"To the best of my research, you have to go down to Florida and back to 1968 to find a strike threat of effort in the Southeast by educators."
Well, then your research is lacking. Here in Putnam County, TN, a strike by our good, old teacher's union (TEA, of course) delayed the start of school by several weeks back in 2001. I remember this very well because I was a high school student at the time and they're strike delayed the start of school so long that our first day of class was September 11, 2001.
Of course, you only have to listen to the nonsense coming from TEA itself to realize that, like all unions, they are in the business of fostering an adversarial relationship between teachers and local school boards. This, of course, is because in the absense of an adversarial relationship between the employer and the employee, unions can't justify the fees that they take from the employees.
'Collective bargaining' is a just a euphemism for 'price collusion,' which is a federal crime for anyone except a union (and it should be for them, too.) It's anti-competitive and anti-market and very bad for consumers, which is why it's illegal for everyone else. However, the union hacks have paid off enough politicians to get it legalized for them. I don't have a problem with professional organizations raising the interests of a group of professionals, but collective bargaining of wages should be outlawed.
"This argument is not about Christianity...it is about Americans who are not educated trying to force their beliefs on to everyone else."
Yeah, and you're not trying to do that at all. By the way, I'm not aware of any Christians in the U.S. who are trying to force their beliefs on you (there may be a few who would like that, but not many.) There is a difference between forcing their bliefs on you and expressing them to you and letting you decide for yourself whether to believe them and what actions to take. The latter is what almost all of the Christians that I've ever met are trying to do. Wish I could say the same for liberals.
Oh, and save the "not educated" crap. Christians comprise about 80% of the U.S. population, last I checked, including many of the most educated people in the nation. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they aren't educated. Personally, I graduated Summa Cum Laude in Computer Science and am pursuing a Master's degree in the same, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider myself educated. In all liklihood, I'm more educated that you are, but that doesn't make either of our beliefs more or less valid.
My personal opinion:
I find taking scripture out-of-context to support a football team to be distasteful at best, but if the cheerleaders would have otherwise been allowed to put up signs of any nature, I see no legal precedence for banning these.
And, yes, the reasoning for applying the first amendment to schools is that they receive funding allocated by Congress. While it is not a violation of the Constitution for a school run by a particular state to promote a religion, that school's federal funding could be pulled on that grounds if the school's officials were promoting a particular religion (but, again, NOT for its students doing so on their own.)
"The difference is, those who DO NOT want such help are not caught up in the communication of the ideas."
Not being "caught up in the communication of the ideas" may be your desire, but it is by no means your right under any U.S. law, be it the Constitution or otherwise. I don't want to see beer ads, cheerleaders dressed provacatively, etc. at ball games, but that doesn't make it my right. I can ask them to stop (as could the concerned parent in this case,) but that in no way obligates them to do so.
"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?"
A red herring to this discussion, at best. This was not a case of some official deciding what would be displayed, but, rather, a group of --students-- making a sign on their own with no direction to do so or as to the contents by any government-employed official. Obviously, a government official deciding to post such a sign would be opposed by just about anyone. Whether you agree with allowing the students to do this or not, please at least stick to the topic at hand, which is what a group of --students-- are allowed to do at a school function, not what some official has ordered. These are two completely different situations, regardless of what your opinion is regarding either.
"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?"
Sorry, but I have to point out that it's funny how you apologize for being off-topic at the beginning of your post, then just replace it with another off-topic (and completely unfounded) accusation.
To answer your off-topic and unfounded accusation: I don't know about Chatt, but the local churches here (in Northern Middle TN) probably did more than anyone else to help the flood victims here. As long as we still have resources of our own that aren't taken by these rediculous levels of socialism, Christians will continue to be among the first to help out when we can.
"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."
Oh? And where did you see anything that would logically lead to that conclusion? Didn't think so. Yet another unfounded accusation. Just because several members of the team are Christians and put up some Christians signs doesn't mean that they were banning non-Christians from the team.