Updated: E. Texas Cheerleaders Keep Banners, for Now
Updated, Oct. 18, 1:41 p.m.:
Cheerleaders at Kountze High School can keep displaying their banners inscribed with Bible verses on the field at football games until a trial set to begin June 24 resolves the issue, an East Texas district court judge ruled Thursday.
Judge Steven Thomas granted an injunction against the school district's rule prohibiting the banners after a morning hearing in Hardin County. The summer trial date means the game-time practice is safe for the rest of the school year — unless, of course, the parties involved reach a settlement agreement before then.
Original story:
The ...
Comments (22)
Samdavis
Another idiotic, politically expedient move by the state. These aren't atheists bringing the suit anymore than the people in Kountze are really Christian. The actions are being done on school grounds, it's a violation. No one is telling Kountze they can't have signs in the stands; they just can't have cheerleaders, representatives of the school, promoting religion even if it is the predominant one.
Bologna Vest
Give me a G! Give me an O! Give me a D! What's that spell? First amendment violation by the school district.
george [ace
Perry claims that he'd act the same if the banners contained quotes from the Quran. Does anyone really believe that? So if some Muslim students at the school asked to have a Quran quote on a banner used by the cheerleaders Perry would be in favor? Freedom of religious expression, correct? What about a "freedom of expression" quote from, say, Thomas Jefferson, denying any miracles by Jesus? I thought so.
WUSRPH
While I really do not have that much problem with what the kids are doing, I do have two minor questions:
1. Is there any linkage between the fact that the school district involved is in Kountze which just happens to be the very little town in Texas where the Klu-Klux-Klan was active for longer than any place else in the state? and
2. Does anyone think that Atty. General l Quack-Quack and Governor Oops would be jumping into the fight it one of the cheerleaders was an atheist and wanted to put atheist cheers (whatever that might be)¨ on her banner or if she was a commie and wanted to display a slogan such as “Workers of the World unite to crush the Beaumont Capitalists” ?
Duh!
If it were you can that Perry would be as high up on his self-proclaimed pulpit as he can get screaming out “Satan, Satan, Satan is loose”….after all he already accused the local school board of being the folks who ganged up on Jesus and had him tried….
Then you have to remember that—as Oops has proven time and time again—hypocrisy is the Official Religion of Texas Politics.
Steven Kite
This is, after all, Texas. The only parts of the Constitution that apply (and then only to Anglo Republican Males) are the First, Second, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. The rest is a commie plot. (Oh, and parts of the First Amendment are the bait....)
donald baker
It is time for some counter lawsuits by the Attorney General against these fringe kooks. If these looney tunes had to bring their checkbook everytime they filed their frivolous lawsuits they would rething their reprehensible behavior. I am fed up with fringe kooks filing frivolous lawsuits without ever having to pay a price.
Bonnie McGuire
Let me get this straight, the education budget has been slashed to the nub causing many schools to do away with arts and music programs completely, but we have the money to go to court so some cheerleaders can promote their religion at a school function even though it's a clear violation? Another waste of my tax dollars to promote Slick Ricks' political agendas.
Jim Arnold
What if I am a football player who doesn't believe in god and I am forced to run through these stupid banners. My rights are bing violated.
PAULA DENMON
I was going to comment on this ridiculous expense to Texan tax payers, but the previous comments are so ON+POINT that I can only say DITTO and Thank YOU. Let's try to take our state back from ignorance and bigotry.
Cindy Schmidt
Come on, people. Do we need to review the principles this Country was founded upon again? Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are pretty much at the top. Everyone knows what they say about opinions and behinds, everybody has one. This is Texas and I'm proud of these kids for having more common sense and gumption than most. The meddlesome, litigious few who must apply "What if" scenarios to non-violent activities that do not involve them appear to be publicity-seeking folks with a LOT of spare time. For example, as we say in Texas, "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumps". What actual value do litigious atheists add? We seem to have offended them, well . . . they offend me, so what? Send them a message to put their grown up panties on and get busy doing something productive. Perhaps they need faith in God to help change their misguded ways . . . Thank you, Greg Abbott and Rick Perry for defending our rights!
Samdavis
Donald, people who are attempting to uphold the Constitution are fringe kooks? They are paying to file this lawsuit; no one forced Abbott to spend state money defending the suit, it was a voluntary, though self-serving, decision on his part. If you have a friend who has above sixth grade reading comprehension, have him, her, or it reread the article to you V-E-R-Y slowly and have them translate all the big words.
David Spratt
Expressing your religious beliefs is OK,, but only when and where the government determines permissible. Libs working hand in hand with atheists, socialists, illegal aliens, and telling the rest of us they are doing it for our own good.
What exactly are the beliefs of atheists and what are they selling? Our Constitution clearly states we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. They deny that a Creator even exists.
The code of ethics , morals and law they enjoy and the privileges , rights and protections they are afforded , at least in this country,,,, are derived from religious beliefs which all revert back to the 10 commandments and Biblical beliefs. Original law going back to the Code of Hammurabi and before,,, roots itself in religious belief.
Ironic that while they deny the existence of a God or any supreme being, they actually follow and promote adherence to the very laws that derive from belief in God , which provide for an orderly and civil society. The only other law,,,, original law,,,, that exists is the law of the jungle.
The nature of man is sinful not inherently good , common sense ,,everyday observation,, as well as the Bible says this is so. So their ultimate goal is to do away with and repress all religious expression , with the exception of the one thing ,,, the Law,,, they determine to be beneficial to them.
The ultimate irony is the use of the very laws that provide them Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to destroy the very foundation on which civil society is built.
Humans are curious animals !!
richard jung
This separation of church and sate is another example where the Supreme Court got it wrong. The constitution requires separation of State and Church NOT Church and state.
GS Crispus
David Spratt, should teachers be aloud to preach their belief systems in the classroom whatever they may be? After all, we don't want to infringe on their right to free speech!
This is a open and shut case. The cheerleading squad is a representative of the school, and they are not in a public forum when they are cheering at football games. This is a clear endorsement of religion by a government actor.
GS Crispus
James Madison & Thomas Jefferson says you need to keep your church out of our state:
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
Samdavis
What else did they get wrong Richard? equal rights, vote for women?
David Spratt
GS Crispus, Below are just a few excerpts from your link. Not taken out of context I hope . You have made the argument in favor of the Cheerleaders. Nobody is talking about indoctrination or proselytizing in an evangelical manner in favor of any certain branch of the Christian religion. The Cheerleaders actions are simply an expression of beliefs they already possess. None of them are trying to convert anyone.
The link you sent appears to concern itself with installing " Teachers" of religion. I assure you I will look up this document if it can be found . I have a keen interest in Constitutional matters.
I would put forth that Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. One can make the argument it is a belief , but one that is not rooted in any religious belief. Not being a true religion there would be no direct conflict with any other belief system that is not based upon a Supreme Being , Creator or God.
Further not being considered a true Atheist but rather having no particular religious belief or opinion one way or the other would also not be in conflict . If you believe in nothing or rather the absence of something, then how would there be a conflict with those people who believe in something you propose does not exist and you have no comparative alternative to offer?
The entire subject of the supposed barrier between Church and State exists so as to not favor one religion over another , one God , Creator or Supreme being over another as established as the single religious belief sanctioned , endorsed or promoted by the State to the exclusion of all others. Again I submit Atheism , Agnosticism or simple indifference does not qualify as a competing religious belief system.
This is your Proof????
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. ............
..........Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body
.......Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another. .........
Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
.........
mary westemeier
If religious beliefs, promoted and taught thru local church's are desired to be displayed at a public tax payer funded school facility, then let them PAY to advertise them! Just like the local Insurance agent, Plumbing company, or Big Bank pays to be on banners, let the church's pay.
If church and religious organizations would PAY property taxes, school taxes....then they could LEGALLY engage in state(government) issues.
Until all Religious groups forfeit their tax exempt status.....then the MUST comply with "separation of church and state". Until then, stop wasting my tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits to rewrite the Constitution.
Kim Feil
I bet if they made a sign “drill baby drill that ball cross the line”, that they would also get state support. Cudos to the girls on freedom of speech, but watch out if you dare tred to speak out on your future for clean air and water from fracking...you will NOT get state support. I live. breathe, and blog in BarnettShaleHell in Arlington TX.
Michael Hull
David Spratt said: "What exactly are the beliefs of atheists and what are they selling? Our Constitution clearly states we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. They deny that a Creator even exists. "
Actually, our Constitution does not state that.
As for the rest of your diatribe...life's too short...
GS Crispus
The issue is not about the cheerleader's right to expression. Although, I will note that *historically* the conservatives of the court have often taken the position that children are to be seen, and not heard. "In loco parentis" is a thing for school administrators and teachers.
The crux of the matter is that when participating in extra-curricular activities such as cheerleading or football, the student is acting as a representative of the school district (the state), and therefore are more stringently regulated to avoid issues such as endorsing religion.
Furthermore, the football stadium is NOT a public forum, and is not setup to be a public forum. I really do not think you want to go down the slippery slope route of making a football stadium a public forum for religious discourse just to protect the right of a few cheerleaders to throw out bible quotes on the field.
Beyond that, this is not an issue of "atheism vs christianity," as I will readily point out that a great many Christian sects may find the idea of football players tearing through bible quotes as sacriligious to their beliefs. We have a great many religious views in this country, whether they be Abrahamic (Judaism & Islam), Eastern (Hinduism, Budhism, Sikh), or Paganistic (Shamanistic, Animism).
That is precisely the problem Thomas Jefferson and James Madison faced in 1785 in the state of Virginia. Smaller religious sects such as the Quakers would have been disproportionately represented by larger Anglican sects. Religious affiliated communities were not above using their influence at the state level to inhibit or harm opposing religious neighbors under the Articles of Confederation.
If you allow state endorsement of religion, than you will get the same scenario that result in the English Civil War or cause the downfall of the Catholic Church in France during the French Revolution.
Just as an aside, although religion was important to the first Americans, many did subscribe (particularly among the founding fathers) to an Enlightenment or "rationale" interpretation of the world at the time. That is why you see language such as "Governor of the Universe", "Creator", or "Nature's God." Whether the laws were set down by some divine creator or a naturally occuring phenomenon of the universe, their intent was not to endorse any particular sect or belief on the matter.
The religiousity we more commonly attribute to American history came after the first generation. In some part this was a rejection of the more rationale Enlightenment view, but was enabled by the diversity of religious interpretation that came from decoupling religious endorsement from state functions.
Nothing good comes from entangling religion with the state:
http://www.harpweek.com/09cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=May&Date=8
Jeffrey MacHott
Someone explain to me how *they* are the Christians when they take bible versus and have the football team destroy them and trample in the mud? What's next, burning a Bible every time the team scores?