warning this can offend law abiding citizens - Which I'm not one of.

reply to post by nixie_nox


No, but you can get injured or break your neck and die at a lot of different sporting events.

Originally posted by nenothtu

With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.

So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.

Doesn't matter. It was upheld in Abington School District v Schempp in 1963. 8 to 1 decision.

It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.

I explained it in the previous post.

reply to post by sickofitall2012


And someone can fall off a stage. Why are sporting events special?

reply to post by bigcountry08


I didn't say it was against the law to hold prayer in a public place. I said it should be, and is in most places, against the law to subject people to a group prayer at a STATE event. Not a private event.

The Christian symbols in government buildings is a pretty gray area for me. I don't think the ten commandments should be there, but some ART from the Christian religion should be ok. As long as it is not blatantly promoting the religion.

I really don't understand how you can say that separation of church and state is perversion of the constitution. It protects the tax paying citizens from a particular religion being pressed upon them. I'm pretty sure our forefathers wanted freedom of religion to PROTECT the citizens from a potential theocracy, not to give the state the right to press their religious agenda upon them.

Why don't all the fundamentalist Christians stop beating around the bush and come out and say what you really think. You want the Constitution and our Government to be based on Christianity and Christianity alone. Stop hiding behind that tolerant facade.

reply to post by Loki Lyesmyth



" hell the sick people worship the blood of Christ, they LOVE it. Sadists. "

What are you talking about? Catholics? I cry at the thought of Christ's blood, I do not worship it.
I'm a Christian and just about every single sterotype you posted does not even pertain to me, so to be a bit more acurate in your descriptions, perhaps you should try and not generalize all Christians.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.

So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.

Doesn't matter. It was upheld in Abington School District v Schempp in 1963. 8 to 1 decision.

So the justices were upholding a previous precedent, and it was STILL not unanimous. You ARE aware of the role of precedent in court proceedure, right?

It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.

I explained it in the previous post.

No, you just stated there was a fallacy somewhere, without explaining what you thought it was.

Edit: to fix screwed up quote tags.

[edit on 2010/5/26 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nixie_nox


Look up the stats on how many people are injured and killed in sports every year, verses how many" fell off stage. " I think if someone wants to pray that their loved not get hurt, it's ok.

Originally posted by apacheman
Would the principal's supporters feel the same way if he were a Muslim, Wiccan, Satanist, or Hindu?

Somehow I think they'd be screaming for his head.

This isn't about "freedom", it's about promoting one faith over all others.

Christians always preach tolerance while practicing intolerance.

If I'm watching football, you've no right to push your faith on me while I'm doing it, unless you advertise in advance it's a Christian event, in which case fine, but I won't be there.

Star for you! I agree it is about promoting christianity over other religions. Its not the fact that they are praying, its that they cannot not mention Super Jebus and the Heavenly Papa. I am not christian but respect the teachings of Christ as valid teachings and if the Christians would actually follow their teachings NONE OF THIS would be a problem, but they don't so it is.

The entire article was nothing but a pro-christian stance and a sad "look at me I'm a good christian" attempt as showing us godless savages how right he was and gaud has a place ere in amurika. Yee Haa!

Religion is optional. Just like attenting a football game is optional. My thing is, there are many religious people who do Not respect the non-religious people and I do believe that non-religious outnumber the religious.

I've experienced discrimination from all sorts of religions, because I wont convert or because I disagree with some of their beliefs. Then they snub me for not Agreeing with them. I thought that was against God's Laws or something, smh.

All I know is, if ex-president Bush Jr was allowed to give those ridiculous speeches to the world, then we should be allowed to say equally ridiculous, or not, speeches within our communities and people have to listen whether they like it or NOT. haha

Lead by example... Thank you Mr. President!

My second point is: Why is it necessary to have prayer or the National Anthem at a sporting event?

I hope you're not actually a U.S. citizen and if you are I almost come to tears. If you don't like prayer we agree to disagree, but saying the national anthem plays no part at sporting events sickens me. Please I beg of you go out and find a marine and tell him that the national anthem has no place in a public setting. You disgust me please put up your address maybe some of us proud Americans can pool together and give you a first class ticket to china, oh or maybe Korea yeah that sounds like a great place to live.

We don't do it before a movie, play, or opera. So why a sporting event?

Um we used to but over the years they have stopped. There is actually a theater in my home town where they still do play the national anthem, and no were not some small town of 100 rednecks we actually have around 150,000 people who live here, and it's a northern state. (Not saying anything against southern states
)

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Then it seems as though it boils down to a difference in understanding of the constitution.

I see religious freedom as being able to express yourself freely. I understand not allowing it in a classroom. But do not feel that stifling it before a football game is in any way within the spirit of the constitution.

I further state that unless someone in attendance feels the need to redress this, there is no issue.

But i cannot argue that the way he went about it was obnoxious.

Deedeedeee...

The right to worship is not being taken away. The law is being enforced to stop government workers from establishing religion.

well, you just earned an a trip to the "iggy list".

I am happy to discuss things with people who are not so emotionally involved that they must insult me in lieu of discussion.

Bad form. Thumbs down.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Why could the coach not just quietly say a prayer by himself or with a group of like minded volunteers? Why did he need to announce these things over the PA? It works both ways. Why should I have to ignore your rant about homosexuals and your religious view of them? Why cant you just hate them to yourself?

The coach could have. But the right to free speech means that sometimes you may have to hear someone say something you don't like.

I can't stand KKK. But i am proud to live in a nation that idiots like that can express themselves. It lets us all know who the morons are.

So how would you like a gay pride parade being held before the big game? Paid for with tax dollars on school property? Would that be cool with you?

You cannot equate hundreds or thousands spent on a gay parade with the utterance of a few words before a game. Apples vs. lawnchairs....not related.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But do not feel that stifling it before a football game is in any way within the spirit of the constitution.

I believe that it is. The notion of a public servant accepting pay from the public coffers pushing religious principles at an event funded by pay from the public coffers in exactly why the First Amendment exists and is exactly what it is about. The rights of the people were established to protect them from these types of misbehavior from government employees.

Not sure about elsewhere, but in Texas football supports itself, and the other athletic programs.

The announcer/principle is not paid for their time, and every person in the stadium has paid entry for entertainment.

At the very least, it should be recognized that, due to the nature of the event, it is a grey line between "school" and private.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu
Should be pretty easy to find it and explain it then, right? Why haven't you done so? I've searched the Constitution up and down, and still haven't found what you imply is there. You'll have to point it out to me.

If you can.

From this site:

School districts must allow religious speech on the same terms as they allow other speech. Therefore, students have the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and religious discussion during the school day as they do to engage in other comparable activities. A public school may not suppress or exclude private student speech for the sole reason that the speech contains a religious perspective. Although public school officials may not promote or initiate student prayer or require unwilling students to participate in prayer, they may support and give official recognition to this nation's collective religious heritage without risking a violation of the Establishment Clause.

This was established in the U.S. Supreme court in the case Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

What part of that bit of legal trivia addresses the speaking to adults who are not students (i.e., the majority in attendance at a high school football game)?

Yep, grey area at best. In my opinion, when we have grey area we should always err on the side of freedom.

Originally posted by bigcountry08
Um we used to but over the years they have stopped. There is actually a theater in my home town where they still do play the national anthem, and no were not some small town of 100 rednecks we actually have around 150,000 people who live here, and it's a northern state. (Not saying anything against southern states)

(sidebar) Up until the mid 1960's, the National Anthem (GB) used to be played at the end of each film at the cinema. People would stand, some would sing, none left the auditorium until the Anthem was finished.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
My first point will be:
Want prayer at school? Then go to Catholic School.

My second point is: Why is it necessary to have prayer or the National Anthem at a sporting event?

We don't do it before a movie, play, or opera. So why a sporting event?

Are we saying that a football game and its players are holier and deserve more respect then the kids who are putting on a musical?

My take on it:

We have prayer in school because religion is a foundational principle in much of America. Most American's want to take an opportunity to ask for strength, support, whatever. That is why we live in America...so people can do things that others might find trivial.

The reason i don't mind it at a game is because the things said ("teach our kids sportsmanship", "watch over our players", "continue to watch over our land", et al) are all things that are not only harmless, but actually act in a capacity of "living an example". No, i am not Christian. But the values have made for a good nation. We shouldn't cast those aside just out of pseudointellectualism.

As far as the anthem goes, you have a high school band. They need to perform, right?

And in the US the national anthem precedes every sporting event.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

With a dissent, I note, and apparently 2 abstentions, since there are 9 justices.

So it wasn't unanimous. I'll have to wade through the decision and the dissent, in order to see what was said, and what wasn't said, Could take a while, since there will also be briefs to consider.

Doesn't matter. It was upheld in Abington School District v Schempp in 1963. 8 to 1 decision.

It would be nice of you to point out the fallacy, rather than just making a blanket statement that there is one there somewhere.

I explained it in the previous post.

You have stated this quite a bit. So...if it is a legal discussion then we need to produce a victim to seek redress of injury.

Without it, this is not even an academic debate.

The decision of Engel v. Vitale:

ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
370 U.S. 421

ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 468.
Argued April 3, 1962.
Decided June 25, 1962.

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.

source

Elements to consider:

the decision is against -

1) "an official state prayer"

2) composed by state officials

3) requiring recitation

4) in the public schools of the State

5) at the beginning of each school day

I fail to see how this applies here. The elements are lacking.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by Loki Lyesmyth

 

" hell the sick people worship the blood of Christ, they LOVE it. Sadists. "

What are you talking about? Catholics? I cry at the thought of Christ's blood, I do not worship it.
I'm a Christian and just about every single sterotype you posted does not even pertain to me, so to be a bit more acurate in your descriptions, perhaps you should try and not generalize all Christians.

Agreed your not all the same and we non christians arn't abortion loving savages anally raping children while passing out condoms and crack to preschoolers after worshiping satan all night.

Communion is The body and blood I spoke of.

I really mean this, why would a religion keep an image of a tortured dead man at the head of their church? I mean shouldn't a religion of love, life and peace have a big smiling face and visions of happiness up there, not a morbid snuff scene. Oh yeah its to remind us of the sacrifice right? Again a religion built on blood and it has continued such for 2k years. So much blood on the churches hands.

"the church is a whore but she is my mother" St Augustine

Check out the movie Lord Save Us From Your Followers. Its awesome, made by a Christian and really sum's up the problem with christianity today and shows how people view the church. Again I am non christian but respect the teachings and believe it would be a GREAT religion if people would actually follow the teachings and not do JUST ENOUGH to get to heaven.

You will take Christ as your savior to get into heaven just as long as you don't have to get dirty and give up your ego and greed.

I really do wish no harm to anyone and peace and love to all.
Do no harm, love all.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I have read your constitution and nowhere does it say a person in a public position can announce their religious views in a public forum like a school. The school is state run and as you have a seperation of church and state it most certainly includes the schools. Would you also be ok for an atheist to come on the PA system and say there is no god?

Are you serious? You've honestly read the Tennessee Constitution, which is not mine, or have read the Federal Constitution, and you seriously think that the people can only do what the Constitution tells them they can do? What kind of government sycophant are you? The government has no authority whatsoever to grant rights, and both federal and state constitutions are a grant of rights for government not the people, and in these Constitutions are express prohibitions. What utter disingenuousness to come off pretending that people can only do what a constitution says they can do. If you want to be a slave to government this is your choice, but don't pretend to act as if you understand better the U.S. federal and state laws of which you know nothing about