Walden Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Wouldn't bother me. Should it? Do you know what Allah means in Arabic? It means God. Of course there is an exception to every rule, but my gut instinct tells me that if a Muslim song was played at a football game in Mississippi (location of the referenced story), not everyone in the crowd might be as tolerant as you.
provoman Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 In today's politically correct environment, when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty, I think it is worth highlighting and applauding.Since we as Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty, I see it as relevant to this board.A high school marching band in Mississippi was forbidden from performing a Christian hymn at a football game. In defiance, the crowd spontaneously began to sing the hymn.Read about it here.Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "defiance". A group of people, who under no conceivable threat, were acting in "defiance"? How could they act in "defiance" when they were not prohibited from acting? 1
provoman Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 It defied the intent of those who pursued the court order, which was to eliminate any religious expression from the public event.Spin doctoring. No intent was defied; I suppose you could cite the court order to establish the "intent".
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 Of course there is an exception to every rule, but my gut instinct tells me that if a Muslim song was played at a football game in Mississippi (location of the referenced story), not everyone in the crowd might be as tolerant as you.I've added to my prior post. Please consider responding to the additional content.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 Spin doctoring. No intent was defied; I suppose you could cite the court order to establish the "intent".Please consider what I added to my post, the hypothetical scenario of students getting together on their own time, rehearsing, then showing up at the game with their instruments to play the hymn. Would this meet your "defiance" standard?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 I had Courtney Leishman (former girls basketball coach at BYU) for a coaching class at BYU. He told us that on a recruiting trip to Texas, both teams met at mid-court for a pre-game prayer. He turned to his host and asked how they dared do that, with the ACLU and all that. His host said, "We're Southern Baptists. We don't give a d*** about the ACLU." We Mormons, in our desire to avoid confrontation and bad PR, would never dream of reacting like that.I might. Not in the name of the Church but with a group of like-minded people acting under our own auspices.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "defiance". A group of people, who under no conceivable threat, were acting in "defiance"? How could they act in "defiance" when they were not prohibited from acting?I didn't mean defiance of the law. I don't believe the people in the crowd who were singing the hymn were breaking the law. I meant defiance of any sentiment that would prevent people of faith from any sort unified expression of their faith at a public event. I don't believe this thing is only about preventing the school from sponsoring activities of a religious nature. I believe some secularists would use any legal means at their disposal to eliminate religious expression, government-sponsored or not, from the public arena. Furthermore, I don't believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees that you or anyone else will be insulated from the expression of religious faith in public. That would be "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, something that the First Amendment expressly forbids. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
sethpayne Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Wouldn't bother me. Should it? Do you know what Allah means in Arabic? It means God. Suppose several of the students from the high school, perhaps including some members of the marching band, got together on their own time off school premises and rehearsed the hymn, then brought their instruments to the game and, at a specific time, performed the hymn. Would this have been acceptable? Why or why not? Scott -- I'm sure you saw the pro-PP protests held by Satanists over the weekend. Would you support the right of Satanists to perform a Satanic-themed hymn at HS football games?
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 In today's politically correct environment, when a person or a group of people take a stand for religious liberty, I think it is worth highlighting and applauding. Since we as Latter-day Saints are being encouraged to safeguard religious liberty, I see it as relevant to this board. A high school marching band in Mississippi was forbidden from performing a Christian hymn at a football game. In defiance, the crowd spontaneously began to sing the hymn. Read about it here.Oh well Bully for them. Last I recal we actually do have a secular constitution which establishes seperation of church and state. This means any public institution should not support any religion.....meaning yours, mine or someone else's. 1
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 By framing the issue as one of "religious liberty", you concede that a band playing "How Great Thou Art" is inherently religious. Public schools shouldn't be in the business in the business of leading a religious exercise. Thinking that freedom of religion can best be maintained by separating state and religion doesn't mean you are against the freedom of religion--just the opposite. In any case, the public spontaneously singing a song doesn't somehow "defy" the court order. The court order was that the public school couldn't lead the song--not that people couldn't sing it or that it couldn't be heard.Well said. 1
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Of course there is an exception to every rule, but my gut instinct tells me that if a Muslim song was played at a football game in Mississippi (location of the referenced story), not everyone in the crowd might be as tolerant as you.Scott is not tolerant. He is just trying to score points in line with his preferred religious views. Edited August 26, 2015 by Teancum 1
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I didn't mean defiance of the law. I don't believe the people in the crowd who were singing the hymn were breaking the law. I meant defiance of any sentiment that would prevent people of faith from any sort unified expression of their faith at a public event. I don't believe this thing is only about preventing the school from sponsoring activities of a religious nature. I believe some secularists would use any legal means at their disposal to eliminate religious expression, government-sponsored or not, from the public arena. Furthermore, I don't believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees that you or anyone else will be insulated from the expression of religious faith in public. That would be "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, something that the First Amendment expressly forbids.We have a secular constitution Scott. That means that any institution that is supported by public funding ought not be supporting any religious observance. Faith expression in the public is quite fine as long as it is not in a venue that is sponsored or supported by public funds. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Oh well Bully for them. Last I recal we actually do have a secular constitution which establishes seperation of church and state. CFR that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution. What the Constitution does do through the First Amendment is forbid the enactment of laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (meaning that no particular religious faith or creed is privileged by the government, as is the case with state churches in many of the counties of the world). Likewise,the Constitution, through the First Amendment, forbids the enactment of laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. This means any public institution should not support any religion.....meaning yours, mine or someone else's. But likewise, no public institution is Constitutionally allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion, whether that free exercise takes place inside a house of worship or in public on Main Street. I think it was this latter fact that the crowd at the football game was affirming, in defiance of those in society who would shut the expression of faith away inside churches, synagogues and mosques. By the way, I'll save you some time and effort on that CFR. The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments. You can admit that fact and be done with my CFR. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 We have a secular constitution Scott. That means that any institution that is supported by public funding ought not be supporting any religious observance. Faith expression in the public is quite fine as long as it is not in a venue that is sponsored or supported by public funds.You're being awfully repetitive. See my response before repeating yourself again.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Scott -- I'm sure you saw the pro-PP protests held by Satanists over the weekend. I don't know what "pro-PP" means, and no, I don't keep up on the activities of Satanists. I have no interest in them, frankly. Would you support the right of Satanists to perform a Satanic-themed hymn at HS football games? As a libertarian on the matter of religious freedom, I support the lawful expression of the freedom by any group. However, I don't think this likely. The weakness of an argument is proportional to the disposition of its proponent to imagine up some ugly, horrific, outlandish hypothetical to establish it. Edited to add: I had to develop some Google strategies to investigate, but I learned that "Pro-PP" means pro-Planned Parenthood, and yes, i saw something on the Satanists and their ridiculous demonstration. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I have no need to respond Scott to your CFR. The constitution clearly states it will establish no religion as a state religion. The idea of seperation of church and state is simply integral to that ideal. Case law is repleat and full of this concept. It really protects your right to worship as a Mornon and a Muslim's right to worship as a Muslim and both to do so without any public institution favoring one or another because of majority worshiping in one way over the other.Go do your own homework if you really want to argue differently. 1
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 You're being awfully repetitive. See my response before repeating yourself again.Oh well excuse me that I did not see all your silly posts before my responses,
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Teancum seems so enamored with this phrase "secular Constitution" that I decided I should check into it to see if there is something there that I didn't know before. I found this in a Wikipedia entry for secular state: A 'secular state' is a concept of secularism, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular; however, a true secular state should steadfastly maintain national governance without influence from religious factions; i.e. Separation of church and state.[2] Note the phrase "supporting neither religion nor irreligion." As I mentioned earlier, the practice of forbidding any expression of religion in public has the de facto effect of supporting "irreligion," which, theoretically, is also disallowed in a secular state or under a secular constitution. Therefore, public policy that has the effect of favoring irreligion is not a true secular state, because such a state is supposed to be neutral in such matters. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I have no need to respond Scott to your CFR. The constitution clearly states it will establish no religion as a state religion. The idea of seperation of church and state is simply integral to that ideal. Case law is repleat and full of this concept. It really protects your right to worship as a Mornon and a Muslim's right to worship as a Muslim and both to do so without any public institution favoring one or another because of majority worshiping in one way over the other.Go do your own homework if you really want to argue differently.It's not supposed to favor the absence of religion -- or irreligion -- either. See my last post. The way it maintains such neutrality is to protect the free exercise of religion, both in public and private. As I said before, the Constitution does not guarantee that anyone will be insulated from the expression of religious faith in pubic. To do so would violate the free exercise of religion. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) It's not supposed to favor the absence of religion -- or irreligion -- either. See my last post.The way it maintains such neutrality is to protect the free exercise of religion, both in pubic and private.Ok so I assume a Texas high school that won't let a Mormon pray at a commencement ceremony because the Mormon is not "Christian" enough is quite fine with you. Edited August 26, 2015 by Teancum
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 Ok so I assume a Texas high school that won't let a Mormon pray at a commencement ceremony because the Mormon is not "Christian" enough is quite fine with you.No. That would be "respecting an establishment of religion." I never said I was in favor of that. Now answer my hypothetical I presented earlier about a group of high school students forming a marching band on their own and showing up at the football game to perform. 1
Teancum Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 No. That would be "respecting an establishment of religion." I never said I was in favor of that. Now answer my hypothetical I presented earlier about a group of high school students forming a marching band on their own and showing up at the football game to perform.If they do it on their own and it is not supported and sponsored by a publicly funded institution that is quite fine.
sethpayne Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) The weakness of an argument is proportional to the disposition of its proponent to imagine up some ugly, horrific, outlandish hypothetical to establish it. We just saw Satanists do a public protest/demonstration 2 days ago. Not sure sure that the hypothetical presented is so "outlandish." Regardless, I am glad to hear that you would have no objection to Satanists making their religion a part of a public HS football game. On this you are way more liberal than I am. Personally I'd like to keep Satanists out of HS football. We disagree, but I admire the consistency. Edited August 26, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) We just saw Satanists do a public protest/demonstration 2 days ago. Not sure sure that the hypothetical presented is so "outlandish." Regardless, I am glad to hear that you would have no objection to Satanists making their religion a part of a public HS football game. On this you are way more liberal than I am. Personally I'd like to keep Satanists out of HS football. We disagree, but I admire the consistency.And I admire your zeal in keeping the world safe from Satanists. If I ever feel an imminent threat from them, I'll call on you. Would you advocate a school allowing a marching band composed of students who had rehearsed on their own time away from school premises to bring their instruments to the football game and perform? Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rodheadlee Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Oh well Bully for them. Last I recal we actually do have a secular constitution which establishes seperation of church and state.This means any public institution should not support any religion.....meaning yours, mine or someone else's.Ok, I'll need you to send me all of your money that says "In God We Trust" , I'll keep it separated for you. Edited August 26, 2015 by rodheadlee 1
Recommended Posts