could not make demands on the duty of the individual to his Maker.
As to the "state churches" of the time of the Ratification, those were relics of the days when colonies were founded to promote rule by one religious sect over all others. The entreaty by the Danbury Baptists was actually an example of a religious minority seeking assurance that the new nation would not go the route of endorsing a state religion.
And the cheerleaders themselves would be fully within their rights AS INDIVIDUALS to represent their religious beliefs and present messages. Such does occur in public schools, as well as prayer, bible reading, and other individual devotional activity. In uniform on the field at the game, on the other hand, they are an extension of that school and the messages they present become the school's (the government's) messages. The federal courts adjudicate these matters, not state, as we were getting into earlier.
Bigdaddydk has some good points, including the fact that many of our founders were indeed Christian or at least Deist.
But separation of church and state has been the guiding principle by which the Constitution has been applied, regardless of the exact words' existence or nonexistence in the Constitution or the BOR.
And the Const. also contains the Supremacy clause, (VI, paragraph 2), by which conflicts between states and the federal government are automatically resolved by giving the federal govt. primacy. If that school is an extension of the state govt, as you say, it can't use "state" status to protect itself against responsibility under the Const.
I completely agree that religion is entitled to a place in public life, as you point out. But there are problems with extending religion into government, which when it occurs at any level can be argued as an endorsement.
Our country has long honored the legitimacy of all religious viewpoints by not allowing any single one to be endorsed by government. Public school property is an extension of government, and a citizen who feels that his viewpoints are de-legitimized by anything that is arguably an endorsement of a religious viewpoint has the right under the Constitution to take it to court.
I feel that the best policy for any governmental entity is strict neutrality in religious matters. After all, how many readers and participants in these responses would have approved of a passage from the Qu'ran on the field?
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
@ bc and silent,
Well said. I'm a public school teacher and an atheist, but I was not hired for my beliefs. I completely support my students' right to express their beliefs and to engage in individual devotionals as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other students.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
@ Span,
WTMMI (Way Too Much MisInformation)
Take care.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
@bigdaddydk,
Thanks for your response.
I appreciate your bringing up Jefferson and Madison. They as a tandem do articulate the exact reasons why separation has been a guiding principle. Jefferson considered organized religion a threat to government and to freedom and opposed its encroachment in that direction. Madison, conversely, considered government a threat to religion, stating in essence that the state could not make demands on the duty of the individual to his Maker.
As to the "state churches" of the time of the Ratification, those were relics of the days when colonies were founded to promote rule by one religious sect over all others. The entreaty by the Danbury Baptists was actually an example of a religious minority seeking assurance that the new nation would not go the route of endorsing a state religion.
And the cheerleaders themselves would be fully within their rights AS INDIVIDUALS to represent their religious beliefs and present messages. Such does occur in public schools, as well as prayer, bible reading, and other individual devotional activity. In uniform on the field at the game, on the other hand, they are an extension of that school and the messages they present become the school's (the government's) messages. The federal courts adjudicate these matters, not state, as we were getting into earlier.
Appreciate your information and thoughts.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
Bigdaddydk has some good points, including the fact that many of our founders were indeed Christian or at least Deist.
But separation of church and state has been the guiding principle by which the Constitution has been applied, regardless of the exact words' existence or nonexistence in the Constitution or the BOR.
And the Const. also contains the Supremacy clause, (VI, paragraph 2), by which conflicts between states and the federal government are automatically resolved by giving the federal govt. primacy. If that school is an extension of the state govt, as you say, it can't use "state" status to protect itself against responsibility under the Const.
I completely agree that religion is entitled to a place in public life, as you point out. But there are problems with extending religion into government, which when it occurs at any level can be argued as an endorsement.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
Our country has long honored the legitimacy of all religious viewpoints by not allowing any single one to be endorsed by government. Public school property is an extension of government, and a citizen who feels that his viewpoints are de-legitimized by anything that is arguably an endorsement of a religious viewpoint has the right under the Constitution to take it to court.
I feel that the best policy for any governmental entity is strict neutrality in religious matters. After all, how many readers and participants in these responses would have approved of a passage from the Qu'ran on the field?