PDA

View Full Version : Polamalu's Cross on Jersey


Hayeksheroes
12-29-2009, 01:30 PM
Polamalu embroiders a cross above his name. Fortunately, the NFL has asked him not to remove it. I think it looks great. Way to go Polamalu.

God first
Family
Football


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2714/4175936939_0d58875523_o.png

CPanther95
12-29-2009, 01:38 PM
Embroidery?

Is there anything this guy can't do?

markymarc
12-29-2009, 01:40 PM
That is awesome. Very nice work Troy.

SH-Rock
12-29-2009, 01:41 PM
Now go out and play! :tt04:

jjpro11
12-29-2009, 01:48 PM
i cannot believe the NFL allows that, or if they are even aware of it since his hair covers it. those are the same douche bags that wouldn't let Jake Plummer wear a Pat Tillman #40 decal on his helmet.

stlrtruck
12-29-2009, 02:12 PM
i cannot believe the NFL allows that, or if they are even aware of it since his hair covers it. those are the same douche bags that wouldn't let Jake Plummer wear a Pat Tillman #40 decal on his helmet.

Or allow Chad Johnson to wear #15 for one game.

California-Steel
12-29-2009, 02:18 PM
Now that you brought it to their attention....:doh:

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 04:06 PM
They're aware of it, but they don't want to get into a religious expression squabble and they know the fans can't see it anyway.
I say good on him. While his uniform is technically non-regulation (unauthorized adornment, permanently attached), I see no reason why it shouldn't be permitted.

Mags87
12-29-2009, 04:09 PM
i hope that this isnt something that catches one though. just like in the NBA where you have people runnin around with stuff shaved into their heads, i don't really wanna see a WuTang symbol on someones jersey as they score a touchdown.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 04:24 PM
I thought Troy was a bit more sophisticated than that with regards to his beliefs. I was wrong, of course. Don't know what I was thinking... no beliefs are sophisticated. I'm sure god wants Troy's team to win and the other teams to lose. God has nothing better to do, evidently.

Actually, it would appear that god hates Troy's team, at least based on our record this year.

Neil-Still-Rules-14
12-29-2009, 04:29 PM
The reason they wouldn't allow Ochocinco to wear 15 or Plummer to wear 40 is because of the opening of a can of worms. Do you make a provision to allow players to do those kinds of things ONLY if a player dies? I can deal with Polamalu's cross, since his hair covers it up anyways.

Borski
12-29-2009, 04:41 PM
I thought Troy was a bit more sophisticated than that with regards to his beliefs. I was wrong, of course. Don't know what I was thinking... no beliefs are sophisticated. I'm sure god wants Troy's team to win and the other teams to lose. God has nothing better to do, evidently.

Actually, it would appear that god hates Troy's team, at least based on our record this year.

What does that even mean? according to an interview I read awhile back he prays for his health and safety, not for wins and losses

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 04:47 PM
I thought Troy was a bit more sophisticated than that with regards to his beliefs. I was wrong, of course. Don't know what I was thinking... no beliefs are sophisticated. I'm sure god wants Troy's team to win and the other teams to lose. God has nothing better to do, evidently.

Actually, it would appear that god hates Troy's team, at least based on our record this year.
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/32b260929a0df1ce47df21848ba394790da8aea6.gif

Oh, come on, now...
He's just giving credit for his blessings where he believes it's due. Would you rather he behaved more like Stabby Ray Lewis instead?
/awful lot of Christians who could learn a lesson or 3 from Troy.

stlrtruck
12-29-2009, 05:05 PM
The reason they wouldn't allow Ochocinco to wear 15 or Plummer to wear 40 is because of the opening of a can of worms. Do you make a provision to allow players to do those kinds of things ONLY if a player dies? I can deal with Polamalu's cross, since his hair covers it up anyways.

I think the NFL needs to open that can of worms. Understanding that not every player can wear the same jersey but allowing teams to determine what player will wear that honorary jersey for one game would not destroy the integrity of the league.

And yes you make the provision based on a current players death, not a player that is no longer playing but a current teammate.

Neil-Still-Rules-14
12-29-2009, 05:08 PM
And actually, I believe they were dicscussing whether or not to allow Ochocinco to wear 15, and he just decided not to.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 05:18 PM
There is a Separation Clause in the U.S. Constitution for a very good reason. Anyone who needs a history lesson regarding the effects of state-sponsored or state-sanctioned religions, feel free to contact me, or just follow the link in my signature. (Funny stuff, by the way.)

If the NFL and its agents feel the need to sanction and support particular religions, then fine. However, they would have to return every penny of all of the substantial amount of taxpayer dollars that they've ever received from every government agency. That would include, by the way, the city of Pittsburgh, the Allegheny Regional Asset District and the state of Pennsylvania. Every team in the league has received enormous subsidies from the public, so we're probably talking about many, many billions of dollars.

He can have his cross, and the rest of us can have well-funded schools and health care. Seems fair to me.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 05:23 PM
What does that even mean? according to an interview I read awhile back he prays for his health and safety, not for wins and losses

Which is exactly what I meant by his being a bit more sophisticated than most of those point-to-the-sky types after a TD. Maybe I was wrong. Evidently, god has the memory of a flea, and so you need to wear crap on your uniform in order to clearly mark yourself and be sorted out from the evildoers (that's me, by the way.)

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 05:40 PM
There is a Separation Clause in the U.S. Constitution for a very good reason.
Agreed. #1 This ain't it. #2 it doesn't apply in this situation. :coffee:

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 05:51 PM
Agreed. #1 This ain't it. #2 it doesn't apply in this situation. :coffee:

I respectfully disagree. As it is, the NFL is a weekly religious extravaganza. Considering that the Pledge of Allegiance has been brought to court, I'm astounded that the NFL has not. Allowing him to alter his uniform would constitute an official sanctioning of the Greek Orthodox religion in a way that individuals pointing to the sky does not. This is particularly so, given how persnickety the NFL has always been about the sanctity of their uniforms.

And again, they can pray to whomever they want and wear whatever they want. I'm cool with it... Just give us back all of our money. Lord knows (pun intended) they have enough money without the government subsidies.

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 06:01 PM
I respectfully disagree....
#1 The NFL is not a government agency. #2 allowing an employee to wear a symbol of his faith does not qualify as an official endorsement of a religion.
/ political discussions belong in the locker room...

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 06:14 PM
#1 The NFL is not a government agency. #2 allowing an employee to wear a symbol of his faith does not qualify as an official endorsement of a religion.
/ political discussions belong in the locker room...

You're right, they are not a government agency. They can do whatever the hell the want... as long as they are not accepting government dollars. That's not a radical interpretation of the Separation Clause, by the way. It's standard.

cubanstogie
12-29-2009, 06:15 PM
I thought Troy was a bit more sophisticated than that with regards to his beliefs. I was wrong, of course. Don't know what I was thinking... no beliefs are sophisticated. I'm sure god wants Troy's team to win and the other teams to lose. God has nothing better to do, evidently.

Actually, it would appear that god hates Troy's team, at least based on our record this year.

who pissed in your cheerios?

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 06:30 PM
who pissed in your cheerios?

Jesus Christ did. Why do you ask?

RoethlisBURGHer
12-29-2009, 06:33 PM
They're aware of it, but they don't want to get into a religious expression squabble and they know the fans can't see it anyway.
I say good on him. While his uniform is technically non-regulation (unauthorized adornment, permanently attached), I see no reason why it shouldn't be permitted.

They might now know about it. His hair covers it and he hasn't played much this season.

They wouldn't let Ben write "PFJ" (Play for Jesus) on his cleats his rookie year, I highly doubt they would allow Troy to embroider a cross on the back of his jersey above his name.

While he might not be fined for it (Ben wasn't fined for "PFJ", but was told to stop or be fined) they will probably tell Troy to stop doing it or face fines.

cubanstogie
12-29-2009, 06:37 PM
Jesus Christ did. Why do you ask?

curiosity.

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 06:40 PM
You're right, they are not a government agency. They can do whatever the hell the want... as long as they are not accepting government dollars. That's not a radical interpretation of the Separation Clause, by the way. It's standard.

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Citation-Needed-wikipedia-819731_500_271.jpg

The Supreme Court has never held this interpretation, even after incorporation to the States via the 14th Amdt.
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Supreme Court majority ruling, Everson v. Board of Education

/ I still say this discussion belongs in the locker room

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 06:45 PM
RoethlisBURGer,
They might now know about it. His hair covers it and he hasn't played much this season.
They're aware. Trust me. :hatsoff:

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 06:50 PM
http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Citation-Needed-wikipedia-819731_500_271.jpg

The Supreme Court has never held this interpretation, even after incorporation to the States via the 14th Amdt.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Supreme Court majority ruling, Everson v. Board of Education

/ I still say this discussion belongs in the locker room

I couldn't care less where this discussion gets moved, although given the insecurities of religious people in general, and Christians in particular, and their inability to handle any form of critique, I'm astounded that this hasn't been moved already.

Mmmmm... Yummy, holy Cheeri-Os.

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 06:55 PM
ricardisimo,
Don't get your Hanes in a bind. You made a claim of fact that was legally unsupportable. It happens. Next time do your homework before you assume our heads screw on and off.
The relevant quote is here:
No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
^ this is by action from the State, BTW. Not an employer.
The NFL is not an organization that exists to promote religion. They exist to promote football. Take your complaint to the ACLU. I bet they laugh you out of the office.
:chuckle:
-Slashy
P.S. I'm not a Christian.

devilsdancefloor
12-29-2009, 07:41 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/1x1lh.jpg

steelcity58
12-29-2009, 07:47 PM
There is a Separation Clause in the U.S. Constitution for a very good reason. Anyone who needs a history lesson regarding the effects of state-sponsored or state-sanctioned religions, feel free to contact me, or just follow the link in my signature. (Funny stuff, by the way.)

If the NFL and its agents feel the need to sanction and support particular religions, then fine. However, they would have to return every penny of all of the substantial amount of taxpayer dollars that they've ever received from every government agency. That would include, by the way, the city of Pittsburgh, the Allegheny Regional Asset District and the state of Pennsylvania. Every team in the league has received enormous subsidies from the public, so we're probably talking about many, many billions of dollars.

He can have his cross, and the rest of us can have well-funded schools and health care. Seems fair to me.
Man, can these people not keep politics out of football.

Sheesh...

Here ya go dude. Get your fix for arguing things like this.

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/index.php?sid=b4a6bb36d6e025bcf4855947b229e07c

Leftoverhard
12-29-2009, 07:51 PM
Embroidery?

Is there anything this guy can't do?

LMAO

Vincent
12-29-2009, 08:20 PM
Something MUST be done to this Polamalu character for desecrating the uniform. The shame of it.

http://blogs.sohh.com/sports/SeanTaylor1.jpg

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 08:25 PM
ricardisimo,
Don't get your Hanes in a bind. You made a claim of fact that was legally unsupportable. It happens. Next time do your homework before you assume our heads screw on and off.
The relevant quote is here:
No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.
^ this is by action from the State, BTW. Not an employer.
The NFL is not an organization that exists to promote religion. They exist to promote football. Take your complaint to the ACLU. I bet they laugh you out of the office.
:chuckle:
-Slashy
P.S. I'm not a Christian.

Firstly, they're not Hanes, they're Speedos of the anal-flossing variety (it's a high-plaque area, and don't let anyone tell you different.)

Secondly, my claim was, and I quote:
You're right, they are not a government agency. They can do whatever the hell the want... as long as they are not accepting government dollars. That's not a radical interpretation of the Separation Clause, by the way. It's standard.
I don't see me telling Troy what he can and cannot believe here. It's OK though... people misread things. It happens. You shouldn't be embarrassed by that.

Thirdly, I'm so glad that we have you here to tell us what the relevant segments of the laws and legal commentary are. Unfortunately, you went and confused us with the bit that says:
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Do you really think that inserting a private company proxy between taxpayer dollars and the Church washes the money clean? It doesn't work that way.

My claim stands: They can do whatever they want. I won't stand in their way. They will have to return our money, though. I would think most anyone in the country would be eager to ween the NFL off of the state's tit. They can't live off of ticket sales, licensing and billions in advertising dollars?

Finally, I'd like to hear what devilsdancefloor's interpretation is of the OP's intent, and how that even matters, given the tendency of Bruce Arians to pop up in gripes about the D or ST, and of Obama to arise almost everywhere. Anyhow, the dude brought up how wonderful it is that Troy is stitching god into his uniform, and I disagree - although I do see an opportunity for states and cities everywhere to get their money back from Goodell and his fellow vultures.

Shoes
12-29-2009, 08:29 PM
Is it a full moon?

X-Terminator
12-29-2009, 08:41 PM
This has to be the first guy I have ever seen blast an athlete for expressing his religion. There is nothing - repeat NOTHING - that says Troy cannot express his religion on the field. The league could fine him if they say it's a uniform violation - that is their right - but they cannot bar him from religious expression. Players in other sports wear crosses around their necks - should we ban that too? Do you want to ban players kneeling in prayer when another player gets seriously injured? Where does it end?

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 08:49 PM
This has to be the first guy I have ever seen blast an athlete for expressing his religion. There is nothing - repeat NOTHING - that says Troy cannot express his religion on the field. The league could fine him if they say it's a uniform violation - that is their right - but they cannot bar him from religious expression. Players in other sports wear crosses around their necks - should we ban that too? Do you want to ban players kneeling in prayer when another player gets seriously injured? Where does it end?

Most community colleges offer adult literacy courses. After you attend a few, please re-read the thread. You'll notice the part where I say (I think several times) that Troy can do whatever he wants, and that the league can sanction his uniform changes. And then they can give the city of Pittsburgh, the Allegheny Regional Asset District and the state of Pennsylvania back all of the money they received from them.

No one's arguing that Troy can't practice his beliefs. He can. This is a free country. The only point is that if the NFL officially sanctions religious expression on their uniforms (which belongs to them, and not Troy, as they have already established repeatedly), then they cannot receive government funds, which they do, in ample supply, bizarrely.

tony hipchest
12-29-2009, 09:05 PM
...the anal-flossing variety (it's a high-plaque area, and don't let anyone tell you different.)

:huh:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/ratsass.jpg

This has to be the first guy I have ever seen blast an athlete for expressing his religion. There is nothing - repeat NOTHING - that says Troy cannot express his religion on the field. The league could fine him if they say it's a uniform violation - that is their right - but they cannot bar him from religious expression. Players in other sports wear crosses around their necks - should we ban that too? Do you want to ban players kneeling in prayer when another player gets seriously injured? Where does it end? XT, to be real here (one only needs to briefly peruse through the political/anti-obama forum) can you imagine if mushin muhhamed (i have no idea of his religious affiliation- just using his islamic sounding name as an example) embroidered the sign of islam on his jersey?

i bet a strong percentage of the folks who post on this board would have a conip fit. a few more would probably call for him to have a bullet put in his head.

im almost certain that 95% or so would say that if plummer cant wear a tribute to tillman, in no way should anyone be able to emblazon their uniform with an islamic cross or moon, or whatever it is they use... especially when players socks come into question.

SteelersinCA
12-29-2009, 09:31 PM
Who said it's religious expression? Maybe he just likes the design?

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 09:31 PM
Do you really think that inserting a private company proxy between taxpayer dollars and the Church washes the money clean? It doesn't work that way.
Begging your pardon; yes it does. Why else do you thing parochial schools receive government funding? Your argument= groundless. (I'll just wait here while you cite a case that says otherwise)

This is the facts (and I challenge you to build a case that sez different):

A private entity can do whatever the Hell they feel like doing in this situation. Taxpayer bucks notwithstanding. The entire case history of SC majority opinions (as well as the original intent of the founders) bear this out.

/we are football fans, not idiots.

GoSlash27
12-29-2009, 09:44 PM
:huh:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/ratsass.jpg

XT, to be real here (one only needs to briefly peruse through the political/anti-obama forum) can you imagine if mushin muhhamed (i have no idea of his religious affiliation- just using his islamic sounding name as an example) embroidered the sign of islam on his jersey?

i bet a strong percentage of the folks who post on this board would have a conip fit. a few more would probably call for him to have a bullet put in his head.

im almost certain that 95% or so would say that if plummer cant wear a tribute to tillman, in no way should anyone be able to emblazon their uniform with an islamic cross or moon, or whatever it is they use... especially when players socks come into question.

Tony,
I would not be one of them. I don't care if a player wants to wear a symbol of Muhammad, Jesus, or the Dark Lord Kromdor. That is between him and the NFL. So long as the league is handling it without influence from the government, there is no legal case here.

SteelersinCA
12-29-2009, 09:53 PM
Just out of curiosity, who exactly is the Dark Lord Kromdor?? Sounds interesting.

X-Terminator
12-29-2009, 09:54 PM
:huh:

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/ratsass.jpg

XT, to be real here (one only needs to briefly peruse through the political/anti-obama forum) can you imagine if mushin muhhamed (i have no idea of his religious affiliation- just using his islamic sounding name as an example) embroidered the sign of islam on his jersey?

i bet a strong percentage of the folks who post on this board would have a conip fit. a few more would probably call for him to have a bullet put in his head.

im almost certain that 95% or so would say that if plummer cant wear a tribute to tillman, in no way should anyone be able to emblazon their uniform with an islamic cross or moon, or whatever it is they use... especially when players socks come into question.

I personally wouldn't care if he did. Despite the sentiment in this country toward Muslims, he still has the right to express his religious beliefs if he is in fact a Muslim. And I believe quite the contrary - most people would agree with that. Now if he decides to pull an Abdulmutallab and try to blow up an airliner, then that is a completely different story.

SteelCityMom
12-29-2009, 09:58 PM
I personally don't care what kind of stuff a player puts on his jersey, but like Tony mentioned, if players are going to get fined for not wearing the correct socks, then they shouldn't be able to embroider crosses on their jerseys. I respect his faith, but unless he just wants to pay a fine that goes towards a charity, then it needs to go.

As far as it being an issue of separation of church and state...that's quite the reach. Troy is just an employee of a franchise, just like a teacher is an employee of a government run school system. A teacher cannot be fired, nobody can be sued and nobody gets tax dollars returned if a teacher wears a piece of religious jewelry while teaching. If the school has some kind of dress code prohibiting teachers from wearing something like that, then they get personally reprimanded (like Troy should be personally reprimanded if he doesn't remove it). It's crazy to think this issue would hold some kind of water in a court of law.

X-Terminator
12-29-2009, 09:59 PM
Most community colleges offer adult literacy courses. After you attend a few, please re-read the thread. You'll notice the part where I say (I think several times) that Troy can do whatever he wants, and that the league can sanction his uniform changes. And then they can give the city of Pittsburgh, the Allegheny Regional Asset District and the state of Pennsylvania back all of the money they received from them.

No one's arguing that Troy can't practice his beliefs. He can. This is a free country. The only point is that if the NFL officially sanctions religious expression on their uniforms (which belongs to them, and not Troy, as they have already established repeatedly), then they cannot receive government funds, which they do, in ample supply, bizarrely.

I disagree, for the reasons that GoSlash has stated. The SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, and there is the case law to prove it. Private enterprise does have the right to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't violate any laws. And there is nothing in the law that says that the NFL cannot receive government funds if they allow their players to express their religious beliefs. You may as well shut down every major sports league, because like I said, numerous players in those leagues wear something to express their religious beliefs. It is NOT sanctioning religious expression in any way, shape or form - it's allowing their players to exercise their freedom.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 10:29 PM
Who said it's religious expression? Maybe he just likes the design?

Shouldn't matter... see Plummer/Tillman example. The uniform belongs to the league, not the individual players. If they are making an exception here, and not in the infinitely more deserving Tillman example, the question remains: Why?

kittenfantastico76
12-29-2009, 10:38 PM
:noidea: I like it - regardless of what it means. It's simple and it's hidden.

I do however see how this could get out of hand with people wanting to do all kinds of different things to their jerseys and why the NFL might not allow it. I guess it's the whole "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality they have to be careful of.

I mean if a man can change his name to Ochocinco who knows what will be happening in the NFL in a few years. :rolleyes: I can't stand 8-5.

cubanstogie
12-29-2009, 10:47 PM
I couldn't care less where this discussion gets moved, although given the insecurities of religious people in general, and Christians in particular, and their inability to handle any form of critique, I'm astounded that this hasn't been moved already.

Mmmmm... Yummy, holy Cheeri-Os.

sounds to me like you are the insecure one, along with bitter, and atheist. Merry Christmas.

fansince'76
12-29-2009, 11:01 PM
I personally don't care what kind of stuff a player puts on his jersey, but like Tony mentioned, if players are going to get fined for not wearing the correct socks, then they shouldn't be able to embroider crosses on their jerseys. I respect his faith, but unless he just wants to pay a fine that goes towards a charity, then it needs to go.

Which he may very well be doing anyway. LC Greenwood used to willingly pay a weekly fine back in the day to wear his golden cleats, and he made a hell of a lot less than Taz does now, even after adjusting for inflation.

SteelersinCA
12-29-2009, 11:03 PM
I think the same article in ESPN the Mag says that the Steelers conveniently forgot to collect Greenwood's fine.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 11:04 PM
Begging your pardon; yes it does. Why else do you thing parochial schools receive government funding? Your argument= groundless. (I'll just wait here while you cite a case that says otherwise)

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), where we get the so-called "Lemon Test"

This is the facts (and I challenge you to build a case that sez different):

A private entity can do whatever the Hell they feel like doing in this situation. Taxpayer bucks notwithstanding. The entire case history of SC majority opinions (as well as the original intent of the founders) bear this out.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#Supreme_Court_since_1947) is a fairly good synopsis.

/we are football fans, not idiots.

Huh? Where did that come from?

Anyhow, unless I am very much mistaken, your view of the Establishment Clause would hold thusly: The State (Fed, state, local, whatever) cannot conduct prayer ceremonies at - in this example - a State-run soup line or job training seminar. However, they could simply pay the Salvation Army to run the soup line/job training program, and the Salvation Army could conduct any sort of religious service they wanted during these State-funded programs. Is this correct?

There is a separate issue here, which is the ever-degraded sanctity of the Establishment clause. You and I can both see the writing on the wall, I'm sure. This is a Christian nation, as the ultra-Right never tires of reminding us, and my kind will very soon not be welcome here (not that I ever did feel terribly welcome.) That has no bearing, however, on the original intent of the Establishment Clause (as relayed to us by Thomas Jefferson) nor its historic application since Reynolds and Everson.

fansince'76
12-29-2009, 11:05 PM
I think the same article in ESPN the Mag says that the Steelers conveniently forgot to collect Greenwood's fine.

Don't read that magazine, personally. I remember being a kid and it being mentioned during a game.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 11:11 PM
I personally don't care what kind of stuff a player puts on his jersey, but like Tony mentioned, if players are going to get fined for not wearing the correct socks, then they shouldn't be able to embroider crosses on their jerseys. I respect his faith, but unless he just wants to pay a fine that goes towards a charity, then it needs to go.

As far as it being an issue of separation of church and state...that's quite the reach. Troy is just an employee of a franchise, just like a teacher is an employee of a government run school system. A teacher cannot be fired, nobody can be sued and nobody gets tax dollars returned if a teacher wears a piece of religious jewelry while teaching. If the school has some kind of dress code prohibiting teachers from wearing something like that, then they get personally reprimanded (like Troy should be personally reprimanded if he doesn't remove it). It's crazy to think this issue would hold some kind of water in a court of law.

The uniforms are strictly regulated by the NFL for a reason: they belong to the NFL, and not to its individual players. In other words, it would indeed be the NFL promoting the Greek Orthodox faith, rather than Troy. Tattoos on Troy's skin would differ in this regard. That's his domain, and he is within his rights to do with it what he will.

Once again, Troy and the NFL can read from the Old Testament and run baptismals in between quarters as part of the official schedule of each and every game. That's up to them. However, they would have to bypass all government funds if they were to do that. That's not censorship. It's the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. You can worship however you like, and the government can neither prevent you from doing so, nor support you financially in your efforts.

SteelersinCA
12-29-2009, 11:21 PM
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), where we get the so-called "Lemon Test"



Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#Supreme_Court_since_1947) is a fairly good synopsis.



Huh? Where did that come from?

Anyhow, unless I am very much mistaken, your view of the Establishment Clause would hold thusly: The State (Fed, state, local, whatever) cannot conduct prayer ceremonies at - in this example - a State-run soup line or job training seminar. However, they could simply pay the Salvation Army to run the soup line/job training program, and the Salvation Army could conduct any sort of religious service they wanted during these State-funded programs. Is this correct?

There is a separate issue here, which is the ever-degraded sanctity of the Establishment clause. You and I can both see the writing on the wall, I'm sure. This is a Christian nation, as the ultra-Right never tires of reminding us, and my kind will very soon not be welcome here (not that I ever did feel terribly welcome.) That has no bearing, however, on the original intent of the Establishment Clause (as relayed to us by Thomas Jefferson) nor its historic application since Reynolds and Everson.

So, how exactly do you rectify the three prongs of the Lemon test with Troy's cross?

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 11:24 PM
sounds to me like you are the insecure one, along with bitter, and atheist. Merry Christmas.

And a Happy Saturnalia to you as well.

Shea
12-29-2009, 11:24 PM
Geez, so much debate going on about Troy's choice to have a cross sewn onto his jersey, not to mention a part of his jersey that nobody will see once he puts his hair down come kick off.

It's Troy's comfort and importance to him, and it's nothing that needs to be debated. Leave it be.

SteelCityMom
12-29-2009, 11:33 PM
Which he may very well be doing anyway. LC Greenwood used to willingly pay a weekly fine back in the day to wear his golden cleats, and he made a hell of a lot less than Taz does now, even after adjusting for inflation.

Right, I'm sure it wouldn't be any skin off his back either. If the NFL's fining him, or does start fining him, then this whole argument is moot and pointless.

Also, we don't have any "real" proof that these aren't just photoshopped images off a flickr account. I can hardly see the NFL passing up a chance to fine someone for altering a uni when they fine you if you don't wear the right socks or etch a number into your facepaint.

fansince'76
12-29-2009, 11:34 PM
Also, we don't have any "real" proof that these aren't just photoshopped images off a flickr account. I can hardly see the NFL passing up a chance to fine someone for altering a uni when they fine you if you don't wear the right socks or etch a number into your facepaint.

Agreed - the NFL is pretty anal about enforcing the uniform rules.

tony hipchest
12-29-2009, 11:35 PM
Tony,
I would not be one of them.

and here is the kicker...

i would be one of them.

on a personal level, i am proud of troy for taking this opportunity to subtly testify without acting like an ordained minister who is up on a pulpit. (im sure we all get enough of that from d. sanders, r. lewis, m. irvin, et al.)

i am 100% certain troy despises the nickname Troysus or being called a football god, which is why i would suspect his symbol of faith is strategically placed above his nameplate.

HOWEVER... if anton lavey III were a star running back for the 49ers and had an upside down pentagram, or if edwin mutaoulo (or whoever) wanted to put the gay pride rainbow triangle on an nfl jersey, in an nfl game, i would probably be one of the first to stand up and say "get that shit out of here".

now herein lies the loophole....

i have no problem with anything an nfl player may have tatooed on their arm. it is their body, even if it is in plain sight, just like i have no problem with how long a players hair is. again, it is their body.

using the examples above, if anton, edwin, troy, ben or any others want to write WWJD on their tucked in socks, or grow long hair, i do not expect the nfl to do underwear checks or lift every long haired persons mane for an inspection before a game.

SteelCityMom
12-29-2009, 11:40 PM
The uniforms are strictly regulated by the NFL for a reason: they belong to the NFL, and not to its individual players. In other words, it would indeed be the NFL promoting the Greek Orthodox faith, rather than Troy. Tattoos on Troy's skin would differ in this regard. That's his domain, and he is within his rights to do with it what he will.

Once again, Troy and the NFL can read from the Old Testament and run baptismals in between quarters as part of the official schedule of each and every game. That's up to them. However, they would have to bypass all government funds if they were to do that. That's not censorship. It's the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. You can worship however you like, and the government can neither prevent you from doing so, nor support you financially in your efforts.

You missed my point completely. I know the uni's belong to the NFL, and that's why the NFL fines players when they break the dress code. That's why I brought up the teacher example. If a school had a dress code saying teachers couldn't wear crosses or other religious symbols to public schools and a teacher did, it would be up to the school to have a system in place to reprimand the teacher (much like the NFL has a system in place to reprimand its franchises employees for dress code violations). You don't go straight into "this violates separation of church and state, give us back our taxes" talk.

And as was already stated, Troy can wear that cross for as long as he wants, as long as he's willing to pay a fine for it every time. As long as he pays, no one can gripe.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 11:41 PM
Geez, so much debate going on about Troy's choice to have a cross sewn onto his jersey, not to mention a part of his jersey that nobody will see once he puts his hair down come kick off.

It's Troy's comfort and importance to him, and it's nothing that needs to be debated. Leave it be.

It's not his jersey. It's the NFL's, which is why they regulate it. He should tattoo it on his forehead, and thereby show everyone how truly important it is to him.

I think one, maybe two of you have actually read what I've written. Troy can do whatever he wants. I firmly believe that. I also believe that the NFL, as a private institution, can do whatever it wants, completely free of any government intervention. [They can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater... we're not going in that direction] They simply cannot collect government monies if they are going to actively promote religious faith at their events. Having Christian crosses embroidered on their uniforms would be just such an active promotion.

I find it particularly curious, given all of the "anti-Socialist" commentary in these forums, and pronouncements in people's signatures, that this idea should find any resistance at all. Weird. Why is one of the country's most profitable institutions relying on government funds at all? That's a separate issue, I know, but still...

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 11:48 PM
So, how exactly do you rectify the three prongs of the Lemon test with Troy's cross?

Well, for starters, I wouldn't have to hit all three; it's Boolean, so just one negates the whole thing. So, let's just do #1: Does the Greek Orthodox cross have a primarily secular purpose? No, of course not. Bye-bye.

ricardisimo
12-29-2009, 11:58 PM
You missed my point completely. I know the uni's belong to the NFL, and that's why the NFL fines players when they break the dress code. That's why I brought up the teacher example. If a school had a dress code saying teachers couldn't wear crosses or other religious symbols to public schools and a teacher did, it would be up to the school to have a system in place to reprimand the teacher (much like the NFL has a system in place to reprimand its franchises employees for dress code violations). You don't go straight into "this violates separation of church and state, give us back our taxes" talk.

And as was already stated, Troy can wear that cross for as long as he wants, as long as he's willing to pay a fine for it every time. As long as he pays, no one can gripe.

This isn't about a dress code... the players don't provide their own uniforms the way your teacher does. Your example would only apply directly if the school purchased what the teacher was to wear. They don't. What if they did, and the teacher added a masking tape Star of David on the back of their jacket? That's a more adequate example.

We're talking about what is expressed via NFL property (the uniforms). In the school case, since what teachers wear is not school property, it would be more a question of, for example, having the Ten Commandments on the front lawn, or Scripture on their letterhead, etc.

You might find that petty, but there have, in fact, been numerous cases about just that sort of thing. Even in cases where I might find it petty, it's always a matter of the camel's nose; you let in a little bit at a time, and soon the camel's in the tent, and you're sleeping outside in the cold.

tony hipchest
12-30-2009, 12:04 AM
:jawdrop: *gasp!!!*

only the board guru can use terms such as Boolean!

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/lovegurunewtrailer.jpg

SteelersinCA
12-30-2009, 12:04 AM
Well, for starters, I wouldn't have to hit all three; it's Boolean, so just one negates the whole thing. So, let's just do #1: Does the Greek Orthodox cross have a primarily secular purpose? No, of course not. Bye-bye.

I think you might want to attend that community college literacy class you were talking about.

Lemon Test:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

What exactly is the government's action here? Not Troy's, not the NFL's, the government. Giving money to the NFL? You contend that has some sort of non-secular purpose? Please enlighten me. I think we are at #2 now....

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 12:20 AM
:jawdrop: *gasp!!!*

only the board guru can use terms such as Boolean!

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/lovegurunewtrailer.jpg

Crap! You're right. What I meant to say was: No one cares what the Brain Trust has to say about this or any other matter. We're all idiots wasting our fingertips, but for the amusement we might (hopefully) provide to the Guru.

That's more like it, eh? You think he'll be impressed?

SteelersinCA
12-30-2009, 12:24 AM
Crap! You're right. What I meant to say was: No one cares what the Brain Trust has to say about this or any other matter. We're all idiots wasting our fingertips, but for the amusement we might (hopefully) provide to the Guru.

That's more like it, eh? You think he'll be impressed?

HAHA!!! The combo of that picture and your comment had me lol.

X-Terminator
12-30-2009, 12:30 AM
When did Michael Newdow join this board? Next thing you know, he'll demand the NFL stop receiving funds entirely, because "In God We Trust" is on the currency, and therefore the NFL is "promoting religious faith."

Anyway, if the NFL asks him to remove it or be fined, then so be it. It's their dress code, and they have the right to enforce it. But calling a cross on a jersey a violation of the Establishment Clause is quite a stretch.

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 12:40 AM
I think you might want to attend that community college literacy class you were talking about.

Lemon Test:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

What exactly is the government's action here? Not Troy's, not the NFL's, the government. Giving money to the NFL? You contend that has some sort of non-secular purpose? Please enlighten me. I think we are at #2 now....

At the risk of perpetuating further the circularity of this thread, I'll refer you to my previous post #51 (I think). Maybe you agree with GoSlash that funding the Salvation Army to run soup lines with religious ceremonies would be acceptable, whereas the government could not directly administer soup lines with religious ceremonies. Some of us fail to see the distinction. Look, if the past three or four administrations (and I'm sure Obama will be the same) have anything to say about it, you are absolutely in the right. Having one exchange of funds in the middle washes the money completely clean. I'm not sure how eager anyone should be to want to join the same camp as Reagan, Bush, Clinton Bush and Obama.

SteelersinCA
12-30-2009, 12:46 AM
At the risk of perpetuating further the circularity of this thread, I'll refer you to my previous post #51 (I think). Maybe you agree with GoSlash that funding the Salvation Army to run soup lines with religious ceremonies would be acceptable, whereas the government could not directly administer soup lines with religious ceremonies. Some of us fail to see the distinction. Look, if the past three or four administrations (and I'm sure Obama will be the same) have anything to say about it, you are absolutely in the right. Having one exchange of funds in the middle washes the money completely clean. I'm not sure how eager anyone should be to want to join the same camp as Reagan, Bush, Clinton Bush and Obama.

Well I think the lemon test, along with the endorsement test have certain requirements that need to be met in order to be satisfied. The endorsement test would address #2 of the lemon test. I'm not sure a reasonable person would view the action of #43, or the ignorace of such action by the NFL to equate to government endorsement.

I'm just not sure a cross on a single players jersey qualifies. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to see crosses, stars of david, depictions of planes blowing up or anything else on jerseys, but 1 SINGULAR action by a player doesn't equate to government endorsement in my humble opinion.

augustashark
12-30-2009, 12:58 AM
At the risk of perpetuating further the circularity of this thread, I'll refer you to my previous post #51 (I think). Maybe you agree with GoSlash that funding the Salvation Army to run soup lines with religious ceremonies would be acceptable, whereas the government could not directly administer soup lines with religious ceremonies. Some of us fail to see the distinction. Look, if the past three or four administrations (and I'm sure Obama will be the same) have anything to say about it, you are absolutely in the right. Having one exchange of funds in the middle washes the money completely clean. I'm not sure how eager anyone should be to want to join the same camp as Reagan, Bush, Clinton Bush and Obama.

http://images0.cafepress.com/product/49515220v3_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg

Reincarnation?

I hope you don't come back as a mighty little gerbil belonging to a swinging couple of upstate Vermont!:drink:

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 01:09 AM
http://images0.cafepress.com/product/49515220v3_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg

Reincarnation?

I hope you don't come back as a mighty little gerbil belonging to a swinging couple of upstate Vermont!:drink:

There's my anal flosser!!! How did you get a picture of it?

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 01:14 AM
When did Michael Newdow join this board? Next thing you know, he'll demand the NFL stop receiving funds entirely, because "In God We Trust" is on the currency, and therefore the NFL is "promoting religious faith."

Anyway, if the NFL asks him to remove it or be fined, then so be it. It's their dress code, and they have the right to enforce it. But calling a cross on a jersey a violation of the Establishment Clause is quite a stretch.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up Newdow. I happen to agree with him, and so does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals... but to GoSlash's point, he speaks specifically to questions of government property and government policy... this is a different issue. And again... it's not about a dress code. Polamalu doesn't provide his own uniform. It's NFL property, which is why they have complete jurisdiction in the matter.

augustashark
12-30-2009, 01:19 AM
There's my anal flosser!!! How did you get a picture of it?

I picked up a scent of budusky and there they were. Oh yea, satan said you were a premature ejaculator.

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 01:23 AM
I picked up a scent of budusky and there they were. Oh yea, satan said you were a premature ejaculator.

This from a man whose avatar shows him with his hand up someone's backside. Nice.

SteelCityMom
12-30-2009, 01:51 AM
This isn't about a dress code... the players don't provide their own uniforms the way your teacher does. Your example would only apply directly if the school purchased what the teacher was to wear. They don't. What if they did, and the teacher added a masking tape Star of David on the back of their jacket? That's a more adequate example.

Right, and you could use that as an adequate example I suppose. The end result would be the same though. The teacher would be reprimanded in some way. It would not immediately go to giving back taxes.

We're talking about what is expressed via NFL property (the uniforms). In the school case, since what teachers wear is not school property, it would be more a question of, for example, having the Ten Commandments on the front lawn, or Scripture on their letterhead, etc.

In this case as well, the school would have to take down the religious icons or face reprimand from the state that runs it. There's always an option here before you could make a case of giving back taxes to the tax payers.

Keep in mind as well, I don't think any of this holds any validity. I don't think Troy really has a cross on the back of his jersey. If he did, we would have already heard about it through the media and the NFL and not from a flickr account posting. If Troy actually has done this, he's done the impossible and managed to keep it eerily quiet on all fronts. I just don't buy that. I stand by my initial opinion that if he has or does do it, he'll be fined accordingly and this whole argument becomes meaningless.

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 02:03 AM
Right, and you could use that as an adequate example I suppose. The end result would be the same though. The teacher would be reprimanded in some way. It would not immediately go to giving back taxes.



In this case as well, the school would have to take down the religious icons or face reprimand from the state that runs it. There's always an option here before you could make a case of giving back taxes to the tax payers.

Keep in mind as well, I don't think any of this holds any validity. I don't think Troy really has a cross on the back of his jersey. If he did, we would have already heard about it through the media and the NFL and not from a flickr account posting. If Troy actually has done this, he's done the impossible and managed to keep it eerily quiet on all fronts. I just don't buy that. I stand by my initial opinion that if he has or does do it, he'll be fined accordingly and this whole argument becomes meaningless.

True, that.

GoSlash27
12-30-2009, 04:43 AM
but to GoSlash's point, he speaks specifically to questions of government property and government policy... this is a different issue. And again... it's not about a dress code. Polamalu doesn't provide his own uniform. It's NFL property, which is why they have complete jurisdiction in the matter.
'Zackly. By your own admission, this isn't an Establishment Clause issue. That brings us full circle.
You may find it personally offensive that Polamalu is a devoutly religious guy, but the Bill of Rights doesn't exist to protect you from being offended. It exists to limit the government's abuse of power. What goes on between Troy and the league in this matter is between them.

Preacher
12-30-2009, 05:00 AM
BTW, there is no law against personal expression of religious beliefs, and one of the core reasons we have separation of church and state is because CHRISTIANS (baptists) wrote to Jefferson arguing for it.

It has been a core of anabaptist belief since the radical reformation of Hubmeyer, Grenz, Grebel and Blaurock from Zwingli, in the same timeframe of Luther.

Anyone who wants to see the true originations of seperation of church and state, as called for by Christians in the 1500's can simply google anabaptists and state or even start here (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/anabapt.htm)...

Pretty interesting when one realizes, that the call for separation of church and state originated from CHRISTIANS to stop the state from persecuting them.

Preacher
12-30-2009, 05:12 AM
I think you might want to attend that community college literacy class you were talking about.

Lemon Test:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

What exactly is the government's action here? Not Troy's, not the NFL's, the government. Giving money to the NFL? You contend that has some sort of non-secular purpose? Please enlighten me. I think we are at #2 now....

What I find funny, is how the second half of number 2 is often ignored.

Personally, I think that at Christmas time (Which is the word I use, since that is the holiday I celebrate), There should be a place reserved for christians to place a Christmas tree with whatever the people want on it. In another spot, there should be a menorah. In another spot, it should be reserved for atheists to post whatever they want to post (within good taste, as with everything else... I really don't want to see a woman simulating the actual birth of jesus :puke: )

That, in my opinion, would be the best and truest role for govt, and best accomplishing "freedom of religion".

Preacher
12-30-2009, 05:22 AM
'Zackly. By your own admission, this isn't an Establishment Clause issue. That brings us full circle.
You may find it personally offensive that Polamalu is a devoutly religious guy, but the Bill of Rights doesn't exist to protect you from being offended. It exists to limit the government's abuse of power. What goes on between Troy and the league in this matter is between them.

Yep..

And seeing how they came down on Ben having J.C. on his shoes, I would think they would come down on Troy as well, if this was legitimate. As another poster in this thread already said, I have a feeling its a photoshop pic.

ricardisimo
12-30-2009, 05:34 AM
'Zackly. By your own admission, this isn't an Establishment Clause issue. That brings us full circle.
You may find it personally offensive that Polamalu is a devoutly religious guy, but the Bill of Rights doesn't exist to protect you from being offended. It exists to limit the government's abuse of power. What goes on between Troy and the league in this matter is between them.

Look, I think this horse has been beat about as much as it's going to take. SteelCityMom has made a claim which, if true, renders the whole discussion moot: the story's fake. Until we see or hear otherwise, it's even more a waste of our breath than rev would normally have us believe. Besides, as I stated at the beginning of this thread, I'd like to think that Troy's a tad more sophisticated in his views than what this story would suggest.

That said... just because it isn't an issue of government practice or property, doesn't make it not an Establishment case, just as every single one of those cases involving parochial schools is still an Establishment case.

I still think not a one of you actually reads what I've typed.

Preacher
12-30-2009, 05:46 AM
Look, I think this horse has been beat about as much as it's going to take. SteelCityMom has made a claim which, if true, renders the whole discussion moot: the story's fake. Until we see or hear otherwise, it's even more a waste of our breath than rev would normally have us believe. Besides, as I stated at the beginning of this thread, I'd like to think that Troy's a tad more sophisticated in his views than what this story would suggest.

That said... just because it isn't an issue of government practice or property, doesn't make it not an Establishment case, just as every single one of those cases involving parochial schools is still an Establishment case.

I still think not a one of you actually reads what I've typed.


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/images/smilies/other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif

See, I read what you actually type!

:chuckle:

GoSlash27
12-30-2009, 11:17 AM
I'd like to think that Troy's a tad more sophisticated in his views than what this story would suggest.
The man crosses himself before every play. He's as devout as one man can be, both on and off the field.
ScKhG3RB1qY
That doesn't bother me at all, but I know it must bug the Hell out of you.

That said... just because it isn't an issue of government practice or property, doesn't make it not an Establishment case, just as every single one of those cases involving parochial schools is still an Establishment case.
Stick, meet equine corpse. The NFL's purpose is to promote football. The government is funding the NFL because they play football. An employer allowing an employee to display a religious symbol on their person does not constitute endorsement or promotion of that religion on the employer's part. The Establishment Clause exists to keep religion out of government and government out of religion. The purpose is to prevent the government from persecuting you for being an atheist or him for being a Christian.

SteelersinCA
12-30-2009, 11:31 AM
What I find funny, is how the second half of number 2 is often ignored.

Personally, I think that at Christmas time (Which is the word I use, since that is the holiday I celebrate), There should be a place reserved for christians to place a Christmas tree with whatever the people want on it. In another spot, there should be a menorah. In another spot, it should be reserved for atheists to post whatever they want to post (within good taste, as with everything else... I really don't want to see a woman simulating the actual birth of jesus :puke: )

That, in my opinion, would be the best and truest role for govt, and best accomplishing "freedom of religion".

I don't like that Preach, then where does it end? Pretty soon you have 950 "holiday" displays. It's much simpler just to say we will allow nothing.

X-Terminator
12-30-2009, 11:47 AM
I'm not sure why you are bringing up Newdow. I happen to agree with him, and so does the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals... but to GoSlash's point, he speaks specifically to questions of government property and government policy... this is a different issue. And again... it's not about a dress code. Polamalu doesn't provide his own uniform. It's NFL property, which is why they have complete jurisdiction in the matter.

If you don't know why I would bring up Newdow, then you need to go back and read your posts in this thread. And, of course, it shocks no one that you agree with him, since after all if it were up to him, there would be no religion at all allowed anywhere outside of the church. It is even less shocking that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with him.

And I said that the NFL has the right to enforce their dress/uniform code. Maybe you should take that adult literacy course you flippantly suggest other people take, because you may have realized that before you posted.

Preacher
12-30-2009, 04:57 PM
I don't like that Preach, then where does it end? Pretty soon you have 950 "holiday" displays. It's much simpler just to say we will allow nothing.

Because allowing nothing, is the govt. hindering religion on publicly owned property. To me, that is more dangerous.

Because as it gets pressed over the next few decades, I am leary of what "govt. owned property" continues to be included in the definition... capital buildings, town gov. buildings, schools, ... doesn't teh govt. own streets? and Sidewalks?

Remember, in california, they are working to ban cig. smoking in apartment buildings because of "shared air". I think my fear of extending the "No religion on publicly owned property" to ridiculous levels is actually pretty solidly founded.

Preacher
12-30-2009, 04:58 PM
If you don't know why I would bring up Newdow, then you need to go back and read your posts in this thread. And, of course, it shocks no one that you agree with him, since after all if it were up to him, there would be no religion at all allowed anywhere outside of the church. It is even less shocking that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with him.

And I said that the NFL has the right to enforce their dress/uniform code. Maybe you should take that adult literacy course you flippantly suggest other people take, because you may have realized that before you posted.


One small point of correction.

It is called, the ninth CIRCUS court. :wink02:

SteelersinCA
12-30-2009, 05:58 PM
Because allowing nothing, is the govt. hindering religion on publicly owned property. To me, that is more dangerous.

Because as it gets pressed over the next few decades, I am leary of what "govt. owned property" continues to be included in the definition... capital buildings, town gov. buildings, schools, ... doesn't teh govt. own streets? and Sidewalks?

Remember, in california, they are working to ban cig. smoking in apartment buildings because of "shared air". I think my fear of extending the "No religion on publicly owned property" to ridiculous levels is actually pretty solidly founded.

I guess we disagree about the term inhibit religion. To me inhibit means you can't practice what you want. I find no basis in the case law to say that a government building must allow someone to display anything religious on government owned property. I find it as much of a stretch to say that is inhibiting religion as it is a stretch to say Troy wearing a cross is endorsement.

SteelersinCA
12-30-2009, 05:59 PM
One small point of correction.

It is called, the ninth CIRCUS court. :wink02:

It is the most overturned court in the nation.

SteelCityMom
12-30-2009, 06:21 PM
I don't like that Preach, then where does it end? Pretty soon you have 950 "holiday" displays. It's much simpler just to say we will allow nothing.

I don't like that idea at all. Even as an agnostic (borderline atheist), I could care less about religious displays. I honestly think the idea of separation of church and state has been bent way too far in regards to this.

Why not allow different holiday displays for all religions? Wouldn't that speak volumes to the religious freedom of this country? Instead we all have to walk on egg shells (believers and non-believers, depends on where you live lol) so we don't offend anyone. I say offend away lol. If your comfortable with your own beliefs it won't matter anyway. As long as someone isn't policing me or mine into believing something we don't believe in, or isn't using my tax dollars to promote a religion, I'm cool with it.

Preacher
12-30-2009, 10:29 PM
I don't like that idea at all. Even as an agnostic (borderline atheist), I could care less about religious displays. I honestly think the idea of separation of church and state has been bent way too far in regards to this.

Why not allow different holiday displays for all religions? Wouldn't that speak volumes to the religious freedom of this country? Instead we all have to walk on egg shells (believers and non-believers, depends on where you live lol) so we don't offend anyone. I say offend away lol. If your comfortable with your own beliefs it won't matter anyway. As long as someone isn't policing me or mine into believing something we don't believe in, or isn't using my tax dollars to promote a religion, I'm cool with it.

Or using my tax dollars to promote non-religion... I too am fine with it.

THAT is why I think it should be available, because otherwise, we are getting into a govt. that is using tax dollars to promote non-religion, which is just as wrong.

Heck, I think a Jew saying happy Hanukkah to me is FAR more respectful then saying "Happy holidays". It gives me the chance to share that I am a Christian, and he or she then gets to say, merry Christmas. It respects both systems of belief.

"Happy Holidays" degrades all beliefs systems, lumping the individual celebrations together as equal, which they are far from.

cubanstogie
12-30-2009, 11:03 PM
Or using my tax dollars to promote non-religion... I too am fine with it.

THAT is why I think it should be available, because otherwise, we are getting into a govt. that is using tax dollars to promote non-religion, which is just as wrong.

Heck, I think a Jew saying happy Hanukkah to me is FAR more respectful then saying "Happy holidays". It gives me the chance to share that I am a Christian, and he or she then gets to say, merry Christmas. It respects both systems of belief.

"Happy Holidays" degrades all beliefs systems, lumping the individual celebrations together as equal, which they are far from.

I despise the term "happy holidays". So shallow.

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 02:35 AM
It is the most overturned court in the nation.

That's meaningless. It is by far the largest circuit in the country, and so hears more cases by far. These are more likely to be overturned for the same reason a Honda Civic is more likely to flip on the highway than a Model T.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 02:47 AM
That's meaningless. It is by far the largest circuit in the country, and so hears more cases by far. These are more likely to be overturned for the same reason a Honda Civic is more likely to flip on the highway than a Model T.

Sorry, but that just isn't true. While it IS the largest circuit, they have had 94% of their cases overturned at least in part as of June of 2009, and has had a larger than normal percentage of cases overturned in 8 of the last 10 years.

So, why does that care keep flipping.. because it is built badly.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/29/local/me-9th-scotus29

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 03:06 AM
Or using my tax dollars to promote non-religion... I too am fine with it.

THAT is why I think it should be available, because otherwise, we are getting into a govt. that is using tax dollars to promote non-religion, which is just as wrong.

Heck, I think a Jew saying happy Hanukkah to me is FAR more respectful then saying "Happy holidays". It gives me the chance to share that I am a Christian, and he or she then gets to say, merry Christmas. It respects both systems of belief.

"Happy Holidays" degrades all beliefs systems, lumping the individual celebrations together as equal, which they are far from.

What are you people talking about? What does government subsidizing religion have to do with saying "Happy Holidays"? I fail to see how your own church, your own property, and your own shop, linked together with those of millions of other believers (assuming you're a Christian) could possibly prove to be insufficient.

I find all of this particularly laughable given that scripture repeatedly tells people to worship in a hidden place, and not to make a show of it. That's scripture, of course, which is meaningless, and carries absolutely no weight with believers, but still... How petty or weak is your God that you need to add the government's voice to your chorus to make you secure in your beliefs?

There are roughly 30,000 Christian denominations in the world, and probably a similar breakdowns within Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. An extraordinary number of these religions are violently exclusive. You really want to make space for all of them in every public park and every courthouse wall? Why?

We haven't even begun to discuss certain touchstone religions, like Satanism, Snake Handling, Native American peyote users, or some personality cults surrounding Hitler-types... the list could grow to infinity. Government property would very quickly become a carnival of horrors. Part of me would love it, just as I think televangels show Christianity in its true light. Most of me would think it has no place on public property, which should be a safe haven for everyone.

I would like to bring one of those groups I mentioned to the forefront, namely the peyote users in the Northwest. The conservative members of the SCotUS ruled against them recently. Their rationale as expressed by their resident genius (and self-proclaimed "Strict Constructionist" Antonin Scalia) was not only bald-faced but quite instructive: this is a Christian nation, and that predominant Christianity has a right, by sheer weight of numbers, to set norms. Those norms can exclude minority religions.

That's a peek into the future, just so you know. That's what you get when the government does start approving, promoting and financing religion; it immediately becomes some religions, and very quickly becomes one religion. As SteelersinCA said, it's easier to just say "not here" to all religions. It's also wiser.

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 03:29 AM
Sorry, but that just isn't true. While it IS the largest circuit, they have had 94% of their cases overturned at least in part as of June of 2009, and has had a larger than normal percentage of cases overturned in 8 of the last 10 years.

So, why does that care keep flipping.. because it is built badly.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/29/local/me-9th-scotus29

Firstly, that the SCotUS hears a case at all is a good sign that they are eager to overturn, hence the high percentages across the board. It would be capricious (and prohibitively expensive) for them to hear cases just to say "Yup".

Secondly, smaller circuits like the 1st, 2nd and 3rd (Pennsylvania's) have regularly had 100% of their cases overturned. No one therefore decides these are "liberal" circuits that need to be restructured.

We're getting off topic... of course.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 03:31 AM
What are you people talking about? What does government subsidizing religion have to do with saying "Happy Holidays"? I fail to see how your own church, your own property, and your own shop, linked together with those of millions of other believers (assuming you're a Christian) could possibly prove to be insufficient.
Well, if you would read the conversation, instead of just jumping on the last post, I think it is self-explanatory. But just in case. The conversation was about how all religions and beliefs should be able to compete equally for the heart of men and woman, including non-religion. That is the promise of freedom of religion. THus, there are two prongs to this discussion, one being what the govt. does and one being what rights the govt. assures the public for doing.

I find all of this particularly laughable given that scripture repeatedly tells people to worship in a hidden place, and not to make a show of it. That's scripture, of course, which is meaningless, and carries absolutely no weight with believers, but still... How petty or weak is your God that you need to add the government's voice to your chorus to make you secure in your beliefs?

And I find this particularly arrogant. First off, do you understand the difference between prayer and worship? Because the scripture nowhere says to worship in a hidden place. It says, in hyperbolic language (since its the same general area as "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off") to go into your closet and pray. Worship on the other hand, has ALWAYS been a public act. The apostles after the resurrection would still go to the synagogues and temple to worship publically, then go to people's homes to worship with other christians. Furthermore, Both of those are very different from witnessing, which is, by definition a public act and also commanded by Jesus. Most Christians that are true to thier faith see Christmas as a witness to the faith.

As to your arrogant rant about petty or weak God... well, how weak is your belief that there is no God that you are afraid of the mere mention of him by others?

As to your discussion about "Scriptures meaning nothing to christians," I wonder, do you understand what the scriptures say? and what Christians truly believe? Furthermore, What definition of "Christian" are you using? Because I doubt it is the same definition of Christian that I have.

There are roughly 30,000 Christian denominations in the world, and probably a similar breakdowns within Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. An extraordinary number of these religions are violently exclusive. You really want to make space for all of them in every public park and every courthouse wall? Why?
Constitution maybe? Freedom of religion maybe? Why are you so afraid of a discussion about God? I think that any and everyone who has a celebration time should be allowed to put a marker on public lands during that time. After all, that is freedom of religion.

We haven't even begun to discuss certain touchstone religions, like Satanism, Snake Handling, Native American peyote users, or some personality cults surrounding Hitler-types... the list could grow to infinity. Government property would very quickly become a carnival of horrors. Part of me would love it, just as I think televangels show Christianity in its true light. Most of me would think it has no place on public property, which should be a safe haven for everyone.

And this is where you move into absurdity. First, snake-handling is a backwaters form of American revivalist Christianity. Thus, it falls under the broader category of Christian, for which a CHRISTMAS TREE and manger scene have nothing to do with each other. One is a celebration of a birth and the other is an act within a worship service, which we have not at all been condoning or discussing here.

Furthermore, this is even more blown out of proportion by the fact that not every major religion, let alone minor part of religion is represented in a community. Even more so, How many of them have a date in December? Huh? Come on, you are simply being silly.

I would like to bring one of those groups I mentioned to the forefront, namely the peyote users in the Northwest. The conservative members of the SCotUS ruled against them recently. Their rationale as expressed by their resident genius (and self-proclaimed "Strict Constructionist" Antonin Scalia) was not only bald-faced but quite instructive: this is a Christian nation, and that predominant Christianity has a right, by sheer weight of numbers, to set norms. Those norms can exclude minority religions.
Seems to me that religion has also violated a federal law concerning drugs. That is also a long legally established boundary, or do you forget about David Koresh being attacked because of "Guns," The mormon being arrested because of multiple wives, Many a suicide groups being broken up as well.

YOu are veering into the ridiculous.

That's a peek into the future, just so you know. That's what you get when the government does start approving, promoting and financing religion; it immediately becomes some religions, and very quickly becomes one religion. As SteelersinCA said, it's easier to just say "not here" to all religions. It's also wiser.

No, its not. A peak into the future is a peak into China where religion is condemned.

I am very amazed however, at how frightened you seem to be by a polyvocal discussion of God in the public sector.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 03:33 AM
Firstly, that the SCotUS hears a case at all is a good sign that they are eager to overturn, hence the high percentages across the board. It would be capricious (and prohibitively expensive) for them to hear cases just to say "Yup".

Secondly, smaller circuits like the 1st, 2nd and 3rd (Pennsylvania's) have regularly had 100% of their cases overturned. No one therefore decides these are "liberal" circuits that need to be restructured.

We're getting off topic... of course.


Sorry, but that simply is not right.

Go back and look at the article. It is PERCENTAGE WISE the highest overturned court. That is, percentage of cases heard to cases overturned. SO much so, that SCOTUS now looks over their shoulders because of the bias for the "underdog" regardless of law.

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 03:53 AM
Because allowing nothing, is the govt. hindering religion on publicly owned property. To me, that is more dangerous.

No, it is neither promoting, nor preventing the free exercise of religions. The government might put up signs ridiculing Quakers for their pacifism, for example. That's unconstitutional, just as putting a cross up would be. Unfortunately, Christianity is peculiarly evangelical, so shouting its faith is very nearly central to it, and telling people they can't shout it everywhere become a federal case... literally. Tough. Get over it, step thirty paces away and go about your evangelizing.

Because as it gets pressed over the next few decades, I am leary of what "govt. owned property" continues to be included in the definition... capital buildings, town gov. buildings, schools, ... doesn't teh govt. own streets? and Sidewalks?

Privatization is the rule of the day, my friend. The government will one day be a private company, and I would be shocked if it weren't Fundamentalist Christian to boot. Robocop will very soon be a documentary, not SciFi.

Remember, in california, they are working to ban cig. smoking in apartment buildings because of "shared air". I think my fear of extending the "No religion on publicly owned property" to ridiculous levels is actually pretty solidly founded.

I haven't heard about this, but what of it? If you had read a story saying that in California they were thinking of shutting down meth labs or heroin dens in apartment buildings, what would you say about that?

If I could prove that some religion (let's say, oh... I don't know... Christianity, just off the top of my head) was bad for people's health, and I had several centuries' worth of data to prove that multiple hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths had been caused by the practice of the Christian faith, you better believe I'd run it by the Centers for Disease Control, or any other body that would listen to me.

It's crazy, I know, because religion is so good, and teaches people values, and morals and how to lead a decent life and all that sticky warm stuff, stuff us atheists and agnostics can only dream about. Obviously no religion could ever cause that sort of harm, and definitely not Christianity.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 04:05 AM
No, it is neither promoting, nor preventing the free exercise of religions. The government might put up signs ridiculing Quakers for their pacifism, for example. That's unconstitutional, just as putting a cross up would be. Unfortunately, Christianity is peculiarly evangelical, so shouting its faith is very nearly central to it, and telling people they can't shout it everywhere become a federal case... literally. Tough. Get over it, step thirty paces away and go about your evangelizing.



Privatization is the rule of the day, my friend. The government will one day be a private company, and I would be shocked if it weren't Fundamentalist Christian to boot. Robocop will very soon be a documentary, not SciFi.



I haven't heard about this, but what of it? If you had read a story saying that in California they were thinking of shutting down meth labs or heroin dens in apartment buildings, what would you say about that?

If I could prove that some religion (let's say, oh... I don't know... Christianity, just off the top of my head) was bad for people's health, and I had several centuries' worth of data to prove that multiple hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths had been caused by the practice of the Christian faith, you better believe I'd run it by the Centers for Disease Control, or any other body that would listen to me.

It's crazy, I know, because religion is so good, and teaches people values, and morals and how to lead a decent life and all that sticky warm stuff, stuff us atheists and agnostics can only dream about. Obviously no religion could ever cause that sort of harm, and definitely not Christianity.

Sigh.

And athiesm is so... wonderful. 20 million serfs and milliions of other "dissidents" were so happy they could die for the cause right?

Get over it. People use religion or the absence of religion for their own wants.

BTW, you still haven't defined Christianity for me. Because I can guarantee you, your definition and mine are not the same. Simply because, Christianity in no way is responsible for the "deaths" that you talking about.

You seem to confuse christianity and christendom, which are polar opposites. That is why I am asking your definition.

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 04:39 AM
Sorry, but that simply is not right.

Go back and look at the article. It is PERCENTAGE WISE the highest overturned court. That is, percentage of cases heard to cases overturned. SO much so, that SCOTUS now looks over their shoulders because of the bias for the "underdog" regardless of law.

Yeah, percentage-wise... How is 100% less than 94%? And, it's 94% during this term, not for the life of the circuit. Other terms it's in the 80s or 70s, probably never in the 60s. That's how it works.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 04:41 AM
Yeah, percentage-wise... How is 100% less than 94%? And, it's 94% during this term, not for the life of the circuit. Other terms it's in the 80s or 70s, probably never in the 60s. That's how it works.

Yet, 8 out of the last 10 years, it has been ABOVE the other circuits. Meaning, they have had the more turned over PERCENTAGE wise then most of the others pretty much this entire decade.

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 05:55 AM
Uggh... And now we enter that phase of the thread where we just trade segmented quotes with personal commentary. Sigh, indeed....

And I find this particularly arrogant. First off, do you understand the difference between prayer and worship? Because the scripture nowhere says to worship in a hidden place. It says, in hyperbolic language (since its the same general area as "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off") to go into your closet and pray. Worship on the other hand, has ALWAYS been a public act. The apostles after the resurrection would still go to the synagogues and temple to worship publically, then go to people's homes to worship with other christians. Furthermore, Both of those are very different from witnessing, which is, by definition a public act and also commanded by Jesus. Most Christians that are true to thier faith see Christmas as a witness to the faith.

Many Christians don't find anything hyperbolic in the Holy Bible. They believe that it is the directly transcribed, inspired Word of God. Many, if not most Muslims feel the same about the Qur’an. Of course, they are wrong and you are right, and fortunately we have you here to tell us which Christians are "true to their faith" Nothing arrogant about that, I'm sure.... All of which only points up even more the inherent problems with commingling religions in public space.

As to your arrogant rant about petty or weak God... well, how weak is your belief that there is no God that you are afraid of the mere mention of him by others?

No fear at all, and I respectfully keep my ideas out of their churches, unless I am invited, I have some animated debates in my home with friends of mine, several of whom are current and former students at Fuller Seminary, which is quite well-regarded as I hear it. It's a private school, my home is a private home, their homes are likewise. There seems to be ample space for these discussions.

As to your discussion about "Scriptures meaning nothing to christians," I wonder, do you understand what the scriptures say? and what Christians truly believe? Furthermore, What definition of "Christian" are you using? Because I doubt it is the same definition of Christian that I have.

I would not venture to guess what "all Christians" truly believe, nor would I catalog "true Christians", as you have no problem doing. I do know that the Bible says "keep holy the Sabbath", and that therefore the overwhelming majority of Christians celebrate and congregate on Sundays, because... well, because scripture means nothing to believers, and they can make it say whatever they want. I know that it says to pray in your your closet with the door shut, and so millions of Christians, and the entirety of the religious Right in this country turned on Obama for holding private prayer on National Prayer Day. I have eyes and can see, I have ears and can hear.

Constitution maybe? Freedom of religion maybe? Why are you so afraid of a discussion about God? I think that any and everyone who has a celebration time should be allowed to put a marker on public lands during that time. After all, that is freedom of religion.

Everyone is absolutely free to worship as they please, but not on the public dime. Also, as with many freedoms, yours end where mine begin. And again, these are not benign religions; they are evangelical religions, highly energetic and eager to spread. You are not a Christian if you are not spreading the Word of God. You can't tell me that you don't see that as problematic in the public sphere.

And this is where you move into absurdity. First, snake-handling is a backwaters form of American revivalist Christianity. Thus, it falls under the broader category of Christian, for which a CHRISTMAS TREE and manger scene have nothing to do with each other. One is a celebration of a birth and the other is an act within a worship service, which we have not at all been condoning or discussing here.

Furthermore, this is even more blown out of proportion by the fact that not every major religion, let alone minor part of religion is represented in a community. Even more so, How many of them have a date in December? Huh? Come on, you are simply being silly.

Yeah, I'm sure almost no other religions or cultures have a holiday right around that day when the light starts to advance against the dark. :rolleyes: Besides, Christmas trees are decidedly secular... they would pass the Lemon test.

Seems to me that religion has also violated a federal law concerning drugs. That is also a long legally established boundary, or do you forget about David Koresh being attacked because of "Guns," The mormon being arrested because of multiple wives, Many a suicide groups being broken up as well.
YOu are veering into the ridiculous.

So you agree with Scalia that the majority gets to decide, by weight of numbers, what constitutes a norm, and what makes a living tradition? Members of those Indian nations had been taking peyote to help them touch the gods for 3000 years before 1970, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed. Doesn't matter. The majority (Christians) get to decide what rights the minority have and don't have.

I witnessed a different version of it growing up in Ohio. It was illegal (and probably still is) to sell wine on Sundays. Who do you think was the target of that law? That was Christian love right there.

The Mormons are a very good example, especially since they seem to be able to actually read the Bible, and since certain parts of scripture really mattered to them - like the chronicling of one polygamist after another after another in the Old Testament - they decided to live their lives accordingly. Unacceptable. So, a Christian majority uses its government to come in regulate and even dictate what religious practices will be acceptable and which ones not so. Well after the fact, scholarship tries to find legitimate reasons for these actions, but it was clearly the majority going "ewww!" and squelching a minority. the Constitution is supposed to prevent this sort of thing, but it doesn't when religion rules the day.

No, its not. A peak into the future is a peak into China where religion is condemned.

I am very amazed however, at how frightened you seem to be by a polyvocal discussion of God in the public sector.


Make no mistake, China has an official religion. Is it supernatural? Maybe not, but it's a dogmatic religion all the same.

Do you see me shying away from this argument? I'm not sure where you're smelling fear, but maybe you should sniff your armpits or something. Once again, you, me and everyone else can believe whatever we want however we want, except on public property and on the public dime. There is ample space for my atheism, and for your Whateverism. I don't see any Christians up on crosses.

I do see an awful lot of Muslim men indefinitely detained without charges and without any evidence whatsoever brought against them... we're clearly not the saintly nation we might claim to be. Those are real people suffering from real religious hatred. That is the product of religion dictating policy.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 06:01 AM
Yet, 8 out of the last 10 years, it has been ABOVE the other circuits. Meaning, they have had the more turned over PERCENTAGE wise then most of the others pretty much this entire decade.

It could be simple politics. Until recently, their appointments were predominantly Democrat, while the SC has been overwhelmingly Republican since Reagan. I would consider the Supremes anomalous, and the 9th the norm, demographically speaking.

Vincent
12-31-2009, 06:11 AM
Is it a full moon?

Yes, and blue at that. :eyecrazy:

ricardisimo
12-31-2009, 06:14 AM
Sigh.

And athiesm is so... wonderful. 20 million serfs and milliions of other "dissidents" were so happy they could die for the cause right?

Get over it. People use religion or the absence of religion for their own wants.

BTW, you still haven't defined Christianity for me. Because I can guarantee you, your definition and mine are not the same. Simply because, Christianity in no way is responsible for the "deaths" that you talking about.

You seem to confuse christianity and christendom, which are polar opposites. That is why I am asking your definition.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Stalinism, Maoism, Capitalism... all of these are religions, dogmatic in structure, and people suffer because of them. They always manifest the same way: ideas matter more than people, and reality is secondary at best, an abomination at worst.

For the record, I couldn't care less what Christianity "really is". I'm very pleased that we have experts like you who can decide these matters on behalf of the billions of Christians who can't figure it out on their own.

HometownGal
12-31-2009, 08:02 AM
Yes, and blue at that. :eyecrazy:

It's a "full" somethin' but I wouldn't say it's a moon. :chuckle:

Preacher
12-31-2009, 06:41 PM
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Stalinism, Maoism, Capitalism... all of these are religions, dogmatic in structure, and people suffer because of them. They always manifest the same way: ideas matter more than people, and reality is secondary at best, an abomination at worst.

For the record, I couldn't care less what Christianity "really is". I'm very pleased that we have experts like you who can decide these matters on behalf of the billions of Christians who can't figure it out on their own.

Well, actually... yes. That is exactly what I am training to be.

However, I doubt that is the way you intended it. So catty comments aside, let me ask again.

How are you defining Christianity? You would be amazed at just how much you and I agree on once we get passed this issue.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 06:42 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/1x1lh.jpg


:rofl:

Too true.

OK...

Ric. if you wanna continue our conversation... start another thread. Otherwise, I'll consider our conversation over here so that we can stop hijacking this one.

SteelersinCA
12-31-2009, 08:33 PM
Didn't Christians decide to plop Christmas in December to "compete" with Pagans? Since then, a rather minor Jewish holiday, Hanukkah, has seen a rise in stature in order to "compete" with Christmas. Do an internet search people are all up in arms about an atheist display on the state house lawn right next to the Christmas and Hanukkah display, it's quite simpler and more prudent for the government not to allow any displays on government land. I'm quite certain that passes the lemon test.

Preacher
12-31-2009, 08:56 PM
Didn't Christians decide to plop Christmas in December to "compete" with Pagans? Since then, a rather minor Jewish holiday, Hanukkah, has seen a rise in stature in order to "compete" with Christmas. Do an internet search people are all up in arms about an atheist display on the state house lawn right next to the Christmas and Hanukkah display, it's quite simpler and more prudent for the government not to allow any displays on government land. I'm quite certain that passes the lemon test.

No, it wasn't to compete with it as much as it was to assuage people when Christianity was mandated (what is thus called christendom).

SteelersinCA
12-31-2009, 09:23 PM
Either way, government neither legally promotes nor inhibits religion when it ignores it altogether.

Preacher
01-01-2010, 12:04 AM
Either way, government neither legally promotes nor inhibits religion when it ignores it altogether.

right. But denying access to public grounds is not ignoring it. Not saying anything when ANY religion does it, is ignoring it.

SteelersinCA
01-01-2010, 02:30 AM
There is nothing that says religion has the right to public grounds. I think thats the distinction, heck people don't even have an absolute right to it. Parks have all kinds of limitations on them that have nothing to do with religion.

Preacher
01-01-2010, 06:02 AM
There is nothing that says religion has the right to public grounds. I think thats the distinction, heck people don't even have an absolute right to it. Parks have all kinds of limitations on them that have nothing to do with religion.

Yes, but no one has the right to deny someone to a religious celebration in such park if others are allowed on it for other reasons.

THAT, is a hinderance of religion. Now if they went on it and started bon-fires, THAT is a violation of already set public law.

A few years ago, I was in a church choir (had to work REAL hard, cause I can't sing!) We went to a zoo during their winter celebration. They gave us a place in the zoo and a time to sing, right along with everyone else. It was great. If mormons were there, Jews singing about their Dradles (if your Jewish, I hope that brought a smile to your face :wink02: :drink:), or anyone else, then they too should get a spot singing there.

BTW the Zoo was owned by the city.

SteelersinCA
01-01-2010, 11:28 AM
And I have absolutely no problem with a religious group being invited to a zoo for a religious celebration. That makes sense, but why a display at the city hall or state house? Typically they don't host holiday celebrations there. To me it's a way for religion to interject itself with and lend credibility to its message. "We were on display at city hall, come join us!"

There is also a distinct difference in my view from a Zoo owned by the city and city hall. In fact I would say it's part of the test to determine legality. Even if the Zoo is owned by the city, it has a drastically different perspective than city hall. No one sees a zoo and thinks government. See my point?

Polamalu Princess
01-01-2010, 12:19 PM
All I have to say is - great job Troy and God bless!

ricardisimo
01-01-2010, 06:48 PM
And I have absolutely no problem with a religious group being invited to a zoo for a religious celebration. That makes sense, but why a display at the city hall or state house? Typically they don't host holiday celebrations there. To me it's a way for religion to interject itself with and lend credibility to its message. "We were on display at city hall, come join us!"

There is also a distinct difference in my view from a Zoo owned by the city and city hall. In fact I would say it's part of the test to determine legality. Even if the Zoo is owned by the city, it has a drastically different perspective than city hall. No one sees a zoo and thinks government. See my point?

No, I think there's exactly one public space for completely free speech, whether on religion or any other topic: the street. Even that has limits, as private businesses are granted "buffer zones" on the sidewalk in front of their buildings to protect against protesters, etc. And you can't evangelize at 3:AM in front of someone's house. Those sorts of exceptions aside, I think it's fair to say that just as there are expectations of privacy in some venues (one's home, your doctor, etc.) there is an expectation of openness and toleration in the street.

All other public spaces should be treated as safe havens for the public. As for safety laws taking precedence, I don't see any prohibition on bonfires in parks mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor anything that says that public safety shall be a priority when crafting laws. There is, however, a specific prohibition on laws which would be interpreted to either establish or prohibit religious practice. Placing a stamp of approval on religions with iconographic installations is forbidden. Period.

Can a church rent a park for the day for a picnic? Sure. Should the city put a cross up in that same park? No. Can the church rent the park and declare it a "Christian-Only Zone" for the day? I don't think so.

I want to be quick to mention that I tried to get us back on topic a couple dozen posts ago. SteelCityMom made two very good points:

It's probably a hoax, which makes 90% of this thread meaningless;
My dramatics with regards to the NFL "giving back every penny" were just that, and I should have been more clear about that.

However, she makes the claim that all they can do is fine him, and if he's willing to pay it, then c'est la vie. I don't think that's true. Can you imagine if one of the Steelers just didn't like the design of the uniform, and had his Mom make him one instead, with his favorite childhood colors, and racing stripes and X-Men logos? That has nothing to do with religion, something to do with freedom of speech, and they would not allow him to play. Maybe one game, with a fine, and then they'd put a stop to it completely, so as to prevent anyone else from trying it. If that meant suspending him indefinitely, they'd do it, and you know they would.

My claim is that, although they would certainly never have to pay any money back to anyone, they would be jeopardizing their stance in future financial assistance negotiations with governmental agencies like the city of Pittsburgh... although from the looks of it in this thread at least, everyone in Pittsburgh is a true believer, so there might not be a problem. [sigh]

That's definitely a topic for a future thread: why does the NFL need government help?

Preacher
01-01-2010, 06:54 PM
No, I think there's exactly one public space for completely free speech, whether on religion or any other topic: the street. Even that has limits, as private businesses are granted "buffer zones" on the sidewalk in front of their buildings to protect against protesters, etc. And you can't evangelize at 3:AM in front of someone's house. Those sorts of exceptions aside, I think it's fair to say that just as there are expectations of privacy in some venues (one's home, your doctor, etc.) there is an expectation of openness and toleration in the street.

All other public spaces should be treated as safe havens for the public. As for safety laws taking precedence, I don't see any prohibition on bonfires in parks mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor anything that says that public safety shall be a priority when crafting laws. There is, however, a specific prohibition on laws which would be interpreted to either establish or prohibit religious practice. Placing a stamp of approval on religions with iconographic installations is forbidden. Period.

Can a church rent a park for the day for a picnic? Sure. Should the city be put a cross up in that same park? No. Can the church rent the park and declare it a "Christian-Only Zone" for the day? I don't think so.

I want to be quick to mention that I tried to get us back on topic a couple dozen posts ago. SteelCityMom made two very good points:

It's probably a hoax, which makes 90% of this thread meaningless;
My dramatics with regards to the NFL "giving back every penny" were just that, and I should have been more clear about that.

However, she makes the claim that all they can do is fine him, and if he's willing to pay it, then c'est la vie. I don't think that's true. Can you imagine if one of the Steelers just didn't like the design of the uniform, and had his Mom make him one instead, with his favorite childhood colors, and racing stripes and X-Men logos? That has nothing to do with religion, something to do with freedom of speech, and they would not allow him to play. Maybe one game, with a fine, and then they'd put a stop to it completely, so as to prevent anyone else from trying it. If that meant suspending him indefinitely, they'd do it, and you know they would.

My claim is that, although they would certainly never have to pay any money back to anyone, they would be jeopardizing their stance in future financial assistance negotiations with governmental agencies like the city of Pittsburgh... although from the looks of it in this thread at least, everyone in Pittsburgh is a true believer, so there might not be a problem. [sigh]

That's definitely a topic for a future thread: why does the NFL need government help?

That is definitely a good thread topic....

SteelersinCA
01-02-2010, 05:58 AM
I don't think it's a hoax, like I said I believe I saw the story on ESPN. Either in the MAG or on the uniform patrol page on the website or something like that.

SteelCityMom
01-02-2010, 10:35 AM
I don't think it's a hoax, like I said I believe I saw the story on ESPN. Either in the MAG or on the uniform patrol page on the website or something like that.

I don't know...I searched pretty hard for a story on it. The only thing I could find is where the flickr pics originated from (the OP found them through googling Polomalu) which is a site called uniwatchblog.com, and again, the only mention of any violation is through flickr photos. Not saying you're wrong, I just really can't find any more info on it other than that, which doesn't make it sound very credible.

Without even trying very much I can find 10+ stories on Ochocinco's wrong colored socks, but nothing on Troy stitching a cross in his jersey lol.

Preacher
01-02-2010, 04:28 PM
I don't know...I searched pretty hard for a story on it. The only thing I could find is where the flickr pics originated from (the OP found them through googling Polomalu) which is a site called uniwatchblog.com, and again, the only mention of any violation is through flickr photos. Not saying you're wrong, I just really can't find any more info on it other than that, which doesn't make it sound very credible.

Without even trying very much I can find 10+ stories on Ochocinco's wrong colored socks, but nothing on Troy stitching a cross in his jersey lol.

I did a pic search as well, and couldn't find any pics of an actual game where you could even SEE the back of his jersey :chuckle:

SteelersinCA
01-02-2010, 07:13 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/091217&sportCat=nfl

There's the link. It does reference uniwatchblog, however he is a frequent contributor to ESPN columns. He could be wrong of course, but I doubt it.