Scriptures shredded at Georgia school

[Johnv]

The superintendent claims that the cheerleaders violated the 1st Amendment. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. If she doesn't know that the Constitution is binding on the government, not on citizens, I'm not sure she should be educating our children.

Yes and no. A citizen is guaranteed first amendment rights, but that guarantee doesn't allow a person to violate another person's first amendment rights.

Anyhoo, to this topic, the cheerleaders weren't acting as individuals, they were acting as representatives of the school at the time of the incident. So the Amendment I restriction on government applies to them. Even if they weren't acting as representatives of the school per se, they still don't have Amendment I rights unbridled. For example, a profanity is protected speech, but if the school has a "no profanity" policy on its students, it's not a violation of Amendment I.

 

[Jerome]

Christian college coed caused the controversy:laugh:

Chattanooga Time Free Press

Ms. Jackson states she contacted superintendent Denia Reese to “express concern that the cheerleaders’ signs be done in such a way that all involved were within the ever-changing and very confusing lines drawn by the federal courts about such things.
“The issue was on my mind because of a school law class I took last summer at the Christian university where I am working on my doctorate of education degree,” she states. She attends Liberty University, which she points out was founded by the late Jerry Falwell.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Yes and no. A citizen is guaranteed first amendment rights, but that guarantee doesn't allow a person to violate another person's first amendment rights.

An individual does not have the ability to violate another person's 1st Amendment rights.

Anyhoo, to this topic, the cheerleaders weren't acting as individuals, they were acting as representatives of the school at the time of the incident.

In all my time of teaching, I've never seen a cheerleader squad that wasn't considered a private club.

 

[go2church]

Here cheerleaders represent the school and are subject to the same rules as other athletes. This was the rule in Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico and now Texas. Your experience seems to be the exception rather then the rule.

 

[Nonsequitur]

Oh gee....
then allow me...
Since you are so ignorant to the fact that the government funds, and makes all the institutional regulations that the USA schools go by, then you must be blissfully unaware that the schools do, in fact, make the rules and regulations, then your mention of government intervention not causing a problem must be due to your inability to acknowledge the reality that individual schools permit their rules to circumvent any circumstance that they want to?
In other words....SNIP?

Sorry JohnV, I did not mean to call you an (SNIP) (Well, I did, but was reminded that is not a good thing here on BB.). What I meant was, you don't have the brains of a cod.

 

[Nonsequitur]

Second apology:
I am sorry to all the cod out there. My remarks are in no way meant to try to connect you to a liberal.
(Great. Now I'm going to get hate mail from cod-fishermen.)

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Cheer leading not being a private club was also true when I was in high school in California (class of '71). I assume it's still a part of the school structure today.

Here cheerleaders represent the school and are subject to the same rules as other athletes. This was the rule in Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico and now Texas. Your experience seems to be the exception rather then the rule.

 

[Aaron]

The courts are snip illiterate snip.

Let me rephrase:

The courts are an illiterate (substitute three-lettered word for beast of burden).

 

[Aaron]

I believe the 1st Amendment is one that the Supremes in times past has determined to be incorporated into all levels of government. Remember the school prayer issues?

And yes what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So, in this (like it or not) culture with multiple religions including "no religion", a public school must allow all religions the same access privileges.

And the courts are an illiterate (beast of burden).

The point isn't about what the "Supremes" have said. I know what they've said. My point is about what the First Amendment says, not what the courts, who have perverted it and used it to further an agenda it was ratified to prevent, say.