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!!!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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."
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).
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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!!!
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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."
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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.
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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."
Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire
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).