I was at a High School Football Game last week and they said a prayer before the game on the intercom. i called them out for that crap.

I assume the cheerleaders are a school-funded and school-sponsored program. As such, their "speech" as cheerleaders is subject to our 1st amendment jurisprudence.

A banner that says something like "If God is for us who can be against us" that might be considered secular enough to pass muster. The "God" could be viewed as any supernatural being that is fighting on your side.

But the one "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me," clearly promotes Christianity. That is not permitted.

my opinion. Individual students can express their opinions including their religious beliefs as freely as they wish. It's when they are part of a school-sponsored group that problems arise.

So I agree with you on this, Swede Atlanta. Do you agree with me?

It's hard for people to understand the difference, but the difference is the key.

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:54 PM - Edit history (2)

Remember this is a request for a Court Order WITHOUT a hearing. Judges will issue such orders IF the petition for the Order clearly shows a Constitution violation. If there is any question as to it being a Violation of the Constitution the Judge will wait till after the hearing to sign the proposed court order. Right now, all that was in front of the Judge was the Petition to ban the Quotes. There is a question if the Quotes are School mandated, tolerated or even opposed (i.e. Did the School tell the cheerleaders to use the quotes, that would be clearly unconstitutional, or did the school just permit the Cheerleaders to use them? Constitutional if any quotes from any source is permitted, Or did the School OPPOSE the use of the quotes which would violates the First Amendment other ban in regards to religion, the School interfering with the religion of the Cheerleaders).

Just a comment that this decision may be over ruled, but not by a Appellant court, but by the Judge who did not sign it now, the Judge wants to wait for a hearing where both sides can present their facts and then he could make his decision once he has all the facts. Until them all we are doing is speculating NOT based on all the facts involved in this case for we do NOT know them.


I misread the post, a Judge of the State of Texas for the 356 District issued a Court Order PROHIBITING the School from BANNING the Cheerleaders from using the biblical quotes. This is clearly a Freedom of Religion AND a Freedom of Speech Case NOT an Establishment of Religion case. The issue is NOT that the School told the Cheerleaders to use the religious quotes but it is being claimed that the Cheerleaders are picking those quotes themselves and the school is objecting to them. It looks like the Judge believes that the ban by the School District against such quotes is clearly a violation of the Freedom to practice one's religion AND a violation of the Freedom of Speech, both would be violations of the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, the School, as a Government body, can NOT do anything to favor one religion over another, but also can not interfere with the religion of its students. Now, being a School some restrictions are permitted, but limited to those that are needed to keep it an open and friendly school to all students (Schools can NOT ban arm band worn in opposition of the Vietnam War, but the School can ban Students talking in the Halls, even if the talk is political in nature). Lets see what the Judge does at the hearing set for June, 2013.

More on the Judge, but just the address of his Court:
http://www.co.hardin.tx.us/ips/cms/districtcourt/356thdistrictJudge.html

would have the same reaction if they wanted to quote the Koran or Buddha...

At least that's what another court decided in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

Anyone who says students have no rights doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about, or is otherwise thinking their own opinion supercedes the law.

Religious freedom of individual students has been close to bulletproof for awhile in the courts, and should continue to be so. I know that annoys people here because ewwchristiansthereforerepublicans, but rights don't get to go away just because you don't like the people who are using them.

Except when it comes to (choir of ) religion.

Court found that students can not promote illegal activity on school grounds. At this time, it is a Federal crime to offer a bong hit to Jesus.

I particularly like His Sermon on the Blunt.

In the seminal free speech in school case, students were allowed to wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Courts have not said they have no rights. It is just that those rights are limited by the educational situation and questions about disruptivity of the speech or garb and its impact on the educational process. I think the courts often draw the line in the wrong place, but nevertheless, the courts have recognized the right does exist.

TexASS religious cockroaches will do whatever they want
until they are arrested and silenced.

For God so lived the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believerh in him should not perish but have ever slating life SMASH THE TIGERS!!!

lots of lions for the Tigers. We already have enough coliseums.

very good.

... until someone creates a banner saying "Allah is Great" or "Hail Satan" and they won't be able to do a fucking thing about it. These people are really dumber than dirt. And Greg Abbott as well, what a fucking douchenozzle he is.

and raise some kids to Hail Satan in school & then win in court!

in a public school setting which is the government establishing a religion. The 1st amendment says "Congress" but it has been interpreted by the courts for years to mean all levels of elected government, including schools. Of course, our current corrupt supreme court and scalia know exactly what the founders meant... yeah, right!

exercise thereof."

Well, duh, theism (in general) and Christianity (specifically) are already established I checked online so it must be true. Logically, cheerleaders cannot establish what already exists.

Case closed...unless someone says the Constitution doesn't mean what it says or that the 1st Amendment has been repealed.

but there is plenty of free expression.. no one is shutting down any churches.. maybe a mosque or two, but the framers didn't mean muslims, did they? If a few cheerleaders wanted to have a banner that read "praise be to Allah" what do you suppose the response would be? Public schools and public property belong to the public, paid for by taxpayers of different or no religion. Cheerleaders, supported by public funds, need to be cheerleading for the sports teams and not for their churches. We'll see how our corrupt supreme court decides this one.

something that was already established. I addressed the Constitution's text. Thanks for not disagreeing with what it actually says.

When the framers aren't here to explain what they meant, relying on what they said, or didn't say, may lead to the correct inference. Did they mean to outlaw faith with respect to government? Hard to logically reach that conclusion when they dated the Constitution with: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

I recognize also that no USSC has ever prohibited chaplains, including muslims, who are actually paid by federal government.

mean to, not "outlaw faith with respect to government," but to separate faith and government. The writings of Thomas Jefferson and others are strongly in favor of this rather radical idea (at the time.) I sure like it because it does seem religions are often more corrupt than governments. When something is done "in the name of God or Jesus" look out. No point in arguing. Now that's scary. The sentence you refer to is the only mention of any diety in our Constitution.
My Muslim reference was scarcasm.. sometimes not so good.

Church of England.

Allowing everyone the same freedom to express faith or lack thereof creates the "when everyone is special, nobody is" situation. Then the question shifts whether you will tolerate another's belief or whether you will take measures to squelch it.

I favor the freedom route and oppose efforts to prevent words that do not pose a clear and present danger.

Teachers leading prayers in classrooms, teaching creationism, carrying banners with Bible slogans at public school events all may be classified as freedom of expression, but it really is silencing the freedom of anyone who may have a different believes. It is promoting one religion. The next step is a state religion.
The outrage here isn't against the kids with the banner, it is against anyone who would complain about it, which, I think, is the very definition of an "established religion!" The majority of Americans may be Christian, but the day we become a "Christian Nation" we are doomed.

Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, eastern Orthodox, etc, etc. Jews aren't monolithic with Hasidim, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc, etc. Muslims aren't monolithic with Sunni, Sh ia, Sufi, Alawite, Wabbits, etc, etc. There are Hindus, Shintos, Gosar Worshipers, Humanists, Earth Goddesses, Naturist, Satanists, Scientology, Druids, Voodoo, etc, etc. and of course, one of my my favorites - Latter-Day Chevis Regal Drinkers. here are more than we can list.

The United Kingdom has an official (Anglican) Church of England with their monarch serving also as the head of their Church. The US has no designated faith but guarantees everyone the right to make their own choice. When the nation or a state picks a favorite or restricts the free exercise of one's faith, the Constitution is being violated.

Picking a winner just ain't going happen. Restricting citizens' expression of faith does happen.

"an official state religion".

It is tantamount to the promotion of religion by a publicly-funded, government institution which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and applies to each of the various states under the Incorporation Doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is settled law as shown by numerous SCOTUS decisions over the years.

appreciate the help.

maybe because I grew up teachers praising Jesus while they paddled kids. What a relief in my second year of high school when the supreme court ruled against prayer in public schools. My home room teacher was furious that he could no longer preach to us. Religion does not belong in public schools, period. Seems like such a silly thing, these kids with the scripture, but it really is disrespectful to others who may have other beliefs. It's a public school, for heaven's sake! Pray in church!!

Good luck.

They don't believe that the Dominionists or the Mormons want to make "The Handmaids Tale" a true story.

"Religion good. Criticism religion BAD! Must not offend religious peoples!"

Why is it necessary to shove one's religion down everyone's throat in a PUBLIC school? I'm sorry, Christians, why don't you follow the teachings of Jesus who said we should pray in private along with many other of His teachings that are ignored by the theocrats.

And though most followers won't admit it, religion is about authoritarian control.

conveniently leaving out the many SCOTUS rulings relating to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and Incorporation Doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment (application of the Constitution to States).

This is the same concept which prohibits students from wearing religious t-shirts, holding prayer sessions in public buildings, and allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courthouses and schools.

In short, no publicly-funded, government-run, institution can be seen to be promoting or allowing the promotion, of either religion or one religion over another.

es·tab·lish (-stblsh)
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es
1.
a. To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.
2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.
3. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
4. To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
5. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.
6. To make a state institution of (a church).


From Webster's:


1

: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement


2

obsolete: settle 7


3

a: to make firm or stable

b: to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>

4

a: to bring into existence : found <established a republic>

b: bring about, effect <established friendly relations>

5

a: to put on a firm basis : set up <establish his son in business>

b: to put into a favorable position

c: to gain full recognition or acceptance of <the role established her as a star>

6

: to make (a church) a national or state institution


7

: to put beyond doubt : prove <established my innocence>

— es·tab·lish·able adjective

you are only reading a part of the First Amendment which would seem to agree with your argument. The entire sentence 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."

The operative phrase in the first sentence is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment..." In 1994 the SCOTUS ruled that the "establishment clause" equally applied to states (specifically school districts) and that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

So yes, Christianity is certainly "established," but no government agency can promote either religion, or one religion over another.

Freaks.

the cheerleaders rioting, murdering, sacrificing virgins, etc. Please post those photos because they aren't coming up from Google.

How do you know that they're religious extremists?

... whacked in the head.

So what if that's what they believe, doesn't make them freaks or whacked in the head.
I believe in God and I say a prayer every night before I hit the streets to keep me safe, seems to have worked so far, haven't been injured in 30 years and I firmly believe that's because God is looking out for me, does that make me a freak or whacked in the head?
Lighten up. Who are you to judge what other people believe?

God wasn't looking out for them? Maybe they should have prayed?

I've been flying airplanes for 25 years without a scratch - no prayers. Imagine that!

I also carry a rock in my pocket that keeps tigers away. It works great!!

If that's what these young ladies want to believe, so what? That doesn't make them freaks or whacked in the head.
Glad you've never had an accident in 25 years, you couldn't get me to fly aircraft for any amount of money, I like my feet planted firmly on the ground.
Stay safe in the air.

cya later...............

they want a bunch of girls in short skirts kickin' it for Jeebus? well okay then rah rah go team and all that

The team players, coaches, trainers have no need to practice or even suit up if they don't want to--the victory is the Lord's and the opposing team might as well not show up. Interesting definition of sports they've got going there...Perhaps the school district could save money by just doing away with all those foolish games, declare themselves champs, make winners' trophies for that big glass case outside the principal's office, and spend the funds on education that matters--you know, literature, civics, social studies, math, to name a few. I'm sure the wanna-be jocks would spend their time in prayer, Tim Tebow style. And the cheerleaders could keep cheering for Jesus, their Lord and Saviour, who will I'm sure reward them in many wondrous ways.

Sheesh!

Maybe because they didn't pray hard enough (or perhaps something to do with their talent base, training, and coaching staff but mostly Jesus).

a middle eastern misogynist theocratic messianic mess.

Go team

Can't wait for that Allah banner

I realize it's at a football game, and it's on public property, but...

Isn't cheer leading supposed to be all about pimping Jesus?

I mean, Jesus and God have no power, so they can't sell themselves. That's why they need teenaged girls to shake their breasts and butts to pimp their product line.

I'm just being realistic. Sex sells, so the best way to sell God is to have pretty girls shake their assets and cheer for their invisible deity.

I'm sure the judge understood that public property and public events are meant for religious proselytizing. That's why we all go to sporting events, right? To have religion pushed in our faces?

It's some small-minded Texas state judge. A federal judge would never agree to this nonsense.

They have as much fucking free speech as they want. I'd like to see some Islam quotes on those banners too.

from up the thread. "May our opponents perish in the river of fire!"

"We shall strike down your first born."

A Court can NOT issue a Court Order UNLESS it is clear on the petition's face that the Order is needed to prevent "harm". (Harm being defined as a violation of the First Amendment). Remember the First has TWO Clauses in regard to Religion, the first is the Government will NOT establish a religion the second is the Government will do NOTHING to interfere with religion (and that is tied is with freedom of Speech).

Thus unless there is clear evidence that the School district, not the students are having the cheerleaders use the phases from the bible, no judge will enter an order without a hearing first. The hearing will be for both sides to make their point and provide evidence that this act is promoting a religion not just tolerating the religious beliefs of the Cheerleaders. That the School asked the Cheerleaders NOT to use those quotes from the bible seems to indicate this was an independent act of the Cheerleaders and if that is the case the School can NOT stop them from uses the quotes for that would be interfering with their religion AND their Freedom of Speech.

This type of situation is always a close call, very dependent on the facts of the case. Are the Cheerleaders doing this on their own, or is the School encouraging them? Is the School interfering with their religion and speech or is the School just doing enough regulations to make sure the School is not a hostile place for others. Thus up to a Judge to Decide after he hears all of the evidence from both sides.

I misread the post, a Judge of the State of Texas for the 356 District issued a Court Order PROHIBITING the School from BANNING the Cheerleaders from using the biblical quotes. This is clearly a Freedom of Religion AND a Freedom of Speech Case NOT an Establishment of Religion case. The issue is NOT that the School told the Cheerleaders to use the religious quotes but it is being claimed that the Cheerleaders are picking those quotes themselves and the school is objecting to them. It looks like the Judge believes that the ban by the School District against such quotes is clearly a violation of the Freedom to practice one's religion AND a violation of the Freedom of Speech, both would be violations of the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, the School, as a Government body, can NOT do anything to favor one religion over another, but also can not interfere with the religion of its students. Now, being a School some restrictions are permitted, but limited to those that are needed to keep it an open and friendly school to all students (Schools can NOT ban arm band worn in opposition of the Vietnam War, but the School can ban Students talking in the Halls, even if the talk is political in nature). Lets see what the Judge does at the hearing set for June, 2013.

More on the Judge, but just the address of his Court:
http://www.co.hardin.tx.us/ips/cms/districtcourt/356thdistrictJudge.html

It certainly isn't going to be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The gospel of Jesus is not compatible with football. It won't be that verse about not following a multitude to do evil or pig skin being unclean. And I assume it won't be something to do with modesty in dress either.

"Christian" cheerleading-football stuff is the sport of the anti-Christ.

Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education, 240 F.3d 465 (6th Cir. 2000)

Facts:
A high school student wore a t-shirt to school bearing the name of the shock rocker Marilyn Manson. The shirt depicted a three-faced Jesus, bearing the words "See No Truth. Hear No Truth. Speak No Truth." On the back, the shirt contained the word "BELIEVE" with the letters "LIE" highlighted.

A school official told the student that the T-shirt violated the school’s dress code policy, which prohibited "clothing with offensive illustrations." The school official ordered the student to either turn the shirt inside out or leave school. The student left and returned the next day with another Marilyn Manson t-shirt. He was again sent home. The student sued, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights. A federal district court dismissed the suit. The student appealed to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Issue:
Whether school officials can prohibit a student from wearing t-shirts with offensive messages.

Holding:
In a 2-1 vote, a Sixth Circuit panel ruled that school officials may prohibit students from wearing clothing that is vulgar or offensive.

Reasoning:
The majority quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fraser: "It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse." In addition, the court ruled that the school could prohibit student clothing which is "patently contrary to the school’s educational mission."

Majority:
"The standard for reviewing the suppression of vulgar or plainly offensive speech is governed by Fraser." (Judge Harry W. Wellford)

Dissent:
The dissenting judge argued that school officials cannot forbid students from wearing t-shirts simply because they disagree with the shirt’s message. "In sum, the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence prohibits school officials from telling a student that he cannot wear a particular T-shirt simply because they perceive that the T-shirt is communicating a message with which they disagree." (Judge Ronald Lee Gilman)

to hold up banners with Wiccan symbols/sayings? Muslim? Pagans? It all falls under the same First Amendment.

Lots of preachers needin' a paycheck.

religion" to "cheerleaders are not allowed to put scripture on their banners".

from what scriptures one can quote?

That would, imo, respect an establishment of one religion over another.

read up on the SCOTUS interpretation of the "establishment clause." Specifically, Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994).

by pointing them to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

exact opposite. The SCOTUS, beginning as far back as 1947, has consistently ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit ANY government agency or institution from promoting or allowing the promotion of, religion or of one religion over another.

The definition of the Establishment Clause, and its reach to the states under the Incorporation Doctrine leave little room for doubt about the intent of the Constitution on the matter of separating religion from government influence -- at any level.

This is why religious meetings or services can not be held in publicly-funded government buildings and institutions during official hours. This is why the Ten Commandments can not be displayed in court houses and other public institutions. These are not newly instituted concepts, but have been around for a long time.

On the other hand, Heller and Citizens United were one-off politically motivated and influenced narrow 5-4 decisions bought and paid for by special interest groups. Not so with the numerous Establishment Clause and the Incorporation Doctrine decisions which have stood the test of time.

And I really don't care how courts have interpreted the Establishment clause. As far as I am concerned, a Nativity scene on a town square is not tantamount to Congress making a law establishing a religion. I know that courts have ruled otherwise, but I disagree with those decisions, just as some people disagree with the Citizens United decision.

constitutional right to disagree, but that does not change the law, and we are a nation of laws. We are NOT a Christian nation as some would like to believe, but a secular nation which respects the rights of all to subscribe to any religion of their choosing. That was the very intent of the authors when they included the Establishment Clause as the first sentence in the Bill of Rights.

Setting up a Nativity scene in a town square is the promotion of the Christian religion, and is just as repugnant to some as the banning of its display is to you. Setting up a Nativity scene on private property, however, is just fine and no one has a problem with it. It is not the act, but the venue, and publicly-funded property belongs not only to Christians, but to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and to ALL Americans of any belief system.

Are you being facetious? Students wear t-shirts promoting religion at schools across the country every single day. I've seen kids with t-shirts saying anything from "Choose Life," to "John 3:16," to t-shirts advertising a particular church, religious club, or even seasonal event, like the annual "Harvest Festival," an event at which 70,000 evangelicals go to the stadium and pray together for three days.

Religious services can be and are held in schools and other public institutions every single day. The difference is you cannot hold a religious service as a a curricular activity. But I can tell you, Campus Life, Christian Youth, and all other kinds of religious clubs have meetings on campus, pray on campus, discuss God and religion on campus, and all other form of religious meetings and or services. Since it happens at lunch, before school, or after school, and is not a required but an optional extracurricular activity, it is fine. What would violate free speech would be to ban religious-based youth organizations. You'd have to ban all extra-curricular clubs and then you could ban religious clubs.

about the t-shirts, but the other religious activities can not be seen as being "promoted" or encouraged by the school. After hours is fine, but not during school hours, or while participating in school sponsored activites such as sporting events.

Generally, the SCOTUS has ruled that Public schools are not supposed to be religion-free zones, but neither are they supposed to be religious indoctrination centers. They are supposed to be neutral with regard to the religious beliefs of students.

As religious clubs do meet at lunch times, which are during school hours. But agreed on the general principle: no indoctrination and no religion-free zones. Which means religious signs painted by cheerleaders and held up at official school events--extracurricular though they may be--are not clearly violations. This will be an interesting case for the courts. The lawyering -- and who makes a convincing argument about how to frame the question will matter a lot.