Sorry if this is already posted.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...all-field.html
Printable View
Sorry if this is already posted.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...all-field.html
Democrat liberals strike out against America and historic American values again.
Time to make a stand.
But, just to examine this particular issue in this case. It is not the public school advocating for Christ (even though they should.) This is a paid advertiser. It's the business' logo. How many times, at 4am, you see paid ads and the network makes the disclaimer "the opinions in this program do not represent those of our network or our employees." Or, something to that effect.
Yeah, I know the counter-argument. What if some XXX Internet Porn site wanted to place ads on the football field, and their logo....well, you get the picture.
Some will say, well! a public school would just decline to accept such a porn ad, for common decency, etc... They don't have to accept every wannabee advertiser. That's an extreme example, but there will be others a little more gray...
SLIPPERY SLOPE!
School should have known they couldn’t legally comply with what they agreed to do in that contract.
Went to their website, Christ Fit Gym. It is a work-out gym, but it is also a non-profit organization and classifies itself as a "ministry." Combines physical work-outs with spiritual ones.
If this was a for-profit business whose name was "Christ Fit Gym" I'd say they'd have a real case, if they chose to engage dastardly lawyers and sue. But, as they are, by their own admission, a ministry, I don't see them prevailing in a secular courtroom.
But! there is no bad PR! So I bet their organization gets quite a boost from this.
A for profit with a crucifix gets the same result. The state can’t promote a religion. Imagine if someone paid for an upside down pentagram or an Islamic symbol.
A common misunderstanding. Nowhere in the constitution does it say, “the citizens shall be prohibited from religious expression within the public sphere.”
Separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It is mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. His letter was written to assure the church organization that the government would not interfere in their practice.
I know, some will say, “allowing an ad such as this is an endorsement and should not happen.”
Okay, so are the schools and booster clubs limited to 1 restaurant, 1 attorney, 1 insurance agent, 1 bank, 1 doctors office, or 1 vet clinic when seeking corporate sponsors? No, they can seek sponsorship from anyone and everyone they wish. Why is the church always singled out?
None of that was relevant. This is a public school, thus the state, putting a religious symbol on their field. It is irrelevant that there is nothing that prohibits citizens carrying out religious expression in public places.
Nobody has a hard time understanding this throughout the country outside the few communities where government agents proudly violate constitutional rights of religious minorities, and N Louisiana has a number of them.
So, by your logic, I can be offended that the booster club accepted a donation and provided advertising space to an attorney I don’t like. And I can demand that it be removed because it hurt my widdle fiwwings.
Again, just because the booster club accepted a donation and provided ad space doesn’t mean they endorse the person/business. Government (schools and school boards) shall not infringe on free practice of religion.
I'm probably one of the most theonomist people here, and I guarantee you that I'd rather not be able to paint a cross on a public field than have the US government establish a religion.
Eventually, of course, all nations will bow the knee to Jesus Christ. In the meantime, a government powerful enough to give you anything you want can take it away just as fast. Do you want what is happening in China? Believers forced to recite oaths to the State? Then you can put up with not having a cross-shaped logo on a football field.
There's a fine line between genuine suppression of the Truth, which happens all the time, even in America where the penalties are not nearly as severe as other countries, and grandstanding to feed a persecution complex. This feels like persecution complex to me.
just a question: does anyone think it would be a violation of their rights for a school to paint a pentagon or islamic symbol on the field? (by this i mean anyone besides the people who are claiming their rights are being violated by a cross on a field)
Can you be more specific? Which right is violated?
I agree that the fact that this is a self-professed ministry probably sways the judgment against them. But the fact that it was a cross shouldn’t knock it out. What if it was the Christus Health Cross?