If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Judge rules Texas cheerleaders can quote Bible verses on banners supporting their team, the Lions. Funny, I didn't think Christians and Lions mixed   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 133
    More: Followup, Southeast Texas, establishment clause, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Liberty Institute, Texas Attorney General, scriptures  
•       •       •

1667 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2013 at 8:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-09 02:27:20 PM
Maybe the cheerleaders could also whip up a few loaves and fishes and feed the crowd?
 
2013-05-09 02:30:28 PM

thaylin: BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: I am not confusing math with spoken language, take a basic logic course please. A and B are phrases in this case, not numbers. If god is on our side, he is not on your side, therefore if god is on our side not (god is on your side)

Yes, you are.  Spoken language expresses thoughts, which are not always logical unless you're speaking Vulcan.

"If God is on our side, he is not on your side" is a statement.  "If God is on our side, who can stand against us?" is a question.  The answer is indeterminate.  It may be "not you," "not anyone," "someone on whose side God also is," "a better team," or "pandas."  It doesn't have to be logical.

Logic is a way to think and argue, which includes how to phrase statements in order to avoid things like logical fallacies.. In Philosophy class we covered no math, only expressing thoughts. Math is logic, but not all logic is math... If you dont want to make an argument, and yes a question can be part of an argument, logically then GTFO.

Now in Discrete math we covered logical math.


I knew it. Hope you don't run out of sweat socks and lube.
 
2013-05-09 02:34:13 PM

Graffito: BarkingUnicorn: Graffito: BarkingUnicorn: The rules of English do not allow you to add words until you're offended.

Neither do they allow you to twist them to mean whatever it is that you want them to.

I was going to mention that but went for pithiness instead.

I think you misunderstood me.  I think that YOU are the one twisting words to make them mean something other than what they do.  A sign that says, "God is on our side," is clearly saying that God is against the opposing team.  There are a couple of problems with that (separation of church and state issues aside.)
1.  They presume to know which "side" God is on.
2.  It's a rather unwelcoming/unchristian sentiment to display to the guest team.  If I were the school principal I wouldn't want those signs for that reason alone.



Except the banner didn't declare, "God is on our side."  And an opposing team is not a guest but an opponent.
 
2013-05-09 02:40:47 PM

Deucednuisance: BarkingUnicorn: "Zeus/Jesus is on our side" is a simple boast not intended to denigrate anyone

Oh, horsepucky.

The immediate consequence of declaring a Deity "on our side" is that It is "not on yours".

If the reply is "It's on everyone's side" what's point of the verkakte sign?


To inspire confidence in the team, silly.  The "ours too" inspires confidence in the other team.

Assuming both teams consist of believers, predominantly, which seems to be the case here.

You logicians have a hard time with reality.
 
2013-05-09 02:45:55 PM

BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: I am not confusing math with spoken language, take a basic logic course please. A and B are phrases in this case, not numbers. If god is on our side, he is not on your side, therefore if god is on our side not (god is on your side)

Yes, you are.  Spoken language expresses thoughts, which are not always logical unless you're speaking Vulcan.

"If God is on our side, he is not on your side" is a statement.  "If God is on our side, who can stand against us?" is a question.  The answer is indeterminate.  It may be "not you," "not anyone," "someone on whose side God also is," "a better team," or "pandas."  It doesn't have to be logical.

Logic is a way to think and argue, which includes how to phrase statements in order to avoid things like logical fallacies.. In Philosophy class we covered no math, only expressing thoughts. Math is logic, but not all logic is math... If you dont want to make an argument, and yes a question can be part of an argument, logically then GTFO.

Now in Discrete math we covered logical math.

I knew it. Hope you don't run out of sweat socks and lube.


Say what?
 
2013-05-09 02:51:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Deucednuisance: BarkingUnicorn: "Zeus/Jesus is on our side" is a simple boast not intended to denigrate anyone

Oh, horsepucky.

The immediate consequence of declaring a Deity "on our side" is that It is "not on yours".

If the reply is "It's on everyone's side" what's point of the verkakte sign?

To inspire confidence in the team, silly.  The "ours too" inspires confidence in the other team.

Assuming both teams consist of believers, predominantly, which seems to be the case here.

You logicians have a hard time with reality.


They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English.  You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner
 
2013-05-09 02:57:37 PM

ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner


Freedom of religion means that you can follow any religion if you want, as long as it is not using the government to do so. It has nothing to do with "from religion".


As for your second argument, it might be valid if the cheerleaders did not use limited resources of the school to prepare and reach those games.
 
2013-05-09 03:06:25 PM

thaylin: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Freedom of religion means that you can follow any religion if you want, as long as it is not using the government to do so. It has nothing to do with "from religion".


As for your second argument, it might be valid if the cheerleaders did not use limited resources of the school to prepare and reach those games.


You're both off the mark. It's an "establishment" violation, not a "freedom" violation.  Google Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe or scroll up for my link to it.  Briefly, SCOTUS ruled that granting permission to use school resources to proclaim religious messages gives the appearance of school endorsement of religion, and a religion-specific message gives the appearance of endorsement of a specific religion.  Both are forbidden.
 
2013-05-09 03:15:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Freedom of religion means that you can follow any religion if you want, as long as it is not using the government to do so. It has nothing to do with "from religion".


As for your second argument, it might be valid if the cheerleaders did not use limited resources of the school to prepare and reach those games.

You're both off the mark. It's an "establishment" violation, not a "freedom" violation.  Google Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe or scroll up for my link to it.  Briefly, SCOTUS ruled that granting permission to use school resources to proclaim religious messages gives the appearance of school endorsement of religion, and a religion-specific message gives the appearance of endorsement of a specific religion.  Both are forbidden.


Not sure how you get that I am contradicting that.
 
2013-05-09 03:27:04 PM

thaylin: BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Freedom of religion means that you can follow any religion if you want, as long as it is not using the government to do so. It has nothing to do with "from religion".


As for your second argument, it might be valid if the cheerleaders did not use limited resources of the school to prepare and reach those games.

You're both off the mark. It's an "establishment" violation, not a "freedom" violation.  Google Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe or scroll up for my link to it.  Briefly, SCOTUS ruled that granting permission to use school resources to proclaim religious messages gives the appearance of school endorsement of religion, and a religion-specific message gives the appearance of endorsement of a specific religion.  Both are forbidden.

Not sure how you get that I am contradicting that.


That's because you studied logic more than language, so you don't know what "off the mark" means or what sweat socks are for.
 
2013-05-09 03:36:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Freedom of religion means that you can follow any religion if you want, as long as it is not using the government to do so. It has nothing to do with "from religion".


As for your second argument, it might be valid if the cheerleaders did not use limited resources of the school to prepare and reach those games.

You're both off the mark. It's an "establishment" violation, not a "freedom" violation.  Google Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe or scroll up for my link to it.  Briefly, SCOTUS ruled that granting permission to use school resources to proclaim religious messages gives the appearance of school endorsement of religion, and a religion-specific message gives the appearance of endorsement of a specific religion.  Both are forbidden.

Not sure how you get that I am contradicting that.

That's because you studied logic more than language, so you don't know what "off the mark" means or what sweat socks are for.


Here is the problem, I know what off the mark means, however it also means you are claiming I am contracting you, do you know what that means?
 
2013-05-09 03:44:52 PM

thaylin: BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: BarkingUnicorn: thaylin: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Freedom of religion means that you can follow any religion if you want, as long as it is not using the government to do so. It has nothing to do with "from religion".


As for your second argument, it might be valid if the cheerleaders did not use limited resources of the school to prepare and reach those games.

You're both off the mark. It's an "establishment" violation, not a "freedom" violation.  Google Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe or scroll up for my link to it.  Briefly, SCOTUS ruled that granting permission to use school resources to proclaim religious messages gives the appearance of school endorsement of religion, and a religion-specific message gives the appearance of endorsement of a specific religion.  Both are forbidden.

Not sure how you get that I am contradicting that.

That's because you studied logic more than language, so you don't know what "off the mark" means or what sweat socks are for.

Here is the problem, I know what off the mark means, however it also means you are claiming I am contracting you, do you know what that means?


It means, "to assert the contrary of; to imply the opposite of; or to deny the truth of."
 
2013-05-09 03:49:26 PM

freeforever: "State District Judge Steve Thomas determined the Kountze High School cheerleaders' banners are constitutionally permissible. In a copy of the ruling obtained by Beaumont station KFDM, Thomas determined that no law 'prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.'"

Hooray for sanity.  As expected. the critics and athiests are responding with their usual conjecture:  "But what if one of those cheerleaders praised a different god?  Would the Christians be tolerant then?  I bet they wouldn't! What would happen if they tried to put a Koran verse?"

You don't know.  When a Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan etc., at that school is told their banner would be verboten but not the Christian's then you would have a point.  Until then you have no argument.  What decent person would have a problem with a cheerleader putting a religious verse on a sports banner?  I'm not religious but why should that bother me?


Taking the Lord God's name in vain, for one.
Expecting an omnipotent almighty deity to support you and you alone to win a sports game, for two.
Violation of separation of church and state, for three.
The hypocrisy of a god who aids high school sports players yet allows starving and diseased people to suffer, for four.
The fact that any other religion or an atheist doing the same thing would have been attacked, for five.
Still believing in fairy tales in 2013, for six.
 
2013-05-09 03:54:54 PM

Shrinkwrap: Let's test it in the field - get a team out there with Quran verses. Nothing ominous, just standard stuff. Let's see how it goes.


"who so savith the life of one it shall be as if he hath saved the life of all mankind"
 
2013-05-09 03:56:16 PM

ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner


Do I get to bring it on the football field too?

BarkingUnicorn: And an opposing team is not a guest but an opponent.


That's just farking stupid.
 
2013-05-09 03:59:01 PM
Wow, BarkingUnicorn is splitting hairs so thin IBM can't fit their logo on it using an electron microscope.

Also stupidly. If they meant "God is on everyone's side" they would have written that. They did not. They were more specific, and then.... OMG, why the fark am I bothering to explain something so blindingly obvious a lobotomized hamster could understand it?
 
2013-05-09 04:01:03 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe


Yeah looks like I mi-remembered why they ruled against the PA system, because the PA system is school property it violates the establishment part.  This ruling is basically saying that a banner is not school property therefor falls back to freedom speech/religion.
 
2013-05-09 04:10:58 PM

Madbassist1: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Do I get to bring it on the football field too?


If you're a cheerleader allowed on the field you do, that's what the ruling said
 
2013-05-09 04:16:38 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: freeforever: "State District Judge Steve Thomas determined the Kountze High School cheerleaders' banners are constitutionally permissible. In a copy of the ruling obtained by Beaumont station KFDM, Thomas determined that no law 'prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.'"

Hooray for sanity.  As expected. the critics and athiests are responding with their usual conjecture:  "But what if one of those cheerleaders praised a different god?  Would the Christians be tolerant then?  I bet they wouldn't! What would happen if they tried to put a Koran verse?"

You don't know.  When a Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan etc., at that school is told their banner would be verboten but not the Christian's then you would have a point.  Until then you have no argument.  What decent person would have a problem with a cheerleader putting a religious verse on a sports banner?  I'm not religious but why should that bother me?

Taking the Lord God's name in vain, for one.
Expecting an omnipotent almighty deity to support you and you alone to win a sports game, for two.
Violation of separation of church and state, for three.
The hypocrisy of a god who aids high school sports players yet allows starving and diseased people to suffer, for four.
The fact that any other religion or an atheist doing the same thing would have been attacked, for five.
Still believing in fairy tales in 2013, for six.


"God" is not the name of the deity in question.  When capitalized, "God" is an allusion to that deity, like "Heavenly Father."
The only example of a banner in TFA does not express any expectations. It is not a demand, request, supplication, or prayer.
Violation of the Establishment Clause, certainly.
What you don't understand is not necessarily hypocrisy.  The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
The fact is that speculation is not fact.
Calling religion "fairy tales" is hypocritical of someone who demands respect for his beliefs. If you don't want that respect, there is no need for the 1st Amendment's religious clauses.
 
2013-05-09 04:19:46 PM

ShadowKamui: thaylin: DmGdDawg: thaylin: DmGdDawg: Oh no! Free people in a free country are publicly expressing a viewpoint others might disagree with! Time for farkers to wring their hands and bash Christians for being closed minded and narrow.

I dont think many have an issue with people "publicly expressing a viewpoint others might disagree with ", but more with the double standard that if it was another religion, or a viewpoint other than what this town likes, they would be chased out of town or worse.

Can you give me an example of an organized Christian group filing a lawsuit to keep atheists or another religious group from exercising free speech? Bear in mind, though, that publicly rejecting or criticizing another viewpoint isn't the same thing as trying to use government to silence it. Maybe there is an example out there, but I can't think of it. I would equally support the right of islamic or atheist cheerleaders to exercise free speech as I would the "Christian" ones. Supporting someone's right to free speech isn't the same thing as agreeing with what they say.


Well seeing how I did not sue, but said chased out of town, or worst not seeing your point... However I can do what you request

Such as Christians sueing to stop a mosque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Murfreesboro

And the Mosque opened in 2012 after the courts smacked them down.  So stop getting your panties in a bunch over free speech and save it for the actual hate speech


The fact remains that Christians, whose religion demands them to be loving, helping, accepting, and everything else positive, went against both their own God and their country to attempt to deny another religion from worshiping. You'll never meet a more wretched hive of hypocrisy and hate.

Let's also not forget their continuing treatment of homosexuals, once again in complete opposite defiance of their supposedly all-loving and all-compassionate god.
 
2013-05-09 04:20:21 PM
Madbassist1:

BarkingUnicorn: And an opposing team is not a guest but an opponent.

That's just farking stupid.


Guileful warfare is an ancient art.  Odysseus feted his wife's suitors right before killing them.
 
2013-05-09 04:25:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: The fact remains that Christians, whose religion demands them to be loving, helping, accepting, and everything else positive, went against both their own God and their country to attempt to deny another religion from worshiping. You'll never meet a more wretched hive of hypocrisy and hate.


Until you meet Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists in lands where they hold the upper hand.  Or whites or blacks or Asians or "Native Americans" or men or women or capitalists or communists or... you get the idea.
 
2013-05-09 04:35:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: "God" is not the name of the deity in question. When capitalized, "God" is an allusion to that deity, like "Heavenly Father."
The only example of a banner in TFA does not express any expectations. It is not a demand, request, supplication, or prayer.
Violation of the Establishment Clause, certainly.
What you don't understand is not necessarily hypocrisy. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
The fact is that speculation is not fact.
Calling religion "fairy tales" is hypocritical of someone who demands respect for his beliefs. If you don't want that respect, there is no need for the 1st Amendment's religious clauses.


Nitpick, nitpick, Christians say that even using "God" and "Lord" wrong is in vain. I live with facts, not beliefs, and I'm sorry that I think millennia-old tales that were created to explain how everything was the way it was back when humans barely knew anything don't have any place in a time where we're no longer children and have learned much about the universe.

BarkingUnicorn: Keizer_Ghidorah: The fact remains that Christians, whose religion demands them to be loving, helping, accepting, and everything else positive, went against both their own God and their country to attempt to deny another religion from worshiping. You'll never meet a more wretched hive of hypocrisy and hate.

Until you meet Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists in lands where they hold the upper hand.  Or whites or blacks or Asians or "Native Americans" or men or women or capitalists or communists or... you get the idea.


So all religions are hypocritical, and whoever has the power is the most retarded. Fits with Christianity's actions in America and Islam's actions wherever it's the most prevalent, as examples.

The simple fact is we don't need to believe in magic fairies that do everything and treat us as puppets for their amusement. There's more physical evidence of Bigfoot than there is of any deity.
 
2013-05-09 04:37:57 PM

Deucednuisance: Madbassist1: Sure, but its wider than that. By saying the school can't regulate it because its from the students, they've really stepped in it.

Somehow, I suspect the (I assume) fact the the cheerleaders and those for whom they cheer have the school's name proudly emblazoned upon their outfits and equipment, and that "home" games employ the school's facilities and "away" games have transportation provided by the school and such as will play a role in determining whether or not the school in involved in the communication, upon the inevitable appeal.


And I bet there's some sort of written code of conduct about what cheerleaders can and can't do while wearing their uniforms because they're representing the school.
 
2013-05-09 04:38:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: ShadowKamui: thaylin: DmGdDawg: thaylin: DmGdDawg: Oh no! Free people in a free country are publicly expressing a viewpoint others might disagree with! Time for farkers to wring their hands and bash Christians for being closed minded and narrow.

I dont think many have an issue with people "publicly expressing a viewpoint others might disagree with ", but more with the double standard that if it was another religion, or a viewpoint other than what this town likes, they would be chased out of town or worse.

Can you give me an example of an organized Christian group filing a lawsuit to keep atheists or another religious group from exercising free speech? Bear in mind, though, that publicly rejecting or criticizing another viewpoint isn't the same thing as trying to use government to silence it. Maybe there is an example out there, but I can't think of it. I would equally support the right of islamic or atheist cheerleaders to exercise free speech as I would the "Christian" ones. Supporting someone's right to free speech isn't the same thing as agreeing with what they say.


Well seeing how I did not sue, but said chased out of town, or worst not seeing your point... However I can do what you request

Such as Christians sueing to stop a mosque

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Center_of_Murfreesboro

And the Mosque opened in 2012 after the courts smacked them down.  So stop getting your panties in a bunch over free speech and save it for the actual hate speech

The fact remains that Christians, whose religion demands them to be loving, helping, accepting, and everything else positive, went against both their own God and their country to attempt to deny another religion from worshiping. You'll never meet a more wretched hive of hypocrisy and hate.

Let's also not forget their continuing treatment of homosexuals, once again in complete opposite defiance of their supposedly all-loving and all-compassionate god.


Then you criticism them on that.  You don't go on some massive campaign to expunge anything Christian from public view (free speech be damned); go on massive bigoted fantasy about militant Christians or claim Christians are evil cause of X.  There are plenty of stupid history be damn examples all over Fark from the anti-Christian bigots just making up complete garbage so stupid even the anti-Islam idiots are more grounded in reality.
 
2013-05-09 04:46:37 PM

ShadowKamui: Madbassist1: ShadowKamui: They're just butt hurt atheists that think freedom of religion means freedom from religion, they also happened to have failed basic English. You can make an argument that using the PA system or class room time goes against freedom of religion as that's a limited resource, but there's nothing saying you can't just bring your own pro-islam/hindu/FSM banner

Do I get to bring it on the football field too?

If you're a cheerleader allowed on the field you do, that's what the ruling said


Then the ruling is unconstitutional.
 
2013-05-09 05:17:20 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: BarkingUnicorn: "God" is not the name of the deity in question. When capitalized, "God" is an allusion to that deity, like "Heavenly Father."
The only example of a banner in TFA does not express any expectations. It is not a demand, request, supplication, or prayer.
Violation of the Establishment Clause, certainly.
What you don't understand is not necessarily hypocrisy. The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.
The fact is that speculation is not fact.
Calling religion "fairy tales" is hypocritical of someone who demands respect for his beliefs. If you don't want that respect, there is no need for the 1st Amendment's religious clauses.

Nitpick, nitpick, Christians say that even using "God" and "Lord" wrong is in vain. I live with facts, not beliefs, and I'm sorry that I think millennia-old tales that were created to explain how everything was the way it was back when humans barely knew anything don't have any place in a time where we're no longer children and have learned much about the universe.

BarkingUnicorn: Keizer_Ghidorah: The fact remains that Christians, whose religion demands them to be loving, helping, accepting, and everything else positive, went against both their own God and their country to attempt to deny another religion from worshiping. You'll never meet a more wretched hive of hypocrisy and hate.

Until you meet Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists in lands where they hold the upper hand.  Or whites or blacks or Asians or "Native Americans" or men or women or capitalists or communists or... you get the idea.

So all religions are hypocritical, and whoever has the power is the most retarded. Fits with Christianity's actions in America and Islam's actions wherever it's the most prevalent, as examples.

The simple fact is we don't need to believe in magic fairies that do everything and treat us as puppets for their amusement. There's more physical evidence of Bigfoot than there is of any deity.


Of course we don't need religious belief. I don't need to believe in quantum physics, for that matter; it clutters and confuses ordinary living, just like religious belief.  But religion makes people feel better, and that is humanity's fundamental drive.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it matters.  Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
 
2013-05-09 07:49:32 PM

ShadowKamui: Then you criticism them on that. You don't go on some massive campaign to expunge anything Christian from public view (free speech be damned); go on massive bigoted fantasy about militant Christians or claim Christians are evil cause of X. There are plenty of stupid history be damn examples all over Fark from the anti-Christian bigots just making up complete garbage so stupid even the anti-Islam idiots are more grounded in reality.


When the Christians stop trying to expunge every other religion from public view, demanding America be turned into a Christian nation in direct defiance of what the country was founded on, and forcing the rest of us to live how they want us to, then others will stop "persecuting" them. And I'll say that in regards to any other religion. Worship all you want, don't shove it on others' faces and don't try to make it national policy.

BarkingUnicorn: Of course we don't need religious belief. I don't need to believe in quantum physics, for that matter; it clutters and confuses ordinary living, just like religious belief. But religion makes people feel better, and that is humanity's fundamental drive.

Just because something exists doesn't mean it matters. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't matter.


If it makes them feel better, fine. As long as they stop trying to use it to force others to do what they want, they can cuddle their security blanket to protect them from the mean ol' universe. Though you'd think they'd pick a better comforter than a god who cursed all of creation because humans became intelligent, tried to destroy all of creation during his emo period, spent all of the OT screwing around with people and slaughtering cities on a whim, then just up and disappears .
 
2013-05-09 09:51:38 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If it makes them feel better, fine. As long as they stop trying to use it to force others to do what they want, they can cuddle their security blanket to protect them from the mean ol' universe.


And that may be the case here. The only quoted banner is an expression of belief, not an admonition to believe.  It seems awkwardly phrased to avoid proselytizing; somebody coached these girls on SCOTUS precedents. Still unconstitutional because of the appearance of government endorsement, but not something for non-believers to feel threatened or offended by.  They create threats and offenses with their inferences and "extrapolations."  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
 
2013-05-09 10:29:00 PM
I swear, just last week I took a different route on my morning commute, and noticed that a church had started a private (or 'charter') school. Big banner out front, "Support [name of church] Lions!" Before I finished reading it, my brain was already screaming "do ANY of these people even HAVE a concept of irony?"
 
2013-05-10 05:22:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Santa Fe ISD v. Doe may heal your tear. Students using school PA system to make religious rah-hah before football games. Cheerleaders using school football field to make religious rah-hah at football games. In both cases, permission to use the school's facilities for religious rah-hah would reasonably be taken by others as school's endorsement.


In addition to the Santa Fe v Doe ruling, this also seems massively inconsistent with the 5th Circuit's ruling in Doe v Silsbee (a school district less than 20 miles off from Kountze) that cheerleaders in uniform are only mouthpieces for the school -- making any religious speech by a cheerleader while in uniform a consequently unconstitutional establishment of religion.

freeforever: You don't know.


Not with certainty. However, past evidence gives some basis for probabilistic inference.
 
2013-05-10 06:06:29 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Keizer_Ghidorah: If it makes them feel better, fine. As long as they stop trying to use it to force others to do what they want, they can cuddle their security blanket to protect them from the mean ol' universe.

And that may be the case here. The only quoted banner is an expression of belief, not an admonition to believe.  It seems awkwardly phrased to avoid proselytizing; somebody coached these girls on SCOTUS precedents. Still unconstitutional because of the appearance of government endorsement, but not something for non-believers to feel threatened or offended by.  They create threats and offenses with their inferences and "extrapolations."  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


There's also the implying that God, who is supposed to be all-loving and all-compassionate, would take sides on a sports event. Quite arrogant of these Christians to assume such. If they then lost, would their faith be shaken, or would they use their catch-all statement "God works in mysterious ways"?
 
2013-05-10 08:03:34 PM

Shrinkwrap: Let's test it in the field - get a team out there with Quran verses. Nothing ominous, just standard stuff. Let's see how it goes.


Enough said; end of thread.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report