It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion. As long as the school doesn't endorse a religion but lets their students the freedom to practice (and advertise) their religion, everything is ok.
I'm in. Can we get some Pasta love too while we're at it? These people really need to hear about my love of cheeses.
It's a borderline case on the Establishment Cause IMO. I find it distressing that this judge's ruling apparently didn't even address the issue directly. I wonder if it's going up on appeal. I can live with it going either way, but we should have a reasoned opinion that addresses the major Constitutional arguments.
Other students are not on the school-sanctioned cheerleading squad.
It's a borderline case on the Establishment Cause IMO. I find it distressing that this judge's ruling apparently didn't even address the issue directly. I wonder if it's going up on appeal. I can live with it going either way, but we should have a reasoned opinion that addresses the major Constitutional arguments.
404 promotion not found.
Even if the judge's ruling survives an appeal I really question the judgement of the cheerleaders here. They are supposed to represent the entire school and using that platform to advocate for a single religious belief to the exclusion of others that may be held by students at the schools means they've failed in their duty to represent their classmates.
Students in the stands holding up religious banners is different and not a problem at all as long as they were paid for with private funds.
They aren't required, nor would it be legal, for them to give up their rights to simply be on the cheerleading squad.
I agree re: their poor judgment. That, however, doesn't make it a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Endorsement turns on both intent and effect. Here the effect is perhaps debatable. It could be perceived as endorsement if it isn't 100% clear that the act was wholly done on the cheerleaders' own initiative. However, the intent isn't really there because so far as we know, the school has not backed or encouraged their actions. It has remained neutral throughout.
As I said, it's borderline, but I lean slightly in favor of allowing it here. I'd like to see a court opinion with some analysis of precedent.
I agree, but as a the school's cheerleading squad shouldn't the expectation for them in their "official" capacity be to represent all students?
The school should shut this kind of activity down because it doesn't align with their mission as a cheerleaders is. They are completely free to do whatever they want on their own time when they aren't acting on behalf of the school. Notice I'm not specifically saying the establishment clause was violated here. I think there are other issues at play here as well.
I agree, but as a the school's cheerleading squad shouldn't the expectation for them in their "official" capacity be to represent all students?
The school should shut this kind of activity down because it doesn't align with their mission as a cheerleaders is. They are completely free to do whatever they want on their own time when they aren't acting on behalf of the school. Notice I'm not specifically saying the establishment clause was violated here. I think there are other issues at play here as well.
Where in that clause does it say that these cheerleaders can't put Biblical quotes on a sign during a school sanctioned event? All that clause points to is making laws or not making laws. Unless there is another area of the Constitution that says government must be free from religion.
I'm afraid you are taking a narrower interpretation of the First Amendment than any court in history has taken. "Congress shall make no law" also applies to freedom of speech. Should we consider it OK if the POTUS tries to ban speech by use of an executive order? After all, it doesn't say anything about executive orders, right?
earth to texas: God doesn't care about fooseball.
-Helen "Mama" Boucher
Even worse, I can just imagine his head exploding if these were muslim cheerleaders looking to promote Islam.
Where did I move anything? I simply restated the same thing. They aren't promoting a religion by simply allowing the students to display a religion message. Since when does doing nothing equate to promoting something?
Please do tell how it would be an infringement of their first amendment rights? If I own a business can I run a banner across the field promoting that business for free and if they decline sue because my rights were violated? Of course not, no one is telling them what they can and can not say or do they are simply saying what they can promote while participating in a publicly funded event. I am quite sure they could drop out of cheer leading and pass out all the religions info they want in the parkinglot or across the street without issues.It would be an infringement of their first amendment rights to prevent them from displaying a religious message. A court of law isn't going to allow that to happen because of this.
You seem to subscribe to belief that we have freedom from religion in this country. We do not.
I can just see 'muslim' cheerleaders.... Wait.. no I can't.
They aren't required, nor would it be legal, for them to give up their rights to simply be on the cheerleading squad.