GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-07-2012, 19:16   #1
CanMan
Senior Member
 
CanMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: in flagrante
Posts: 1,049
Church & State

Watched a news clip Friday night about some cheerleaders in Texas. I scratched my head and said 'Yep, seperation of Church and State'.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57527422/banners-at-texas-h.s-football-game-

Then I found this.

http://dailyrollcall.com/2012/07/01/soundvision-com-islamic-info-and-products/

Are we talking about a 1st Amendment issue here? What say you?
CanMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 08:47   #2
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,487
Student led, student conducted activity does not count as government establishment of religion.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 03:53   #3
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 353
It's hard to say. I know a judge just issued an injunction to allow the cheerleaders to keep doing it, but it's likely to go higher. The problem I see is that it is a school-sponsored event on school time. If these were aetheist cheerleaders with big banners citing "No God," how would it be handled?

I like the idea behind what they're trying to do, but then again, if you have others that attend the school under a different religion, should Christianity be forced on them when they're involved in school-sponsored events?

It's a slippery slope now days.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 03:55   #4
cowboywannabe
you savvy?
 
cowboywannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: on a planet near you
Posts: 22,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Student led, student conducted activity does not count as government establishment of religion.
most idiots dont realize this.
__________________
with Sarah Jane, Leela, Romana, Nyssa, and Tegan.

Facts are no match against enthusiasm and ignorance...
cowboywannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 03:57   #5
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Student led, student conducted activity does not count as government establishment of religion.
The distinction gets a little fuzzy when the students are at a school event wearing the school's uniforms.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 11:28   #6
OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
 
OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
The distinction gets a little fuzzy when the students are at a school event wearing the school's uniforms.
Not really.

They = the cheerleaders.

1. They pay for the uniforms, not the school.
2. The school does not transport them to any games.
3. They paid for all of the materials for the signs.

The school is not out a dime. It truly is a 1st amendment situation. Legally it is no different than if a parent or a totally uninvolved person put up a sign that does not damage any school property and is not even semi-permanent.

__________________
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)
OldCurlyWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 13:13   #7
Jeff82
CLM Number 237
NRA Benefactor
 
Jeff82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: USofA!
Posts: 6,142


4. They are at an event no one is forced to go to.
__________________
MOΛΩN ΛABE!

"A Republic, if you can keep it." B. Franklin, 1787, outside Independence Hall

There's not "good" or "bad" muslims, only those true to their book and those that aren't, yet...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Jeff82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 17:16   #8
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
Not really.

They = the cheerleaders.

1. They pay for the uniforms, not the school.
2. The school does not transport them to any games.
3. They paid for all of the materials for the signs.

The school is not out a dime. It truly is a 1st amendment situation. Legally it is no different than if a parent or a totally uninvolved person put up a sign that does not damage any school property and is not even semi-permanent.

By that definition, auxiliary police shouldn't need search warrants, in places where they are unpaid and buy their own uniforms. That will sure make things easier.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 21:23   #9
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 21,572


Damned Christians!
Civil Liberties Issues
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2012, 23:57   #10
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
Not really.

They = the cheerleaders.

1. They pay for the uniforms, not the school.
2. The school does not transport them to any games.
3. They paid for all of the materials for the signs.

The school is not out a dime. It truly is a 1st amendment situation. Legally it is no different than if a parent or a totally uninvolved person put up a sign that does not damage any school property and is not even semi-permanent.

Cheerleaders where I'm from did get transported by school vehicles (buses) to the games just as the football players & marching band.

I don't see the money issue being the primary weight as to whether it's a 1st Amendment protection.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 00:00   #11
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
4. They are at an event no one is forced to go to.
So even though the other students are not required to go to football games, in order for them to attend and enjoy school events that are a huge part of their early adulthood, they have to be buried in someone else's religious beliefs? Where does it stop? Should the band play hymns during halftime?

I personally don't have a problem with what the cheerleaders are doing, but I can see both sides of the argument.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 20:19   #12
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I don't see the money issue being the primary weight as to whether it's a 1st Amendment protection.
It's central to whether or not the government is "establishing" religion. Here, they're not providing any financial support, they're not providing any authoritative direction. On what basis can it be said that they're establishing religion, or using the coercive power of the state to advance it?

Just like they can't establish it, the .gov can't prevent its free exercise. When the students decide on it, lead it, participate in it and fund it, how can the government tell them no?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 03:29   #13
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
It's central to whether or not the government is "establishing" religion. Here, they're not providing any financial support, they're not providing any authoritative direction. On what basis can it be said that they're establishing religion, or using the coercive power of the state to advance it?

Just like they can't establish it, the .gov can't prevent its free exercise. When the students decide on it, lead it, participate in it and fund it, how can the government tell them no?
It seems you're making the assumption that there's absolutely no money involved on the part of the school in this. I haven't looked very hard, but from the news stories I've read I haven't seen anything that says the cheerleaders are footing the bill on everything. I did a quick search on Westlaw and there are several courts that have held that cheerleading falls under the governmental function umbrella.

Regardless of the financial issue, coerciveness can still be involved. When you have students that cannot participate in school-related activities without being subjected to religious influence, that's when the issues start to arise (at least from what I've seen). We're not dealing with a couple of students wearing a gay/lesbian shirt. We're dealing with a school-sponsored entire cheerleading squad, posting banners at school-sponsored football games who are likely transported by school-funded buses. If it is creating the environment where a student cannot attend a school-related event without being subjected to scripture from a specific religion, those whining about it may have a valid argument in front of a court. Just playing devil's advocate.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 19:00   #14
Booker
Senior Member
 
Booker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,486
The Constitution states that the government can not meddle in my religion.

It doesn't state that my religion can not meddle in the government.
Booker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 13:37   #15
OldCurlyWolf
Senior Member
 
OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
By that definition, auxiliary police shouldn't need search warrants, in places where they are unpaid and buy their own uniforms. That will sure make things easier.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Not even close. Try again
__________________
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)
OldCurlyWolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 02:17   #16
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 21,572


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
It's central to whether or not the government is "establishing" religion. Here, they're not providing any financial support, they're not providing any authoritative direction. On what basis can it be said that they're establishing religion, or using the coercive power of the state to advance it?

Just like they can't establish it, the .gov can't prevent its free exercise. When the students decide on it, lead it, participate in it and fund it, how can the government tell them no?
The emotionally disturbed Christian haters don't need facts. They're driven by acute psychosis.
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 05:33   #17
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
Not even close. Try again
Can you explain why? A response works better if you actually have a reason for it.

Nobody? It's pretty well established that such religious activities violate the establishment clause when conducted on behalf of a government institution at a govenrment activity. This is both.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 10-25-2012 at 17:55..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 22:53   #18
SDDL-UP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,043
"religious activities"? Really? I'm not privy to that particular religious practice. I mean I've been to more than a few churches, but never seen people run through a banner before.

It's part of life - that's all. If you don't appreciate it, that's up to you. No one is forcing you to go to the game, no one is going to boo you if you're not a Christian. Would you be so upset if they held up a banner reading "BUY A CHEVY?" Stop having a cow.

Time for a reality check people.
__________________
"Arm yourself, arm a friend!"
SDDL-UP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 23:20   #19
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 21,572


It would be unconstitutional for the school or any gov. institution to interfere with voluntary religious activity.
As long as the school, if it is a state school, doesn't endorse religious activity, there is no issue.


AMENDMENT I

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
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 13:38   #20
LoadToadBoss
IYAAYWOT
 
LoadToadBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northwest Louisiana
Posts: 3,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Can you explain why? A response works better if you actually have a reason for it.

Nobody? It's pretty well established that such religious activities violate the establishment clause when conducted on behalf of a government institution at a govenrment activity. This is both.
Really?

Should the government have the power to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights on government property just because others on that property do not like the presence of firearms? They do, of course, but that is not the real issue. Do students have a right to freely express themselves on school property in manner that others do not agree with? Should the government have the power to stifle free speech on government property because some people might get the mis-perception that the government is endorsing that speech? The only concern people have with the signs is that the speech reflects religious thought.

Put your big boy pants on and stop being a wussy. Man up and allow the students the freedom of expression. No one is mandating that anyone agree to the message. And no one really believes the government is endorsing the message. And even if some people find the message offensive, there is no right not to be offended. In a free society we've got to be willing to accept stuff we don't like.

BTW, see my sig line.
__________________
"An essential element of a mature democracy is the ability to allow others the liberty to exercise a right that you may find distasteful." --LTB

"Government cannot deny its citizens a right on the off chance that right might be abused." --Unknown
LoadToadBoss is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:25.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 602
147 Members
455 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31