S
chool officials in Celina, Texas have not only decided to violate federal law but they have decided to flaunt their refusal to comply with constitutional rulings of the Supreme Court. The school continues to incorporate Christian prayers into its games. In a recent game, Celina coach Butch Ford said: “Our goal (against Liberty Hill) was to play with the joy of the Lord in our heart so we’d play excited all of the time, and we wouldn’t be down no matter what happened….” They might not be the only ones “excited all of the time” that they play.
What is fascinating is that school officials usually teach children that they must comply with the law. Yet, here the officials are telling students that it does not matter if the Constitution and the federal courts prohibit conduct: religious beliefs trump federal law.
The students clearly understand that the Celina is different: a self-exempted community that lives outside the requirements of the United States Constitution. Senior running back Troy McCartney noted “In our community we stress God and Jesus very, very much, and I’m very thankful to live in a community like that. I’ve never lived anywhere else in my life, but people who move in say there’s no other place like Celina. I’m very thankful to live where I live, have what I have and do what I do, and I just want to give all the glory and thanks to the Lord.”
After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in 1999 that schools could not use games for sectarian prayers, the school reacted by openly defying the ruling, even having student wear t-shirts reading “Celina Bobcats Pray Before They Play.”
What if the officials believed that desegregation rulings would not apply to them? Would they be justified to exclude black players? Yet, city and school officials all supported this defiance of the law — a curious lesson for the students in their charge.
For the full story, click here.
yes, some Christians are like that, and it makes the rest of us seem that way too, but not all Christians are like that. Most Christians in fact are caring people who wouldn’t discriminate because you don’t go to church. PLEASE oh PLEASE if you do anything with your life (and i sincerely hope you do, sorry, i dont mean to offend anyone, its just a VERY BIG issue for me. I get judged because of mean Christians all the time) DON’T discriminate against Christians because of the ones you have met in your hometown!
Интересно, а комментарии которые не нравятся автору здесь стирают? 🙂
David,
“I guess that’s a little like non-Christians in this Texas town. They aren’t known because they have to stay at home. If they speak, they feel “God’s wrath” in the form of people whose Christianity consists not of praying for your enemies or emulating the Beatitudes but in praying to “kick the crap out of the other team in the name of God.”
Wow. It’s like you live in Texas. Here, the first question you get when you meet someone is “what church do you go to?” If you answer none or blow off the answer, well…
Here we have these annoying fish symbols on windows of businesses as well as cars. Very clique-ish. One big snobby clique.
“…many moderate conservatives fail to realize the separation of church and state doctrine expressly protects the scenario you describe, and prevents one where the coach, as emissary of the state, enforces his religious beliefs on the huddle.”
Is this true? Everyone making the sign of a cross before a play, from a public school? I’m positive there would be some action taken. I haven’t taken any constitutional law classes yet, so I really don’t know jack squat about any of this, but I certainly imagine that there’d be a witch hunt if the situation I described happened.
This is from an interesting article on Alternet of today:
“And especially in small rural towns, anti-atheist bigotry can turn truly ugly. Being an out atheist means risking ostracism and worse. Out atheist teenagers have been kicked out of public school programs, and then kicked out of public school. Out atheists have been the targets of vandalism and death threats. Even believers can be targeted with anti- atheist ostracism, threats, and vandalism, if they’re perceived as being atheists because of their stance on separation of church and state (such as the anti- intelligent- design activists in Dover, Pennsylvania).
And I’m just talking about the U.S., where atheists are, at least in theory, guaranteed equal protection and freedom of non-religion under the 1st and 14th amendments. I’m not even talking about overt theocracies, where denying the existence of God will earn you a death sentence.”
Blasphemy is taking God’s name in vain and/or diminishing the deity. How is it not blasphemous to believe that the creative force behind the universe is involved in a high school football game? These religious loonies are so self-involved that they do not realize that these prayers serve to diminish the God they profess to believe in. By the standards of the teachings of their own religion they are manifestly guilty of both blasphemy and heresy. I could just see Jesus cheering at a football game, or taking sides. How stupidly sad.
It is unfortunate that after almost 250 years of constitutional history, we must still debate the prohibition against the establishment of religion by the state. The Celina case is emblematic of the failure of our educational system and of the refusal by otherwise rational people to understand the distinction between a nation comprised predominately of Christians and a Christian nation. The comments by Sally are particularly instructive on this point. No one has a legitimate reason to object to the expression of another’s religious viewpoint. What is objectionable is the imposition of that viewpoint by the state at any level of government. That is what has happened at Celina, and it is repeated each day in many communities across the country. And in Celina, as elsewhere, there are individuals who dare not voice their opposition for fear of social ostracism and, in some cases, political reprisal. When the judicial system, the branch of government least able to defend itself, enters the inevitable orders striking down the Celinas of the world, the equally inevitable response is attacks by know-nothing politicians against “activist” judges and increasing disrespect for the rule of law. The position of Christian conservatives in places such as Celina is identical to the mindset that views criticism of terrorism as an attack against Islam. Perhaps ironically, it also proves the wisdom of the founders’ insistence that government and religion each be free of interference by the other. When will we finally come to understand this fundamental truth?
MASkeptic:
Very nice pun, and btw you may have more followers than you know.
>Troy McCartney noted “In our community we stress God and Jesus very, very much
I’d be stressed too if my followers were causing such a fuss after I went to such lengths to show them that their faith in me should be a subtle and private thing.
Not that I have followers.
Bill:
The fundamental ignorance of our Constitution and the court decisions affecting it is just astounding. As rafflaw mentions, and probably engendered by the know-nothing, bubble-headed bleach blonds at Fox News, many moderate conservatives fail to realize the separation of church and state doctrine expressly protects the scenario you describe, and prevents one where the coach, as emissary of the state, enforces his religious beliefs on the huddle. Freedom of consceince and freedom from state sponsored religion is what it’s all about.
We lawyers need to do a better job of defending the Constitution from the intentional misrepresentations of these conservatives lest we have well-intentioned folks like Bill losing faith in a system that already expressly protects the interests he -and we- deem important.
Bill,
you changed the facts substantially. In your example you made it a voluntary decision by some kids on the floor. In the facts of the subject case it was school policy. I don’t know about you, but praying to God in a basketball game is a bit of an insult to God. Who should he/she support? The most religious or the most athletic? Finally, noone has been talking about barring anyone from praying. That is a myth that Fox News and the religious right promotes. A public school cannot promote religion of any kind. The separation of Church and State actually protects your right to practice the religion that you want without government interference. Without it, we would have the Taliban. I don’t want the Catholic bishops and cardinals deciding our civil laws and without the separation, we could end up in that situation.
I propose a slight modification.
Let’s say that I’m in a different town – somewhere more main stream, and I play high school intramural football. Every one of the people who I play with happens to be Catholic. In fact, we all met at Mass, so we know that everyone’s of the same religion. It’s not really likely, but that’s how things worked out.
If in the huddle, one of the guys says “I’d like to ask God to give us strength to play had and with good sportsmanship”, then they all make a very visible sign of the cross, they are breaking the law. I simply just find this hard to swallow. It’s incomprehensible to me (though I’ve been known to be of limited intellect) that a law has actually been enacted that prevents freedom of religion, considering the basis of our country. I understand fully that there are plenty of situations (perhaps even the one mentioned in the article) in which non-religious people’s rights are being infringed upon, and I don’t support that in any way. But one must look at both sides of an issue – there’s a delicate balance between allowing people to practice freely, and protecting individual’s from unwanted religious persuasion.
I don’t view myself as any sort of religious nut (I’m non practicing), but I certainly feel that free men and women shouldn’t be barred from praying, and that it should certainly not be against the law.
David,
I guess this is a bit of a social networking site! Not a bad network, I may add.
FFLEO, Jill, Mespo, et al-
I’m glad you like the blog. Thanks for checking it out. I started blogging early and once commented, upon learning that the feds were monitoring blogs, “at least somebody’s reading this stuff.” BTW,in Nebraska at least, being a criminal defense lawyer means I spend more time as a drug counselor than a litigator.
Rafflaw-
I’ve glanced at your blog before and like it, but I’ll read it more carefully when I have more time and link to it. I remember the title as it pretty nicely summarizes a lot of my vacations with the folks.
Jill-
I’m glad you noticed that “nasty” comment. I started to react the same way but then it seemed like anger is something the blawgosphere could use a little less of, especially against someone whom I’d likely agree on about 95% of the issues.
JT-
I bet you didn’t know you were creating a social networking site here, did you?
Wayne-
“I agree. I can see how my comments looked like I supported that but I really don’t, at least not as a first resort, for contempt of court such as this”
Oh that was just a general comment. It wasn’t addressed to you particularly. I was just suggesting one possible alternative response. But I’m glad you agree. It’s nice to have someone agree with you once in a while, lol.
Jill, Mespo Former Fed and David,
I looked at David’s site and it is a good one. Congrats David. I will link it to my site. Maybe one or two of my 5 or 6 regulars will take a look at it!
P.S.–nasty comments refer to ones on your blog.
David,
Your blog is well written, thoughtful and informative. You are slow to take offense at what I consider rather nasty comments, and this speaks well of you, as does your writing. I’m glad you found this site, glad FFLEO recommended your blog and I bookmarked it! I hope you post here some more also.
Jill
FFLeo:
At your suggestion I checked out David’s Tarrell’s site. I agree David’s blog is well worth reading.
I encourage others to read Mr. Tarrell’s blawg. I started reading his informative site today.
Beware though, he is a criminal defense lawyer! Hey, we have an excellent personal injury lawyer who posts here and the variety of legal opinions is invaluable.
Given my former profession, and especially when I was younger, I could not understand how an honest person could be a defense attorney. However, I was extremely wrong with my biased and uninformed opinion.