There is no clearer case of religious oppression than this. For those who've thought it wrong for school officials to participate in promoting Christianity, where do you stand now? This is clearly the choice of the cheerleaders to make these Bible banners. It's called freedom of the press and freedom of speech and/or the free exercise of religion.

In fact, our founding fathers never intended to suppress religious expression in our schools. It was the main reason we had public schools, to promote the Christian religion and its morals among our young people. Find and read Noah Webster's "Advice to the Young" which was once part of a school text book. It includes his moral catechism and open promotion of Christianity as the only truth. Read George Washington's Farewell Address which was also a textbook until the Supreme Court suppression of religion began in 1949. Therein you'll find our first Commander-in-chief promoting Christianity and condemning all who would attempt to separate religion from morality.

Please find and read "Original Intent" by David Barton to discover what the founders truly meant by the first amendment and how horribly modern Supreme Courts have willfully and wickedly subverted the original intent of our founders and thrown this nation into disarray.

It is inexplicable for Christians to continue to lie down against tyranny and to shame the name of Christ by their cowardice. "Dare to be a Daniel. Dare to stand alone. Dare to have a purpose firm and dare to stand alone." taken from the song.

Really? Is this what it has come to? Do we in the US have such soft comfy lives that we think persecution equals not being allowed to let football players crash through a banner with a Bible verse instead of a school motto? I've always joked that football was more of a religion than Christianity in the south; sadly, it appears its no joke.

How is free speech denied when every person in the stands if they so desire can stencil "Jesus loves me but he can't stand the ACLU" across their chests as long as they are officially representing the school or asking an entire non-religious school group to do so also? Do you honestly think that if there is an agnostic or Muslim or Hindu football player they are going to feel comfortable asking to be exempted from praying on the field or bursting through a Bible verse? Can you honestly not see how this sets up a situation where the school is condoning one specific religion? And for goodness sakes, what about when Jesus tells us to pray in private, instead of on football fields like the hypocrites do? (Ok, slight paraphrase of Matthew 6:5-7)

Questions for kash: How many Muslims or agnostics are in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia? Why is this even an issue since no one has even complained about the banner who is actually in the school? How about the comfort level of those children and parents in that school who established it and fund it? What about their freedom to educate their children in their way of life that includes their religious beliefs broadly considered?

This is not a case of religious oppression in any way, despite the first respondents claims. People were welcome to wear religious T-shirts and dispaly religious signs in the stands. They were able to display bible verses on signs in a spot 50 yards from the football field. The matter is upholding the separation of church and state established in the first amendment. It doesn't matter whether the community is mostly or completely Christian. To have a sign at a public school event, created with public school funds, and displayed by public school leaders (in this case, the cheerleaders) is a violation of the first amendment.

This ruling doesn't prohibit freedom of religion, it protects people's rights from having a religous view forced upon them. If there were sayings from the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or another religious text, those same Christians would be "up in arms" about it and demand it be taken down. So, if it's not OK for another religious group to do it, why is it OK for Christians?

Finally, the public education system wasn't established until the 1800s, so the founding fathers had nothing to say about that. Private education is an entirely different matter. You can promote whatever religious tradition you choose in that context. In a public education setting, however, you cannot do so, because it is a government institution, and while free expression of religion is allowed (and encouraged), it cannot be forced upon people by any public official (whether that be a school board, a superintendent, a teacher, or yes, a cheerleader).

"How many Muslims or agnostics are in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia?"
Why does that matter? And why are you assuming there aren't any? Besides, you also have to consider the constitutional rights of agnostics, atheists, and Christians who think it is inappropriate to mix religion with secular school sponsored activities.
"Why is this even an issue since no one has even complained about the banner who is actually in the school?"
So are you condoning trying to get away with pushing the limits of government/church separation until someone calls you on it? If it is against the law, does it matter if no one in the school complains? And isn't the very sense that people who were bothered by it probably were afraid to complain because of this very backlash proof that it is violating rights?
"How about the comfort level of those children and parents in that school who established it and fund it?" Fine. Take no government funds, and be subject to no government laws regarding separation of church and state.
"What about their freedom to educate their children in their way of life that includes their religious beliefs broadly considered?" I am not sure what you are asking. I do not see how not letting cheerleaders hold up specifically religious/proselytyzing banners and a secular school function in any way impinges the rights of parents to educate their children in any way they seem fit. Unless you are trying to educate your children that separation of church and state is a sham and that public schools and public lands really should be fair game for overtly Christian signs and symbols, because you believe that even though the founding fathers went out of their way to separate government from church (to protect both, by the way) they REALLY meant for all Americans to be Christians or suffer the consequences.

Let me quote Kash's replies to my questions and then I shall answer each of them. I appreciate your taking time to reply to my questions, Kash.

Kash: "Why does that matter? And why are you assuming there aren't any? Besides, you also have to consider the constitutional rights of agnostics, atheists, and Christians who think it is inappropriate to mix religion with secular school sponsored activities."

My reply: It matters because no one's rights have been violated if no one in that school district who attends that school feels put upon by the sign. I shall argue below that even if they were offended, that is not a violation of their rights. But apparently, from news reports, no one in the school was unhappy with the signs. So, why is it an issue?

Kash: "So are you condoning trying to get away with pushing the limits of government/church separation until someone calls you on it? If it is against the law, does it matter if no one in the school complains? violating rights?"

My reply: Yes, I am trying to push the limits here or even violate the law in light of previous Supreme Court rulings because I disagree with the mid-Twentieth Century Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment dating back to 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71. I especially disagree with Lemon v. Kurtzman decided in 1971. I think that the way that public schools took up religion prior to this string of decisions was most in keeping with the First Amendment and our traditions that include a non-denominational Christianity included in public life. That is the way that our legal system works--push the limits or violate the law in order to challenge the status quo. What the Supreme Court had moved toward in the past century is more of the French Enlightenment attitude toward religion that attempted to marginalize it. American judges in the past century deemed religion and Christianity too influential in the U.S. and used their power to attempt to "secularize" or I would say, naturalize, Americans against their will. Judge Richard Posner makes this point as do journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge in their book, *God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World.* Micklethwait and Woolridge distinguish between the American Enlightenment and the French Enlightenment in regard to public attitudes toward religion. They go on to argue that the secularization model pioneered by the most radical aspects of the French Revolution is not consistent with the American experience nor with the experience of most of the world. So, yes, I want to see the Supreme Court change back to its traditional reading of the First Amendment and I think that such a return is possible with the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

Kash: "And isn't the very sense that people who were bothered by it probably were afraid to complain because of this very backlash proof that it is."

My response: First, we need evidence that people were adversely affected by this banner to have a lawsuit, and fear of a lawsuit is why the superintendent of the schools there ordered it removed. Next, supporters of the ban have to show that the banner actually violated anyone's rights. Could you please explain how the banner violates anyone's rights? Fear of being ostracized or ridiculed is not grounds for suppressing others' right to free speech. This is a crucial point here, feeling inferior or left out or feeling upset with something you do not agree with is not a violation of anyone's rights. This is a Christian country and we have long tradition of Christian language and symbols in our public institutions. Consider the Ten Commandments posted in public areas or "In God we Trust" or public prayers at the presidential inauguration, which are legally in place even with these extremist rulings over the past half century.


Kash: "Fine. Take no government funds, and be subject to no government laws regarding separation of church and state. "

My response: Okay, but let's cut taxes for people who opt out of the governmental system. I do not want my tax money going to fund atheist schools. Let's pass a new amendment separating education and state, so that we can more thoroughly Christianize our society without the atheists and leftists using the power of the state to interfere with our traditions. But if I am paying for public education, then I shall use my influence to return to pre-Everson days.

Kash: "I do not see how not letting cheerleaders hold up specifically religious/proselytyzing banners and a secular school function in any way impinges the rights of parents to educate their children in any way they seem fit. Unless you are trying to educate your children that separation of church and state is a sham and that public schools and public lands really should be fair game for overtly Christian signs and symbols, because you believe that even though the founding fathers went out of their way to separate government from church (to protect both, by the way) they REALLY meant for all Americans to be Christians or suffer the consequences."

My response: Taking your points in reverse order, first, the Founders of the U.S. did not accept the French Revolutionary model on anything including separation of church and state. They were not egalitarians. Consider the many proclamations and resolutions supporting Christianity as well as overt funding of Christian religious instruction passed and signed into law by the first few Congresses and presidents including Jefferson. Second, what "consequences" might non-Christins suffer if students hold up a sign at a football game? Third, government itself is formed by a social contract as people join together to accomplish common goals. They also distribute public honors and recognitions as a community via the state. The people's religion has and should play a part in children's education and public honors. Christianity is the religion of the vast majority of Americans, and such state recognitions are either agents of the state simply realizing that fact or allowing people to freely express the sentiments of the community. To restrict this sort of generic religious expression violates the freedom of people to come together to form such institutions as schools that include religious references.

How are non-Christians' rights violated by this sign?

Were religiously tinged religious expression in public schools prior to the mid-Twentieth Century inconsistent with the First Amendment? Why did no one in positions of responsibility see that they did for so long?

Any governmental organization and its representatives--in this case, a local school's cheerleaders--promoting a particular religion is a violation of the first amendment. This amendment was intended to protect the free expression of religion, which the Christians in this district are free to do. It also protects those of other faiths, by not having the government promote one faith over another. The sign does not violate their rights, by itself. It may not have even offended them, I can't speak for them. But, by having a govt. organization promote a religion, it does violate the est. clause of the first amendment, which protects peoples' rights (in this case, non-Christians rights) from having a religious ideology forced upon them.

To your second question: First, I believe that it was inconsistent with the first amendment, and thankfully such actions have been restricted. For example, prayer is still allowed in schools, it wasn't ever removed, it just isn't forced upon all the students by having a teacher lead the class in a prayer. Second, arguing that it wasn't because no one realized it for so long is not a sound defense since no one would claim that American slavery was appropriate simply because it was accepted and defended for a long time.

This is always a touchy subject. There's a lot of gray areas. There's a lot of opportunity for dialogue. I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's views, just trying to set forth my understanding of the first amendment.

Just had a chance to glance through your response to kash, where you said: "This is a Christian country and we have long tradition of Christian language and symbols in our public institutions."

The idea that America is a Christian nation seems to be the driving force behind many who get upset at instances such as this one. Personally, I find this idea to be more mythical than factual. Let me explain.

Labels ultimately matter very little in the big picture. For example, a person can call themselves a Christian, but what does that mean/matter if the person doesn't live as Jesus lived, if they don't seek to emulate Jesus however faltingly it may be. In the same way, a nation can call itself Christian, but what does that mean if it looks nothing like Jesus?

In other words, when exactly was America a Christian nation? When has it acted like Christ?

Was it when the European settlers took over the land of the native population, forcing them to relocate and killing them when they refused? Was it when they enslaved thousands of Africans and got rich off the abuse and exploitation of our fellow human beings? Was it one of the many times they went to war, leading to the death of our citizens and those of the nations with whom we fought?

What, in all of this, looks like Jesus? What makes America a Christian nation if it looks and acts nothing like the Christ whose name is too often used as an adjective to describe the nation of America?

Thank you for answering the questions that I posed to you in my last post, zdbu. I shall quote parts of your reply and then offer a response of my own.

Zdbu: "Any governmental organization and its representatives--in this case, a local school's cheerleaders--promoting a particular religion is a violation of the first amendment."

My reply: I think that the basic assumptions that you work from in your discussion above are questionable. First, I do not see that if the public school officials allow a cheerleader to hold up a sign that establishes a state church, which the First Amendment prohibits. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about the state always showing complete neutrality among the religious perspectives. The idea of neutrality as the hallmark of the establishment clause dates back to a majority decision of the Supreme Court written by Sandra O'Connor in 1984 in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly. This test was invented whole cloth by Justice O'Connor. Using this criterion the Ninth Circuit a few years ago found that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional.

As I mentioned in my reply to Kash just above, these types of decisions are based on a reading of the First Amendment that sought to marginalize religion and is inconsistent with our traditions. Antonin Scalia makes this point as do the authors I mention above.

zdbu: "It also protects those of other faiths, by not having the government promote one faith over another. The sign does not violate their rights, by itself. It may not have even offended them, I can't speak for them. But, by having a govt. organization promote a religion, it does violate the est. clause of the first amendment, which protects peoples' rights (in this case, non-Christians rights) from having a religious ideology forced upon them."

Your reference to 'force' seems to appeal to a standard carved out of, once again, whole cloth by Anthony Kennedy in his decision in the 1992 case, Lee v. Weisman. As with the neutrality test, this reasoning is completely at odds with not only the traditional understanding of the First Amendment, but is radically inconsistent with the Founders' understanding of rights and coercion. In his decision, Justice Kennedy asserted that having a non-denominational prayer at a public school graduation was "psychologically coercive" to those who did not believe in prayer or the version of the prayer being prayed. His reasoning here is ill-conceived given our political and legal system. Coercion is only a physical threat or attack. Listening to something that one had rather not listen to is not coercion as defined in Lockean political philosophy, which is what the Constitution and our entire system is based upon.

I suspect that the underlying motive in these cases is not liberty of conscience so much as it is empowering the government to regulate religion so that no one religious group holds too much sway in the community. The ideal on this view is for everyone, no matter their religion or lack thereof, to have equal standing in the community. Religion divides people, so it is better to keep it out of the public sphere. The problem with this sort of egalitarianism as with all attempts to actually equalize wealth or status is that state actions to equalize in fact will likely lead to violations of liberty and freedom as I mentioned in the close of my response to Kash. There is no Constitutional right to equal status in the community. It is not in the Constitution and, more pointedly, the Founders considered equality of result as being inconsistent with liberty and the right to property, which it is.

Zdbu: "...[A]rguing that it [prayer in public schools] wasn't [unconstitutional] because no one realized it for so long is not a sound defense since no one would claim that American slavery was appropriate simply because it was accepted and defended for a long time."

My reply: There are two important points here. First, yes, because a practice has been in effect for a long time without serious contention, and it is working is a reason to continue it. This principle is called 'prescription' and it is a vital part of English Common Law. In cases dealing with philosophical principle, the practice of how to implement the abstract principle in concrete situations must always bend to the contingencies of reality. The prolonged and practical application of an idea refines the idea and makes it fit the times and the place it is instantiated.

Second, in the case of slavery, the law was changed by Constitutional Amendment not by reinterpreting the Constitution, departing from a historical understanding of the text and how it should be applied in real life cases.

Zdbu questioned my claim that the United States is a Christian nation. Well, it is doubtful that it could properly be labeled a Hindu or a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or an atheist country. Around 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians and the principles that the Founders relied on in crafting our legal and political system are rooted in Greco-Roman and Anglo-Saxon tradition and the Bible. Consider that the Founders quoted from the Bible more than any one source when writing on political theory--see a study by University of Houston political scientists, Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman in their article "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," The American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197.

There is really no question that a number of foundational principles and assumptions the Founders and most Americans throughout its history have made can be traced back to a Christian origin. I am thinking here, for example, of the assumption that people are basically selfish and power seeking. That assumption gave rise to limited government and separation of powers which was motivated by historical experience interpreted by the Christian doctrine of human depravity. The focus on individual rights including liberty of conscience comes from the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. Locke's conception of private property, equality before God and the law (as opposed to equality of condition), and liberty all depend upon the biblical view of Creation.

There is no reason to believe that the U.S. is anything other than de facto Christian in its origin, its founding philosophy, and the beliefs of its citizens throughout its history. Even those who adhered to religious perspectives such as Unitarianism and Deism were heterodox offshoots of Christianity who accepted the metaphysical and moral tenets of Christianity. The U.S. nor any other nation is neutral in its religious perspective. As philosopher Thomas Nagel argues in another context, there is no such a thing as a "view from nowhere." Everyone and every culture or nation will always take up some religious/metaphysical perspective to ground their view of the world.

As for the fact that American history is littered with gross immorality is tragic, I agree. But those sins were not due to Christians qua Christianity, but people who were nominal Christians and perhaps some of them were born again but who also had a fallen nature. I regret to say that there is no way to remove fallenness from humans until they are glorified and their evil human nature is completely removed. Until then, our first goal in political theory should be to contain human evil. That, I see, as a truly Christian political philosophy.