Posted on 09/20/2014 9:04:24 PM PDT by marjiwoj
Oneida High School cheerleaders were upset that the school chose to ban prayer at their games, so they decided to pray on their own and found they had supporters among the opposing team and the crowd...
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
Actually it is brave of them - the School administration told them not to do it and since they hold the power to disband the cheerleading squad, it is a brave thing they are doing.
Today? Yes. For ‘Disorderly Conduct’ and don’t think some human garbage school communist wouldn’t press charges.
The ACLU is going nuts. Oneida HS used to do prayer over the PA system and stopped because of them.
The cheerleaders took it upon themselves to take over. It’s a lesson in the 1st amendment.
I’ll shoot somebody who tries to STOP me from praying.
Judicial and Legislative declining credibility bump.
bump
...”Anyone who bitches about this needs to be arrested and taken out and shot”....
Nah...send them to Muslim country and let them figure it out.
So they show up at a game and keep cheer leading, who could stop them? The point I'm trying to make is they did the easy thing, they decided to live with themselves rather than give in.
Cheerleading is not just a group of girls who show up - it is a school sanctioned activity and they could easily be denied access. I realize it does not seem important to you, but it is to girls that age.
I imagine the aclu has been busy celebrating this week after the 9th Circus told high school kids that they can’t wear T-shirts with the American flag on them because they “offend” the freeloading foreigners and cause them to become violent “if they see them”.
Schools originally didn't ban prayer. The banning of school prayer is traceable back to the Protestants versus Catholics cold war in the USA, imo, an ongoing cold war that is older than the country itself.
More specifically, 19th century American Protestants had attempted by various means to stifle the spread of catholocism in the USA as evidenced by the following which is mostly from a related post.
----------------
Regarding the “evolving” interpretation of the Establishment Clause by the post-FDR era institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court, please bear with the following analysis of this issue as it has many twists and turns. Also note that much of this material has been posted in related threads.
First, note that regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the Establishment Clause and Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation," the real Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following about the religious aspects of the 1st and 10th Amendments. Jefferson had noted that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment in part to clarify that the states had reserved government power to regulate (I say cultivate) religious expression to themselves, regardless that they had also made the 1st Amendment in part to prohibit such power to Congress entirely.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; …" --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
So given that the states have the power to regulate (cultivate) religious expression, the same power that enables the states to authorize creationism to be taught in public schools and students to pray as well, there would have been no question up to the time that the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified that displaying the 10 Commandments in public schools was constitutional for those states that gave the green light to religious expression in public schools. After all, schools used to use the Holy Bible to teach students how to read.
H O W E V E R ...
Note that one of the oldest cold wars still going on in the country is the “war” between Catholics and Protestants. This is evidenced by the “common schools” pioneered by Horace Mann that were started in the first half 19th century which promoted Protestant Christian beliefs over Catholic Christian beliefs.
Also consider the 19th century anti-Catholic political cartoons of Thomas Nast.
The cold war between Protestants and Catholics escalated when federal lawmaker James G. Blaine tried to lead Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states to prohibit common schools from teaching “sectarian” (read Catholic) beliefs.
Blaine Amendment
Although the proposed Blaine amendment never made it to the Constitution, “former” KKK member Justice Hugo Black, one of FDR’s activist justices, essentially succeeded in “amending” the Blaine amendment to the Constitution from the bench. Southern Baptist Justice Black was influential in helping to twist the Establishment Clause to kick Catholic teachings, and ultimately the good news of Jesus, out of the public schools.
Note that Phillip Hamburger’s book “The Separation of Church and State,” a book which examines discrimination against USA Catholics in the 19th century, helps to substantiate these observations.
Regarding why religious expression disappeared altogether from public schools, a major consequence of FDR’s unconstitutionally big federal government is the following. FDR’s justices essentially had to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet so that the Court could give the green light to Congress to overstep its Commerce Clause powers which it did in Wickard v. Filburn . In fact, here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR’s activist justices decided that case.
“In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was “necessary and proper” to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit [emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”—Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Using terms like “some concept” and “implicit,” FDR’s justices essentially turned 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty into a wives’ tale imo.
With the 10th Amendment politically repealed by judicial fiat, anti-Catholic former KKK member Black “rationalized” the 10th Amendment power of the states to legislatively address religious issues into obscurity by arguing the following. He argued that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights in its entirety, including the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of power to regulate religion to Congress to the states. Black’s influence is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. [emphasis added] The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
H O W E V E R ...
By arguing that 14A took away certain powers from the states, in this case the power to address religious issues which "atheist" Thomas Jefferson had clarified that they had, activist justices wrongly ignored the following. They ignored that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that 14A took away no state's rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
In fact, consider that Justice Reed had noted the following about the 10th and 14th Amendments. Justice Reed had indicated that it is the job of judges to balance 10A protected state powers with 14A protected rights, as opposed to spinning 14A as an excuse to rob the states of such powers.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
So regardless what activist justices and their activist law school professors want everybody to think about 14A, the states still have the 10A power to regulate religion which Jefferson had clarified imo, state power to regulate religion now limited by 14A as opposed to the PC idea that 14A took away such powers.
Again, the problem is that, regardless that Christian parents / guardians are making sure that their children are being taught the Holy Bible, Christians are evidently not making sure that their children are being taught the law of the land as constitutonal lawmakers had intended for it to be understood. Christians are therefore unsurprisingly suffering the consequences of their ignorance of their constitutionally protected religious freedoms by the hands of post FDR-era institutionally indoctrinated judges.
Again, political loss of constitutionally protected religious freedoms for USA Christians is arguably rooted in the ongoing cold war between Protestants and Catholics.
Finally, note that the reason that Protestants eventually gave up on the Blaine Amendment to the federal Constitution is that they wised up to the possibility that the Blaine amendment could ultimately be used to stifle the teaching of Protestant Christian beliefs. But Justice Black evidently decided to ignore that risk and inapropriately used the Establishment Clause to rob the states of their 10th Amendment-protected powers to say yes or no to religious expression in public schools. All Christian denominations are now suffering the consequences of Black's mischief as had been predicted with the Blaine amendment.
First? No. Fifth and Fourteenth have the due process clauses.
Looks like they’re may be some hope for some of our youth after all
I had a dyke gym teacher pull some crap on me back in 1981.
Said I couldn’t dress-out and play sports because she failed me for not running per her command. I said fine and left. I understand she looked for me for hours. I played havoc on the lib idiots in the day.
(I actually went to the cafeteria and got an apple. I then went to my car and went fishing)
The stories the next week were hilarious.
Even after all that. The State cannot tell my little girl she cannot pray.
If the state wants to go there, then maybe it is time to do away with the state.
Its very important. Their principles are more important. If they were banned from the field, they cheer from the stands.
Fascinating thread. Thanks to all posters. Deliver us from evil BUMP!
Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.