Quantcast

Comments about ‘Texas governor opposes ban on religious banners’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Oct. 18 2012 2:56 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Furry1993
Ogden, UT

There is no “ongoing onslaught” on religious expression and no attempt to limit religious expression in Constitutionally-appropriate places (i.e., where there is no government involvement). The cheerleaders and football players in question could have held a private rally outside of school grounds (not authorized or approved by the school which is a de facto government authority) and the Constitution would not be implicated. The problem comes from the fact that the school, by its actions, gives the appearance of approving one form of religion over any others (in other words, the school's actions establishes a religion as the preferred religion in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause). Nothing is restricting free exercise of religion; just that it can't be done pursuant to school (government) approval.

To the people who want to see this or any other governmentally-sanctioned religious activity permitted -- which religion(s) should be permitted and which ones should not be permitted? Protestant? Catholic? Evangelical? LDS? Jewish? Muslim? Wiccan? Satanism? [Name any other religion?] And wahat about the people who do not believe in God or are not decided? How should that be decided?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

By prohibiting the banners, the government IS creating legislation concerning religion. The prohibition removes the neutrality required by the first amendment and denies the free expression guaranteed thereby.

The banners do not constitute governmentally sanctioned religious activity. To claim they do is pure hogwash.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

In the interest of good journalism, it's too bad the article couldn't have included some statements by those who support the ban.

This sentence ran in a longer version of the article: "But the school district’s attorney, Tom Brandt, said the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause prevents the state endorsement of religion and appears to trump state law." He's right. The banners are state endorsement of religion because the cheerleaders--like the coaches and players--represent the school.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Steve C. Warren

He's wrong.

There is nothing prohibiting the state endorsement of religion.

Only congress shall not favor or disfavor (be a respector of) a particular religion.

Our founding fathers had no problem with endorsement or encouragement.

This is clearly a violation of first amendments rights, Both religious and speech.

And By the way, Religious speech has EVERY RIGHT to be in the public square.

Otherwise you would be giving preferential treatment or denying rights to certain groups, organizations and individuals.

Government interfering in religion and speech is the exact reason for the first amendment.

People expressing their religion and religious speech in a public forum, like a school, is NOT prohibited, nor was that ever intended, again just look at how the founding fathers and early congresses, and early american society practiced the first amendment.

You will then understand how radical (and wrong) the change has been.

And also the founding father NEVER considered schools to be the government (they were local community institutions), and in any case, the amendment applies ONLY to congress.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Steve C. Warren

He's wrong.

There is nothing prohibiting the state endorsement of religion.

Only congress shall not favor or disfavor (be a respector of) a particular religion.

Our founding fathers had no problem with endorsement or encouragement.

This is clearly a violation of first amendments rights, Both religious and speech.

And By the way, Religious speech has EVERY RIGHT to be in the public square.

Otherwise you would be giving preferential treatment or denying rights to certain groups, organizations and individuals.

Government interfering in religion and speech is the exact reason for the first amendment.

People expressing their religion and religious speech in a public forum, like a school, is NOT prohibited, nor was that ever intended, again just look at how the founding fathers and early congresses, and early american society practiced the first amendment.

You will then understand how radical (and wrong) the change has been.

And also the founding father NEVER considered schools to be the government (they were local community institutions), and in any case, the amendment applies ONLY to congress.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments