- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Unconstitutional
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:38 am to Fun Bunch
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:38 am to Fun Bunch
Well I'm glad you don't vote for people who ban religion on the basis of vague unprovable "societal norms"
You should stop listening to them too. They don't want freedom of religion. They literally call themselves Freedom From Religion.
You should stop listening to them too. They don't want freedom of religion. They literally call themselves Freedom From Religion.
1
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:38 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Courts have routinely and almost entirely rejected this, saying that in the bounds of a team activity, they can say that a player has a choice all they want, but they really do not, due to societal and team constructs.
Any examples of this that you can remember off the top of your head? I'm interested in reading similar cases.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:39 am to Lg
quote:
Is the U.S. Treasury not a government entity?
It is a completely separate issue to this and not relevant. But if you want to talk about it, yeah, it is probably technically Unconstitutional and wasn't added to paper currency until the 1950s.
If you read the Zorach v Clausen case, you can see the Supreme Court's reasoning as to allow it.
I'm pretty sure at some point, that case will be overturned and In God We Trust will be removed from currency.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:41 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This is all spot on. Everyone else, listen to this man. He knows what he's talking about.
I read it twice to be sure I wasn't mistaken, because it sounds insane to me to believe that a football player wearing a personal symbol counts as state promotion of religion that somehow violates the religious freedom of anyone.
Clearly football players are not official representatives of the state, regardless of who paid for their uniforms, but even if we were talking about an elected official, could he not wear a cross on his blazer? Is it unconstitutional for Bill Clinton to take the POTUS limo to a black church?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:42 am to genro
quote:
Well I'm glad you don't vote for people who ban religion on the basis of vague unprovable "societal norms"
You should stop listening to them too. They don't want freedom of religion. They literally call themselves Freedom From Religion.
Again, I'm strictly talking about the current legal interpretations, something I know a lot about.
I "mostly" agree with them. There should be no state propagated mention of God or any religion whatsoever on any state sponsored or paid for property.
The helmet thing is just absurd. Again, while probably technically unconstitutional, why make a big deal about it? Get a life.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:43 am to Projectpat
quote:
Any examples of this that you can remember off the top of your head? I'm interested in reading similar cases.
I don't remember the case name but I've read a situation where a court reporter was an atheist and didn't want to participate in prayer that the judge led prior to court. It was ruled that the judge, even though he did not "force" anyone to participate, couldn't lead a prayer in court. It favored religion over non-religion and violated the establishment clause. The looks and judgment toward the atheist for not participating caused her to be treated negatively by her peers. In a state workplace, this scenario is not legal or appropriate.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:46 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
I don't remember the case name but I've read a situation where a court reporter was an atheist and didn't want to participate in prayer that the judge led prior to court. It was ruled that the judge, even though he did not "force" anyone to participate, couldn't lead a prayer in court. It favored religion over non-religion and violated the establishment clause.
I agree that we shouldn't have judges leading prayer services in the court room, but what does that have to do with a football player wearing a cross on his helmet?
A judge leading everyone in a prayer <> Tebow kneeling after a TD in his UF uniform
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:46 am to genro
quote:
The school/coaches/players were exercising their freedom of religion, and liberals prohibited it.
The school has no freedom of religion in its public capacity.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:47 am to uway
quote:
I agree that we shouldn't have judges leading prayer services in the court room, but what does that have to do with a football player wearing a cross on his helmet?
If you think about it very long and hard, I'm sure you can see the comparison.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:48 am to uway
quote:
I read it twice to be sure I wasn't mistaken, because it sounds insane to me to believe that a football player wearing a personal symbol counts as state promotion of religion that somehow violates the religious freedom of anyone.
Clearly football players are not official representatives of the state, regardless of who paid for their uniforms, but even if we were talking about an elected official, could he not wear a cross on his blazer? Is it unconstitutional for Bill Clinton to take the POTUS limo to a black church?
Elected officials own their blazer. The cross is clearly meant to show that specific individual's beliefs. His blazer doesn't have a logo or the flag of his government on it. That's the difference. Football players are wearing the official logo's of their state-sponsored school.
Favoring or promoting any religion over non-religion is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 9:50 am
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:49 am to uway
quote:
I read it twice to be sure I wasn't mistaken, because it sounds insane to me to believe that a football player wearing a personal symbol counts as state promotion of religion that somehow violates the religious freedom of anyone.
It doesn't violate the religious freedom of anyone. It doesn't have to.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:51 am to Fun Bunch
For fricks sake, people really do look for any reason to be offended. A football team honoring their teammates with a cross?
Oh god the horror. We must put an end to that.
Who in their right mind would get offended by a cross on a football helmet?
Oh god the horror. We must put an end to that.
Who in their right mind would get offended by a cross on a football helmet?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:52 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Favoring or promoting any religion over non-religion is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Which isn't in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:53 am to Chimlim
quote:
Who in their right mind would get offended by a cross on a football helmet?
Apparently an atheist lawyer who saw it on t.v.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:02 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
what is so damn hard to understand about that.
What is so damn hard to understand about putting a question mark at the end of a question?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:04 am to uway
quote:I don't. That's the kind of stuff they do in Muslim theocracies. But clearly some would like the US to be the atheist version of ISIL.
Do y'all REALLY want our country to be a place where people are forbidden, if they want to participate fully in public life, from displaying small unobtrusive symbols of the things that matter most to them?
The 1A was created specifically to allow public expression of religion. And ensure the government didn't suppress it. Yet here we are.... People suggesting it be kept from the public eye.
Simple question: if you have to hide it from public view.. are you free?
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 10:12 am
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:06 am to Fun Bunch
What about Arlington National Cemetery where it is nothing but rows of crosses?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:07 am to Fun Bunch
quote:are you suggesting they did not know what was in the constitution. Ala' "we didn't read the bill"
Sorry. Establishment clause. Separation of church and state and all. Which really isn't in the Constitution.
-------
Some of the Founding Fathers definitely thought it was,
quote:no.
and there are numerous comments to this effect from Jefferson and others, which is where the Supreme Court got the interpretation from.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:10 am to Fun Bunch
quote:I guess we better burn and never speak of the Declaration of Independence.
I "mostly" agree with them. There should be no state propagated mention of God or any religion whatsoever on any state sponsored or paid for property.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:18 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
No, I don't want that. INDIVIDUALS, in their INDIVIDUAL capacity, should be able to do whatever they want.
In their PUBLIC capacity (ie State Sponsored), they cannot.
Were the INDIVIDUAL players forced to put a cross on their helmet or "in their INDIVIDUAL capacity" did they choose to put a cross on their helmet?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News