Abbott Weighs In on School's Bible Verse Controversy
As a small East Texas high school that ordered cheerleaders to stop using banners inscribed with Bible verses at football games continues to make national headlines, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has stepped into the fray on the girls' behalf.
The Republican wrote a letter to Kountze Independent School District on Thursday saying that legal advice it received to stop the practice of running through the banners at games was "erroneous" and that "the Supreme Court has never ruled that religion must be 'kept out' of public schools."
The school halted the game-time ritual after the Freedom From Religion Foundation ...
Comments (16)
Luisa Inez Newton via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Typical "Taliban" fundamentalist Christians, always wanting to force their opinions on others. School is NO place for preaching!
Imelda B. Robles via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Don't they realize that if they do allow Biblical verses, then they have to allow verses from the Koran and the Torah and from Buddha and from... See?? Now they don't like it so much. Only what suits them. That is why we have seperation of church & state.
Candyce Byrne via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Why isn't running through a banner emblazoned with scriptures and ripping them to shreds considered sacrilegious?
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Now I'm really tempted to show up at that rally with a bunch of verses from the Qur'an. Just to see the reaction.
Tom Berg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Mr. Abbott has found an opportunistic moment? Go figure.
Greg Ellis via Texas Tribune on Facebook
No, there wouldn't be a problem if students want to create banners with quotes from the Qur'an or the Torah or the Rig Veda. Teachers forcing students to recite prayers is unconstitutional; teachers preventing students from reciting prayers on their own is also unconstitutional. If a student doesn't want to run through a banner with religious sayings then he doesn't have to, but he also shouldn't be able to prevent everyone else from doing so.
Is this Christian forcing their opinions on others, or refusing to let others for their opinions on Christians?
Adele Roberson
http://www.texaspolicy.com/
tax document shows that—surprise!—the influential right-wing organization is funded by the Koch Brothers, TXU, Exxon, State Farm Insurance, Big Tobacco, etc The Texas Public Policy Foundation—an influential right-wing think tank based in Austin with ties to Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and many other powerful politicians—bills itself as a "non-partisan research institute" and brags that it "does not accept government funds or contributions to influence the outcomes of its research. Revealed: The Corporations and Billionaires that Fund the Texas Public Policy Foundation
http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/revealed-the-corporations-and-billionaires-that-fund-the-texas-public-policy-foundation
Dale Curry
For the Kountze Independent School District their decision is whether to follow the letter and intent of our legal system, or whether to follow Mullah Abbott's legal advice. Before they decide, I would suggest they take a look of Abbott's string of defeats in arguing cases. This is what you get when your AG is less an attorney and more of a partisan fundamentalist hack
Olivia Endor via Texas Tribune on Facebook
When the cheerleaders do something as a group, in their uniforms, at a football game, they are representing the whole school, and as such, should NOT be promoting one religion. See Santa Fe ISD v. Doe, which held that student led prayer (over the PA system) prior to the school football game was unconstitutional.
Samdavis
It's generally the radicals in the town using this as an excuse to claim persecution and further their own agenda to gain more power. Abbott is an idiot concerning the law as his record shows. If this ends up going to court and winds up in a federal court as it assuredly will, the Attorney General will have wasted even more money trying to further a TEA Party agenda. I'm betting the little weasel's chance of getting elected governor are lessening day by day.
David Spratt
Offending Christians is the last form of acceptable bigotry left in this country.
Those people who always quote " The Separation of Church and State " really should re-read the Constitution. That phrase appears nowhere in it. The majority do not even know where this phrase originated. Read Everson v. Board of Education 1947
Maybe read the writings of Jefferson and Madison while you are at it and you will fully understand the Phrase that DOES appear in the Constitution,,,( 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.)
It seems that by preventing prayers or the display of religious passages ,,, quite the opposite is being practiced. Law is being enacted that prevents the free exercise of religious beliefs. Most often today the reason given ,,, and quoted by some here,,, is that if Christians are allowed then other beliefs should also be allowed... NOW YOU ARE GETTING THE IDEA,,,, THEY ARE ALLOWED !!!! It is the preference of those attending that should decide,,,,, if it offends you then do not go... nobody is forcing you to attend or not to,,,,, it is your choice..
Even considering the writings of Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury ,,, Jefferson concluded any power relating to the regulation or restriction of religion should rest with the states.
The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
Christine Lund
Are they suggesting that their team is somehow going to win with Gods' intercession because they are louder, more visible, more religious or somehow superior? My nuns at school taught us it was rude to be bullies and to pray for a safe and fair outcome for all involved. It's a game. No one visibly shows their religious affilitation at the Olympics for a reason. It doesn't belong there. I see no reason why the fans can't hold their signs from the seating area where they belong.
Beverly Margolis-Kurtin via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Does anyone really believe that someone who sees those religious verses are going to convert? Why do the funny-mentalists (as opposed to fundamentalists) seem to think that they can show how "Christian" they are by violating Federal Law? Their guy told his people to give Cesar what is Cesar's. In other words, OBEY CIVIL LAW! All they do by breaking the law is proving that their brand of religion is fraudulent and should be ignored.
Beverly Margolis-Kurtin via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Forgot to mention that the state's top law enforcement official is putting his religion before enforcing the law. Greg Abbot has been in office too long and ought to be replaced..for much, much more than just his backing up law breakers.
Arbie Br
@ David Spratt
As part of the Christian majority, it is easy to see things the way you do (i.e., as if you're being persecuted). But what you don't seem to see is that you think that exercising your freedom of religion includes the ability to be dominant and have your positions favored over others'. But one's free exercise of religion does not allow him/her to trample on someone else's free exercise of religion. Free exercise involves not being subjected to coerced participation in someone else's religion, with the endorsement of public officials. Religious coercion at public events should not be allowed. Attendees, such as parents or players, should not be placed in the position of having either to tolerate an official endorsement of a different religion or have to leave--without any recourse.
As a public event, the cheerleaders may reasonably be seen as representatives of the school. They are not "speaking" as if they were classmates sharing a conversation at the lunch table. They have a captive audience. Any non-Christians in attendance at the events are in effect held captive to the messages displayed by the cheerleaders/event leaders/public school representatives, and such messages could be reasonably viewed as being endorsed by public officials. It would be another thing if one of the spectators, like a parent, held up signs in the stadium--that would be more like free speech and exercise of religion. They don't have any authority or control over the event or its organization. The Supreme Court has ruled that student-led prayer over the intercom is unconstitutional. How are these signs--displayed by representatives of the public school--any different? They're not. Plus, the signs out on the field send a message that any non-Christians in attendance do not belong and are unwelcome at the event.
What's so difficult about finding slogans that are inspirational but not religious? Besides, maybe it would help inspire some creativity and originality in the young minds of the cheerleaders making their signs.
Arbie Br
To put it another way, David, no one is preventing anyone from praying! What is being prevented is one group's ability to make everyone else sit through or participate in an organized government-sponsored prayer. Does your free exercise of religion REALLY require subjecting everyone else to Christian displays of dominance? Sorry, but our constitutional republic was constructed in such a way as to limit the tyranny of the majority. Just because Christians make up a majority of an event's attendees doesn't mean that they can make everyone else follow along.
I am not a First Amendment scholar, but your arguments do not represent a well-rounded view of who the Constitution's framers were, including their views of religious freedom, or of case law that further fleshes out the First Amendment's breadth and intent. That's part of what "government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is about--you can have plenty of freedom of religion while keeping the government neutral. And again, the government is involved in this case by way of the game being an official event put on by a public school. The event's "actors" are thus subject to the requirement for government neutrality when it comes to favoring one religion over another. And no, the absence of Christian displays does not mean that the "other side" has won. If that were the case, the cheerleaders would be holding up signs promoting atheism, criticizing religion, or exclusively promoting another religion such as Islam without allowing other religious viewpoints. You can still pray quietly or among a group of friends in the stands if you want, although church or your closet is probably the best place for that. You just can't make others sit through it too.