Judge rules for Kountze cheerleaders in Bible banner suit

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that way, does it? Does that mean you can't actually defend your position?

Religious Speech Rights of Public School Students

Does the above mean you're grasping at straws? You should have read the link you posted. Nothing in the article indicated that the school system promoted, endorsed or funded the activities of the religious groups.

You are continuing to confuse the issue of free speech with government sanction and endorsement of religion.

It is not necessary for a school system to promote, endorse, or fund the activities of the religious groups for those activities to be offensive to the Constitution:

Even if we regard every high school student’s decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer [or display of religious banners] has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. For “the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.” Id., at 594. As in Lee, “[w]hat to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.” Id., at 592. The constitutional command will not permit the District “to exact religious conformity from a student as the price” of joining her classmates at a varsity football game.22

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE

Again, the school system is correct in its prohibition of the religious banners per the above case law; it is incumbent upon all public sector entities to know the law and act accordingly.

Hey genius, did you ever answer my question how a school district, like the one in the case you cite repeatedly, actually requiring students to submit their prayers in advance for approval doesn't amount to tacit approval of the speech by the district? Wasn't that the key of that entire case, and the main reason that the court struck it down?

How does that compare to a bunch of students who receive absolutely no funds from the government, and who were denied permission from the district to even make the banners?

You are the self declared expert on constitutional law, this should be easy for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

jtpr is plagiarizing, and a rather poor source.

And We the People, as a whole, generally accept SCOTUS rulings on religious expression and infringement.

Small, fringe groups always protest. But you have to reward them for passion. Carry on.

It is a shame that sensibility is such a rare commodity. YOU carry on, sir.

FakeyJake is not sensible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I will never understand why people get so hung up on specialized cases like this. There are cases where state-sponsored religious activity is very clear, and therefore prohibited as it should be. There are cases of clear cut student-sponsored religious activity that tends to be allowed, as it should be. Then you have cases like this. It's borderline, and people can argue from their respective agenda all day long. Personally, I couldn't care less either way. There is no blatant slap in the face to free speech, the establishment clause, or the free exercise clause. Whatever happens is this case really such a freaking powder keg? I swear. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles, you know?

I used to think like you, then I got smart.

See? We DO have things in common. You should go back to thinking like me. I used to think like you, and I had a chip on my shoulder and some serious anger issues. It started affecting my life in very adverse ways. Then one day I looked at the organization for which I work, a rather large one, and tried to imagine how successful it would be if most or all of the people within it were constantly divided and fighting on every little thing, and I realized it would fall like a house of cards. Abraham Lincoln was right.

I started coming here because I enjoy open dialogue, even with people like you.

I even get caught up in needless fights over minutiae myself, such as you and I have tussled over before. Jake Starkey posted what is probably the most sensible thing yet in this thread. There is a difference between impotent compromise, which I understand is probably what you oppose, and trying to establish a connection between people so there can occasionally be a positive outcome.

If you had anger issues you weren't thinking. I don't, so I am.

If the outcome comes at the expanse of anyone's freedom it is not positive. That is why sensible people don't compromise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Wrong again, congratulations on being consistent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SCOTUS rulings are very clear. Government cannot endorse or enhance religion in tax-supported settings. Thus school board is acting correctly while the students certainly have every right to push their agenda. SCOTUS decisions clearly limit the rights of citizens to enforce their religious beliefs on other citizens in tax-supported settings.

Your gross "generalizations", Hollie, that you appear to think you somehow speak for most Christians in America everywhere is fantasy, not fact. What you believe about the FFs is your opinion only and no caveat that we should believe that it is a mainstream American Christian thinking.

Thank you for sharing, and any time you wish to support your opinions with evidence and documentation, others than can reply to your affirmation with the same.

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

Thanks for proving you never read the actual cases. I suggest you start here to find out just how convoluted and twisted the Supreme Court guidelines on religion in school are.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Thank you for sharing nothing but babble. What agenda you choose to press about the beliefs of the FF's is so much noise.

While there was vigorous debate among the FF's about the inclusion of religion and religious connotations in the constitution, they chose thoroughly neutral phrasing and terminology in connection with the wording of the law.

Feel free to lecture some schoolboy about matters you know little of, but don't feel a need to be pompous in grown-up company.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

Thanks for proving you never read the actual cases. I suggest you start here to find out just how convoluted and twisted the Supreme Court guidelines on religion in school are.

Religion is a touchy subject. It always has been. Few things bring out people's claws as effectively. The subject gets convoluted because people make the subject convoluted. The Supreme Court would never have even been involved if it weren't for people refusing to just live their lives, pursue their happiness, and stop having their axes to grind over every little thing. So, yes, it is mostly those on the left who have made the beefs that the Supreme Court was forced to address. Their decisions, while not perfect, are merely a reflection of what we the people have chosen to make convoluted. What is not surprising is when the extremist pundits judge how the Supreme Court "got it right" or "got it wrong" whenever the decision supports or deflates their respective agenda.

But maybe you're right, Quantum. Maybe I should embrace the far right or far left and become a pundit myself. It sure would make life a lot simpler. The problem is I tried it and I was never happy. Sorry, I'm going to pursue my happiness. And I'm sorry if that offends you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

Thanks for proving you never read the actual cases. I suggest you start here to find out just how convoluted and twisted the Supreme Court guidelines on religion in school are.

Religion is a touchy subject. It always has been. Few things bring out people's claws as effectively. The subject gets convoluted because people make the subject convoluted. The Supreme Court would never have even been involved if it weren't for people refusing to just live their lives, pursue their happiness, and stop having their axes to grind over every little thing. So, yes, it is mostly those on the left who have made the beefs that the Supreme Court was forced to address. Their decisions, while not perfect, are merely a reflection of what we the people have chosen to make convoluted. What is not surprising is when the extremist pundits judge how the Supreme Court "got it right" or "got it wrong" whenever the decision supports or deflates their respective agenda.

But maybe you're right, Quantum. Maybe I should embrace the far right or far left and become a pundit myself. It sure would make life a lot simpler. The problem is I tried it and I was never happy. Sorry, I'm going to pursue my happiness. And I'm sorry if that offends you.

The issue isn't religion, the issue is how little you know about SCOTUS decisions about student speech.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Thanks for proving you never read the actual cases. I suggest you start here to find out just how convoluted and twisted the Supreme Court guidelines on religion in school are.

Religion is a touchy subject. It always has been. Few things bring out people's claws as effectively. The subject gets convoluted because people make the subject convoluted. The Supreme Court would never have even been involved if it weren't for people refusing to just live their lives, pursue their happiness, and stop having their axes to grind over every little thing. So, yes, it is mostly those on the left who have made the beefs that the Supreme Court was forced to address. Their decisions, while not perfect, are merely a reflection of what we the people have chosen to make convoluted. What is not surprising is when the extremist pundits judge how the Supreme Court "got it right" or "got it wrong" whenever the decision supports or deflates their respective agenda.

But maybe you're right, Quantum. Maybe I should embrace the far right or far left and become a pundit myself. It sure would make life a lot simpler. The problem is I tried it and I was never happy. Sorry, I'm going to pursue my happiness. And I'm sorry if that offends you.

The issue isn't religion, the issue is how little you know about SCOTUS decisions about student speech.

And the link to the ACLU website was supposed to provide that knowledge? As usual, you miss my point. I have not read every decision ever made by the Supreme Court. If you have, then bully for you for having that much time on your hands.

I have some familiarity, enough to know that, as I said before, and as in every single Supreme Court decision made on every conceivable Constitutional issue, they are a direct reflection on we the people. What the American people choose to make a big enough stink out of to make before the Supreme Court is a direct reflection of the same. I don't care if we're talking about free speech, abortion, bearing arms, or whatever. The Supreme Court can't be held responsible for how convoluted the issue gets, because it has been made convoluted by the time it reaches them, and they are forced to scrutinize accordingly.

And yes, the issue IS religion, at least partly, because the issue involves all aspects of the 1st Amendment, not just free speech. Besides, you brought up how convoluted the issue gets in regard to religion, not I, so it would seem it is quite a bit about religion for you as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religion is a touchy subject. It always has been. Few things bring out people's claws as effectively. The subject gets convoluted because people make the subject convoluted. The Supreme Court would never have even been involved if it weren't for people refusing to just live their lives, pursue their happiness, and stop having their axes to grind over every little thing. So, yes, it is mostly those on the left who have made the beefs that the Supreme Court was forced to address. Their decisions, while not perfect, are merely a reflection of what we the people have chosen to make convoluted. What is not surprising is when the extremist pundits judge how the Supreme Court "got it right" or "got it wrong" whenever the decision supports or deflates their respective agenda.

But maybe you're right, Quantum. Maybe I should embrace the far right or far left and become a pundit myself. It sure would make life a lot simpler. The problem is I tried it and I was never happy. Sorry, I'm going to pursue my happiness. And I'm sorry if that offends you.

The issue isn't religion, the issue is how little you know about SCOTUS decisions about student speech.

And the link to the ACLU website was supposed to provide that knowledge? As usual, you miss my point. I have not read every decision ever made by the Supreme Court. If you have, then bully for you for having that much time on your hands.

I have some familiarity, enough to know that, as I said before, and as in every single Supreme Court decision made on every conceivable Constitutional issue, they are a direct reflection on we the people. What the American people choose to make a big enough stink out of to make before the Supreme Court is a direct reflection of the same. I don't care if we're talking about free speech, abortion, bearing arms, or whatever. The Supreme Court can't be held responsible for how convoluted the issue gets, because it has been made convoluted by the time it reaches them, and they are forced to scrutinize accordingly.

And yes, the issue IS religion, at least partly, because the issue involves all aspects of the 1st Amendment, not just free speech. Besides, you brought up how convoluted the issue gets in regard to religion, not I, so it would seem it is quite a bit about religion for you as well.

You claimed it is really simple, and that taxpayer funds can never go to religious organizations on at school,. the ACLU site proves you wrong on both counts.

The issue is not religion, so stop changing the subject.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The issue isn't religion, the issue is how little you know about SCOTUS decisions about student speech.

And the link to the ACLU website was supposed to provide that knowledge? As usual, you miss my point. I have not read every decision ever made by the Supreme Court. If you have, then bully for you for having that much time on your hands.

I have some familiarity, enough to know that, as I said before, and as in every single Supreme Court decision made on every conceivable Constitutional issue, they are a direct reflection on we the people. What the American people choose to make a big enough stink out of to make before the Supreme Court is a direct reflection of the same. I don't care if we're talking about free speech, abortion, bearing arms, or whatever. The Supreme Court can't be held responsible for how convoluted the issue gets, because it has been made convoluted by the time it reaches them, and they are forced to scrutinize accordingly.

And yes, the issue IS religion, at least partly, because the issue involves all aspects of the 1st Amendment, not just free speech. Besides, you brought up how convoluted the issue gets in regard to religion, not I, so it would seem it is quite a bit about religion for you as well.

You claimed it is really simple, and that taxpayer funds can never go to religious organizations on at school,. the ACLU site proves you wrong on both counts.

The issue is not religion, so stop changing the subject.

Feel free to point out anywhere in this thread that I ever said such a thing. If you're going to attack me, at least have the decency to address what I said and not what you think I said. I can see your knee jerking from here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right crazees will accuse you of charges that you never make: standard fare for them.

When you point out you did not, they will deny it then demand you point out where they did it: standard fare for them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And the link to the ACLU website was supposed to provide that knowledge? As usual, you miss my point. I have not read every decision ever made by the Supreme Court. If you have, then bully for you for having that much time on your hands.

I have some familiarity, enough to know that, as I said before, and as in every single Supreme Court decision made on every conceivable Constitutional issue, they are a direct reflection on we the people. What the American people choose to make a big enough stink out of to make before the Supreme Court is a direct reflection of the same. I don't care if we're talking about free speech, abortion, bearing arms, or whatever. The Supreme Court can't be held responsible for how convoluted the issue gets, because it has been made convoluted by the time it reaches them, and they are forced to scrutinize accordingly.

And yes, the issue IS religion, at least partly, because the issue involves all aspects of the 1st Amendment, not just free speech. Besides, you brought up how convoluted the issue gets in regard to religion, not I, so it would seem it is quite a bit about religion for you as well.

You claimed it is really simple, and that taxpayer funds can never go to religious organizations on at school,. the ACLU site proves you wrong on both counts.

The issue is not religion, so stop changing the subject.

Feel free to point out anywhere in this thread that I ever said such a thing. If you're going to attack me, at least have the decency to address what I said and not what you think I said. I can see your knee jerking from here.

It seems I got you confused at least partially with another idiot.

You did, however, prove you think something really complicated is simple. the experts on this thin the area is murky and confusing, mostly because SCOTUS makes up its mind on a case by case basis, and lets conflicting standards among different circuits stand.

I fully defend Jake's post. The problem with extremist views like yours and Quantum's is that there is no room in them for everyday Americans who just want to live their lives. SCOTUS rulings provide a pretty sensible framework for dealing with religious expression. There is no perfect solution, there is only the best we can do, and at least where this subject is included, the Supreme Court did its job admirably.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent far left and far right pundits to attack each other under the notion that the other is eroding our rights away. We have a reasonably fair framework through SCOTUS rulings in this regard. This story seems a pretty small fish to dedicate this much frying to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB is backing off his complaints against JJ: typical.

 

[Mr. H.]

Here's an idea... the Nunleader.
Part nun, part cheerleader.
She's got a license to rah rah rah.

 

[jtpr312]

jtpr is plagiarizing, and a rather poor source.

And We the People, as a whole, generally accept SCOTUS rulings on religious expression and infringement.

Small, fringe groups always protest. But you have to reward them for passion. Carry on.

Plagiarizing? Are you a brain dead moron that doesn't recognize the Declaration of Independence, which I not only quoted but sourced? As for the rest of your nonsense that's just what it is, nonsense, the world's history is filled with people that said enough is enough with the abuses of their leadership, heck, the entire middle east and north africa have seen this in just the past year, not to mention our nation's own history, which would include one revolution and one civil war in less than a hundred years.

 

[jtpr312]

Issues like this will not be settled by judges forever, eventually "We the People" will take this nation back from activist judges that "interpret" the Constitution, not on the intents of the founders, but on thier own Godless and moralless opinions and political beleifs. The intent of the founders was NEVER meant to be a separation keeping religion out of the govt, but rather a separation meant to keep the govt out of our religion. The founders themselves grew up using the bible as a text book, and never said or did anything to stop that. Congress approved the printing of the Christian Bible during the Revolutionary war. Govt buildings, including the US Capitol building, where used for Christian church services when Thomas Jefferson, (remember him?), author of that ole "Wall of Separation" letter you Godless heathens and liberals love to quote, was the VP, and the US Marine Corps Band performed in many of these church services held in the Capitol. The US govt paid for missionaries and for the buidling of churches under the authorazation of Thomas Jefferson. I led with Thomas Jefferson because like I said, the Godless heathens and atheists love to quote his letter when addressing the separation issue, of course twisting it to mean something he never intended it to mean, but we have more proof of the Founder's intent than just the facts about Jefferson. We can look at the Founders themselves and what they believed to tell what their "intent" was in regards to the importance of the Christian faith in their lives, decisions and vision for the new nation they were creating.

Stands to Reason:
The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Now only Godless scum, led and influenced by Satan himself, would ever "interpret" the intent of the Founders to be anything other than an intent based upon the core values and morals held by men of God, men who publically, as Govt. officials, the FIRST govt officials, proclaimed their belief in and dedication to, the Christian Lord and Savior. It's obvious that atheists, and for that matter muslims, buddhists, pagans and all other manner of Godless followers of Godless religions, had little or nothing to do with our nation's founding, and the intent of the Founders was never to sepatate the Lord they believed in from the Nation they were founding, but rather to keep the Nation's govt they were leaving behind from interfering with the teachings of the Lord they loved and followed.

These issues run too deep for most Patriots to forever be held in check by Godless courts, led by a tiny, tiny minority of Godless scum. Eventually the Patriots will say enough is enough, this nation was not founded for, nor built by, the Godless scum that now dictates the direction we are heading. Only an idiot, or one led and influenced by the enemy of the faith our Founders held dear, would ever think the founders intended the 14th amendment to mean sodomites and lesbians could be legally recognized as married couples, or that woman can wantonly destroy life in the womb for no reason, or that the intent of the 1st amendment was to deny school kids, or anyone else for that matter, the right to publically proclaim their belief in the Lord ior to tear down Ten Commandment signs on public property or take down Crosses on public land. These things, and the 101 other similar decisions Godless judges have decided over the past few decades, telling us this is their interpretation of the Foudner's intent, while ALL the evidence available contridicts this, will lead to the balkinazation of this nation and secterian warfare eventually. Chief Justice Hughes fired the first shot in 1907 when he informed us peons "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is," but believe me, that wasn't the last shot to be taken, the last shot to be taken is on the horizon. Jefferson warned us of the despotism we would live under if "We the People" allowed robed whores to be the only arbiters of the Constitution, a job the Founders meant to be held by the people as represented in Congress, and Patriots around this nation are starting to heed Jefferson's warning and are starting to remember the words of the REAL founding document of this Nation, which wasn't the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence which tells us;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

The days when of a tiny 2-5% minority, can dictate the morals, values and lives of the 98%, is coming to an end.

Oh my, “godless heathens”. Does that come with a jingle?

Oh, never mind. It appears the Christian Taliban is on a recruiting drive.


With all your impassioned pleas claiming the religious affiliation of the FF’s, what you seem to have missed is that they chose to frame a constitution that was completely neutral about religion. Don’t you find that odd in the context of your suggestion that the FF’s were largely “god(s) fearing” Christians? Maybe you should accept the idea that they knew something you don’t. Completely nuetral about religion? I see you're another ingoramous that allows others to do your thinking for you. There is nothing nuetral about the 1st Amendment, it's quite clear, congress shall pass no law establishing a state religion and Congress shall pass no laws prohibiting the free expression of your relligion. Doesn't sound very "neutral" to me.

The entire constitution defines rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. It does not take any stretch of imagination to understand that the framers of the constitution intended to place limits such that government is restrained from interfering with freedom of speech, promoting and/or favoring any one religion to the detriment of others, etc. I'm sorry, the Constitution says nothing about promoting or favoring one religion over another, that is what Court Precedent said, not what the Constitution said, and Thomas Jefferson warned us that we would live under an oligarchy if we allowed the supreme court to be the only arbiters of the Constitution. If they were adverse to "promoting" one relgion over another, then you could maybe explain to me about the funding to pay missionaries and to build churches coming from Congress. How Congress funded and authorized the printing of a Christian bible during the Revolution. Why they had Chrsitian church services in many Public Buildings including the US Capitol on Sundays and, well the list goes on and on, but my point was made with just one of these.

Some of the FF’s had direct experience with theocracies (of the Christian persuasion), and knew the dangers of coercive religious passions. You should have paid attention to, and actually read, some of the autobiographies of the people you are generously assigning Christianity to. You should also pay attention to the concept of lumping the majority of the FF’s as “Christians” and as a homogenous entity. Gross generalizations such as those you are tossing about typically speak to one bereft of ability to make distinctions between fact and fantasy. Most thinking humans find gross generalizations distasteful and you seem insistent upon believing that your views of the FF’s are proxies for the beliefs of ALL the FF’s. I would have expected that you would be mature enough to take every individual's opinion as its own entity, as you might expect to have done to you. They belonged to Christian curches 93% of them, most of them to the most extremely "conservative" Christian churches of that day and made public declarations of that fact and that is historical fact and that fact speaks for itself.

.

 

[jtpr312]

I wonder if the "intellectual elitists" where still making their tired, lame old points while the Reds stood them up against the walls? Wonder if the lefitists here will be doing so if we ever have a forcible change of govt? Probably, you liberals love nothing more than the sounds of your own bloviating.

 

[editec]

Looks to me like the Cheerleaders WERE promoting Christianity.

So the question is, do they have that right given that they represent a public high school?

I think they probably do althought I personally wouldn't want to be part of any organization that thinks they want to do that..

If they'd quoted Shakepeare instead of the Bible couldn't I object on the grounds that quoting Shakespeare is ALSO a kind of religious statement?

But, you say, Shakespeare isn't a religion or a religious figure, either.


Says who?

ANY utterance or quote can be thought a religious sentiment in the mind of the perceiver.

If I decvided that the love of Shakepeare is a religion, who has the RIGHT to tell me I am wrong?

Nobody, that's who.


Because if they told me that I do not have the RIGHT to decide what is religious, what would THEY be doing?

They'd be imposing their religious beliefs on me, wouldn't they?


So I think that FREEDOM of SPEECH isn't quite so easy to police as some of us imagine it to be.

TRUE AND ABSOLUTE freedom of speech means nobody, nowhere, no time, can prevent anyone from EVER saying anything.


I'm doubtful any of us really want to live in that society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You plagiarize like a dog pees, naturally. Read and quote from Stand to Reason, podjo, but give us the documentation. You plagiarize, you lie, you get caught. From #176 above we find you, For instance, Stand to Reason: The Faith of Our Fathers
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243Was the faith of the Founding Fathers deism or Christianity? ... Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity quoted below without documentation. ...

Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Twice in our history, we had major attempts at change of government: the War of Independence and The Civil War.

You are a Dan Shays not a George Washington. What you don't get is the Spirit of 76 eventually has to be organized into the Spirit 87, that the fight for liberty has to be organized into the Rule of Law.

I wonder if the "intellectual elitists" where still making their tired, lame old points while the Reds stood them up against the walls? Wonder if the lefitists here will be doing so if we ever have a forcible change of govt? Probably, you liberals love nothing more than the sounds of your own bloviating.