Friday Night Acolytes

By David Waters Before each football game at Georgia’s Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe high school, cheerleaders hold up cheerleaders giant banners containing … Continued

By David Waters

Before each football game at Georgia’s Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe high school, cheerleaders hold up cheerleaders giant banners containing Bible verses that might inspire their beloved Warriors. For example, from Phillipians 3:14: “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me in Christ Jesus.” Players burst through the banners as they enter the field.

Late last month, after receiving one complaint, Catoosa County Schools Supt. Denia Reese, an avid Bible reader herself, banned the Bible banners. “Personally, I appreciate this expression of their Christian values,” Reese said in a statement. “However, as superintendent I have the responsibility of protecting the school district from legal action by groups who do not support their beliefs.”

Which is not at all what the complaint was about. Donna Jackson, the mother who complained about the banners, is a devoted Christian and graduate student at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. She told reporters she was merely trying to keep the school from getting into a costly legal battle.

Even Christian football fans should be able to appreciate the constitutional value of keeping public schools and other parts of government out of the preaching business. But separation of church and state, not to mention God and football, can be a hard sell in some places.

After the Bible banners were banned, the Fort Oglethorpe community erupted in righteous indignation and rallied round the young evangelists. “Our Founding Fathers had one thing in mind when they founded this country,” Georgia state Rep. Jay Neal said a crowd at a rally in support of the Bible banners, “and it was a Christian nation built upon the principles of Jesus Christ.”

Fortunately, Neal, a former church pastor, is not a high school history teacher. Keeping zealous government officials and preachers from turning a democracy into a theocracy is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they decided to keep government out of the church business. That includes the government’s schools and its cheerleaders.

Nevertheless, school officials relented this past week and said cheerleaders and other students would be allowed to display religious messages in a designated area on school grounds — a Free Preach Zone — five first-downs away from the actual field. Onward Christian Warriors.

On one hand, it seems silly to ban high school students from displaying any sort of clean, positive and uplifting messages (Be on your guard; Stand firm in the faith; Be men of courage; Be strong. — I Cor. 16:13). The First Amendment ensures that those same students likely will hear plenty of obscene, profane and demoralizing messages from adults in the stands during the game and from their car stereos after the game.

On the other hand, how many complaints would the superintendent have received from the good and God-fearing people of Fort Oglethorpe, if the school’s cheerleaders were hoisting banners with verses from the Qur’an or even the Book of Mormon.

Some of the Bible banners’ defenders say it’s not about enthusiasm, not evangelism. “The cheerleaders are not trying to push a religious cause, to shove religion down someone’s throat,” local youth minister Brad Scott told the Chattanooga Times Free Press. “The cheerleaders are just using Scripture to show motivation and inspiration to the players and the fans.”

If that’s true, there are plenty of motivational and inspirational verses to be found in all holy texts.

“To each is a goal to which Allah turns him; then strive together (as in a race) Towards all that is good.”
– Qur’an, Surah 2:148

“Endurance is one of the most difficult disciplines, but it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes.”
– Buddha

“To be worn out is to be renewed.”
– Tao Te Ching

“Discipline brings fame and greatness.”
– Rig Veda

“It’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get up.”
– Vince Lombardi

Football has its own pantheon.

Written by

  • ccnl1

    What the banners should have said for the benefit of the cheerleaders: Anti-female comments in “Pauls” epistles. 8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. ( Timothy 2:8-15 KJV)” “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)” “He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women’s voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin….. At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angels/ “pretty wingie talking fictional thingies” in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). (from Professor Chilton’s book Rabbi Paul).

  • ThomasBaum

    US-conscience You wrote, “I can think of a few quotes from Jesus right about now. “Unless you repent, you will all like wise perish” “It is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgement”” Have you not heard that “The dead shall rise”? Those that have “died” and have gone to the “good place”, so to speak, have no need of rising from the dead, they might need a new body, so to speak, but they are more alive than we are, so they have no need of “rising from the dead”, but those that have “died” after physically dying, do. Have you not heard “The captives shall be released”, those that have physically died and went to the “good place”, so to speak, have no need of being released from captivity but those that have built their own hell and are occupying it, do. Jesus won the keys to both and will use them in due time, God’s Time. Jesus said, “I Am the First and the Last”, He is referred to as the “First Born”, is He not? “I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me”, since Jesus is the First and the Last, sounds rather “inclusive” to me, Jesus went First, then we will all go thru Jesus to Dad in, as the bible says, the “proper order” and then Jesus will then be the Last and something to keep in mind is that Jesus never said that there was only one way to Him, did He? “All power and AUTHORITY has been granted unto Me”, in other words what we gave to satan freely, God won back for ALL. Jesus did say, “Father forgive them”, maybe we should believe Him, especially for what He did by taking ALL sin and sins upon Himself and for the fact that Divine Justice and Divine Mercy are two sides of the same coin. We can ask to be “cleaned” or we will, in God’s Way and God’s Time, be “cleaned” later. It is not about Faith, even tho Faith plays a part in God’s Plan, it is not about Hope, even tho Hope plays a part in God’s Plan but it is ultimately about Love and it just so happens that God is a Being of Pure Love. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • newageblues

    good work, CCNL1. My own view tends towards: if communities want to be that rude and insensitive to the non-Christians among them, let them be that way. The second class citizenship of non-Christians in such communities might as well be out in the open.

  • B2O2

    Man, I just feel sorry for the kids in these backwater Taliban-controlled areas. They grow up brainwashed in the swill of this Bronze Age religious artifact, and they don’t even know what hit them by the time they get out into the modern world (if they ever do). But if any Bible verse will do, why not a big sign spelling out the punishment “God” made clear in Deuteronomy 21:18-21? If the team is too lazy to run up 56 points or so, they are to be stoned to death the next day in the town square. That oughtta give ‘em some incentive to play well. Man, what a developmental sewer the South is. They differ from rural Afghanistan only in the style of clothing they wear.

  • Bill1230

    The crucial fact in the article is that the *cheerleaders* were making the decision to motivate with Bible verses. If the administration had done this or required this, then it would have constituted the unlawful establishment of religion in violation of the first amendment’s establishment clause since governmental employees were taking the questioned actions. However, a student, who is not an employee or agent of the government, is guaranteed freedom of expression of religion under the free exercise clause of the first amendment. And yes, if the cheerleaders had chosen to quote from the Koran, then they would be free to do so without violating the constitution, again because they are not agents or employees of the government. The point is — don’t pick on a student just because the student’s expression has religious content. School administration shouldn’t be allowed to ban a sign because it says “Be Strong in the Lord” instead of “Be Strong.” To do so violates the student’s first amendment rights.

  • historian_nan

    You have to consider the context — the back hills of Georgia, a town where everyone attends the same type of church (fundamentalist Christian), and most of them believe the Bible was written in English. It’s not evangelism in action — it’s ignorance. And, yes, it definitely cheapens religion. The idea that God would actually care who won a high school football game is ludicrous.

  • rj2008

    What happens when they lose, is that verse put on the don’t use again list. What if the opposing team bribed god with a better verse or some kind of offering, it must be kind of nerve racking every week to make sure god likes their verse better than anything else. Who gets to choose the verse, knowing that god will actually be reading it. Maybe some week they could hold up a sign that said, please help all the hungry people in the world. Who knows maybe god would read that and do something good for once.

  • ryan_heart

    faith is admitting you don’t know… those who know what faith really is – have a lot of humility most christians – don’t most christians go around condemning and talking high and mighty even thou that is the antithesis of their religion as they say – it’s not much good fruit from that religious tree especially in the southern climates

  • MagicDog1

    These so-called Christians apparently never read the commandment against taking the Lord’s name in vain. Prayers for victory in a football game is about as vain as it gets.

  • gimpi

    ignoranthillbilly, The historical aspects of our society you cite, and seem to want back (state-sanctioned churches, Bible lessons and prayers in public schools, religious discrimination against non-Christians and some sects of Christianity) were always against the constitution, and our values. We just did not always live up to those values. I would point out that during that the times you refer to, we also allowed our southern states to hold people in slavery based on nothing more than their skin color and birth. Even after a civil war was fought to end this barbaric practice, the southern states created an oppressive society to “keep (expletives) in their place” with lynching, denial of voting rights and economic and systemic discrimination. Until the civil right movement of the ’60’s, the rest of the country went along with this crime. Many folk will point out the religious elements in the fight to end both slavery and discrimination, and they are correct. However, it’s important to remember those fighting to end both legal discrimination and extra-legal savagery were mostly what we would now call “liberal” religious (such as Quaker, Jewish and Episcopalian civil-rights workers) and those fighting to keep those systems in place were “conservative” religious (Southern Baptists, mostly.) We also denied women the right to vote, own property, sign contracts, divorce their husbands, or have any rights to their children or the fruits of their own labor. In some states wives and daughters could be legally beaten and forced arranged marriages were legal. Honor-type killings of unfaithful wives or disobedient daughters, though officially illegal, were often condoned. Children were often regarded as property.(Remind anyone else of the Taliban?) Again, every time each of these policies changed, it was religious conservatives who fought those changes. In short, for every positive aspect of American history you can cite, there are big negatives you are simply choosing to ignore. In many cases, those negatives have been corrected by the very changes in our society that you decry. And for every aspect of modern society you dislike, there are many positives that you are also ignoring. Those positives have again, in some cases been brought about by the changes you distrust.

  • swazendo

    To find that people would introduce faith in this matter, for a high school football game, when faith should mean so much more in one’s life explains why we have ended up where we are in this country. We had eight years of a faith-based president that approached his responsibilities in the same manner these people approach their football game resulting in an economic collapse that is driving the US into economic dirt. Try finding a job after you lose one. Running through a faith-based banner won’t get you employed. Believe me, there are eight million of us and counting and things just keep getting worse. And put the icing the cake – Sarah Palin is running for president and all these faith-based football folks will vote for her. Don’t know about you guys but I’m starting to get real scared these days

  • gimpi

    Ignoranthillbilly: (comments continue, sorry for the spilt) You also just don’t seem to grasp that you can’t endorse Christianity without tacitly condemning other beliefs. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and many other faiths are all entitled to the same respect you feel is your due. It’s not “hatred” to expect that of you, or to call you on the carpet when you don’t bother to display it. It’s just consistency. I, for one, would not want to go back to the past you yearn for. I like true freedom for all, instead of privilege for few, and oppression for those on the outside. I like diversity for the energy and innovation it brings to society. And, understand this, I am just as American, just as normal, and just as entitled to work for the type of society I want as you are. I am also entitled to the same respect I have shown you. Are you up to that challenge?

  • billyjwilliams

    It’s Lakeview GA, of course it was for religious reasons ONLY! Did you see that size of the banner! They’re all inbred! Come on Left Behind and take them away!!

  • mvaughn1

    What a sad and trivial misuse of Scripture.

  • katavo

    These theocrats have the impulses of a weed, popping up everywhere in state-run events like that fool with the colored hair used to pop up at football games. We can’t let them get away with it at little events like this for it sets a precedent with them. Who paid for the school, for the football field, for the banner? Let’s try a banner with something from Thomas Paine, what do you say? …we must be compelled to hold this doctrine to be false, and the old and new law called the Old and New Testament, to be impositions, fables and forgeries. [The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9 p. 282]

  • logicshouldprevail

    What the cheerleaders are doing is unconstitutional under current establishment clause jurisprudence. As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the establishment clause prohibits government endorsement or hinderance of religious expression. As the cheerleaders are wearing the school uniform and the signs are being held at a public school scheduled event, the school, and therefore the state government is implicated in this case. Current U.S. Supreme Court case law such as Lee v. Weisman makes clear that perceived psychological endorsement (not just forced conversion) implicates the establishment clause. Based on this, what these cheerleaders are doing is unconstitutional. It may be argued by some that the cheerleaders have a right to free speech, and to the free exercise of their religion. These rights are also protected along with the preventing of government establishment of religion in the First Amendment, it is true. Yet, the establishment clause violation trumps these other perceived violations. It has been held time and again since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Renyolds v. U.S. in the 19th century that while religious beliefs are absolutely protected, religious actions are not. The holding up of these religious signs can be banned if a law otherwise prevents it. We have such a law here: the establishment clause. Additionally, with respect to free speech, courts draw a distinction between public and private speech. Public speech, which is viewpoint or content discriminatory can be banned. In this case, the cheerleaders in their uniforms are holding viewpoint biased signs (i.e. biblical verses) at a public school event. Based on this, the speech is public, and it is viewpoint discriminatory. As a result, the the right of free speech is not implicated here. Anyone who doesn’t see the horrible effects that comes from merging church with government in any form has been sleeping under a rock. The crusades, the inquisitions, slavery, etc. I realize what is going here is not a big deal, but it could definitely lead to worse things if not squelched. What is required under the Establishment clause is neutrality towards religion. Not hostility, not endorsement. Holding up bible signs at a public school event certainly constitutes an endorsement.

  • bdunn1

    The new strategy for the reinjection of the B-I-B-L-E and Christianity into public schools is to tout it as history: “We’re not indoctrinating or proselytizing, just teaching history.” Keep it at home or in churches. We don’t need to hear preachers praying in Jesus name to open city council meetings either.

  • B2O2

    Bill1230 wrote: “The crucial fact in the article is that the *cheerleaders* were making the decision to motivate with Bible verses. If the administration had done this or required this, then it would have constituted the unlawful establishment of religion in violation of the first amendment’s establishment clause since governmental employees were taking the questioned actions.” Nice try. Unfortunately the team itself, the stadium and the game being put on, are all being supported and funded by the taxpayers, i.e., the government. So what these cheerleaders are presenting to the crowd is being made possible by those taxpayers. Who may include Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists and simply honest religious people who happen to think the Constitution still matters.

  • Daedulus

    Well argued, Bill1230, but I think you overlooking some things. It is true that the cheerleaders are not “employees” but they are in fact wearing the school’s uniform and have been given a special privalege to proselytize at school event supported by tax dollars. They have been given a “stage” to preach. In effect the school district itself is “advancing” this particular religon under the ruling in Widmar v. Vincent. Sorry, but this is a clear “entanglment” which also runs afoul of the Establishment Clause.

  • ryan_heart

    some how i don’t see lord jesus approving of his name evoked to win football games, and lord make me the prom queen too?! and lord help my dinner rice not be too sticky?! will ya lord? maybe santa can bring us a gift win? with the lords help?

  • dragondancer1814

    Freedom of religion means ANY religion. PERIOD. The cheerleaders toting the banner with the Bible passage wouldn’t be a problem if it was at an after-school Christian club, but this was at a football game, where people of all faiths attended. Not to mention it was at a public school. Which means you also have Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Bahais, Wiccans, Pagans, agnostics, atheists, Shintos, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, secular humanists, and many others as part of the student body. In an environment like that, they have to use slogans that represent everyone, not just the Christian religion. Proselytizing/evangelizing (they are in fact the same thing!) in that environment is just plain RUDE, not to mention blatantly unconstitutional! There are plenty of other sayings and slogans that the cheerleaders can use to encourage the football team to play to victory without shoving a specific religion into everybody’s face in the process. Public schools are meant for everyone, so let’s remember that and act like it.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Gimpi: Thank you for your very polite reply. Of course, I don’t agree with you but your polite reply is appreciated. Of course, you talk of freedom, but may I suggest to you that it is not freedom that we now enjoy (certainly the cheerleaders and most of the people of this small town are not at liberty to do what they would like; instead they enjoy state sponsored repression) but instead we now experience moral and fiscal anarchy. Our culture is decadent and fragmented and if you put enough pressure on it, it will collapse. This is not the culture that survived a Depression and won WW II. I realize the liberal does not believe this, but if I were to say to you 50 years ago that GM would go bankrupt, you would have laughed me to scorn. However, that has what has come to pass, and I’m afraid that the great Christian civilization, which is now becoming a distant memory, will, sooner than we think, collapse. Your scientists, economists, and pundits will ascribe its collapse to other forces, but ultimately it will be because it turned away from the God of the Christian Bible, the one who gave us liberty in the first place. 2 Corinthians 3:17 “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

  • khote14

    Your theists, priests and other religious controllers will ascribe this collapse to turning away from Christianity, but remember – we had to steal our liberty from these people. Without some form of control of the peasants there will be a time of dissasociation, until people can grow up and disabuse themselves of the notion that some great sky daddy promising some blissful afterlife actually exists. We aren’t going to get off this planet until we can free ourselves of religious fallacies. IN fact we may end up wiping ourselves out fighting over which fallacy will rule the world.

  • katavo

    Why do christians spew their scripture here to make their point? There’s preaching to the choir, which of them need their mind changed by this? Then there’s preaching to people who think you’re retarded for believing this crap. Which of these people will change their mind because of this spewage? It’s jerking off, that’s what it is.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    khote14: Which fallacies are you talking about: secular atheism? That is the governing philosophy of the US, Russia, Red China, and Western Europe—the countries who possess the capacity to destroy this earth. We are no longer a Christian nation; George Bush—believe it or not—was not a theocrat. George Bush has forbidden military chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ—that doesn’t sound like a Bible-thumping theocrat to me. The Left can hate George Bush for a lot of reasons, but hating him for turning the country back to Jesus Christ would be delusional.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Katavo: We spew the Scripture to irritate you, and your response has made my day. Enjoy your place in Hell.

  • khote14

    I’m sure your gods appreciate the sentiment. If your heaven is going to be full of people like you, I’ll be joining Katavo in hell.

  • khote14

    “…turning the country back to Jesus Christ would be delusional. ” Gotta agree with that.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    khote14: Of course, you never really answered my question. You railed about “religious fallacies” destroying the earth, but all the nations with the capacity to destroy the earth are run by atheists, or nominal Deists. I guess what your saying is that an fanatical “nominal Deist” is going to precipitate a nuclear holocaust over peripheral matters of theology. Please… Your statement makes no sense. I thought on Bible thumping Christians were irrational.

  • overed

    IgnorantHillbilly wrote: Of course most of the people in the town, including the principal, would like the cheerleaders to continue to display these inspirational messages. All of you people who live in New York, LA, Washington, Boston, etc. …yada, yada, yada… ******************** boy, if ever there was an appropriate nom de plume yours is it.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Overed: Thanks. Not bad for someone with an eighth grade education, 3 teeth, a chest long beard, a King James Bible, and several guns.

  • overed

    Well IgnorantHillbilly, I must say that your self-deprecating humor is refreshing.

  • bdunn1

    The players eying the cheerleaders have another word in mind that ends in asm.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Overed: Thanks. I forget to mention that I also own a bango, rocking chair, corn cob pipe, and log cabin in the Ozarks. I don’t know what I’d do without the “Internets.”

  • grunk

    Score a touchdown for Obama. MMM, MMM, MMM.

  • dubhlaoich

    Americans took the rough but not violent game of Rugby, ruining it, and formed a new religion of gridiron war long before the bible thumpers adopted it. Peace on earth they say, except inside the stadium. Stop, stop, stop trying to force your brand of religion on others. “So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen!” John Godfrey Saxe

  • gimpi

    Ignoranthillbilly, Thank you for your polite reply as well. I obviously disagree with you too. And that’s fine. That’s what makes horses race. It really does not have to turn into a slug-fest. To me, the major problem with the way I understand your view is a bit of confusion about objective reality. To make my point, let me give an example that does not have the emotional weight of religion. Around 60 years ago, in New Mexico, outside of the town of Roswell, something seems to have happened. Some people believe aliens crashed, and crash-debris was recovered and hidden as part of a government conspiracy. Some people believe a weather balloon was found by a rancher, who didn’t recognize it and gullible people made up the rest. Some people believe there was a governmental cover-up, but they were hiding defense technology, and allowed (or spread) the aliens story to help keep the secret. Each of these groups has evidence. They all have documentation that supports their view. They all have eyewitness testimony. What none of them have is conclusive, iron-clad proof that what they believe is objectively true. So the only thing we can say with any certainty is that something seems to have happened. I understand how firmly you believe you are right. But your belief does not constitute proof. Some people believe as you do. Others have other beliefs, equally deeply held. They do not share your beliefs in the divinity of Christ, the inerrancy of the Bible, or the existence of God. You have your documentation, your witnesses, and they have theirs. Neither side can objectively prove their case. The only thing we can say is that something seems to have happened. That’s the reason for governmental neutrality regarding religion. If the school appears to endorse the cheerleaders, they are implying that they are “right,” that the religious view they represent is the truth. And on one knows that. Not you, not me, not anyone. We may believe, but we don’t know. I notice you didn’t address the central point I attempted to make, so I’ll try again. If you are allowed (as I seem to hear you saying) that you should be allowed (for reasons of majority or history) to push your view forward as objective truth, and have it endorsed by the government (Bible study and school prayer) how would you insure the rights of those who disagree with you? In other words, does your right to swing your arm stop at my nose?

  • B2O2

    The thing that puzzles me is that people like ignorant hillbilly and the other Bible pushers keep spouting the word “Christ” as if they agreed with his teachings, when in fact they find them abhorrent. He preached to help the poor and the sick, and to make peace with one’s enemies. These “social conservatives” almost to a person consider the former “socialism” and the latter “appeasement”. My question is, why do you all keep pretending that you follow “Christ”? He preached here as a fellow named Jesus, you know. You despise everything that man stood for.

  • tmcproductions2004

    This is soooo creepy. Is everything in life an exercise of worship?? What’s next? Pooping for Jesus?????!!!!

  • aredant

    This kind of display is nothing short of intimidating propaganda directed at the community by christian fundamentalist interests. It serves as an attempt to establish a social hierarchy benefiting a few prominent religious families or individuals.

  • ralph5

    If only this were a private school. In the spirit of intellectual honesty (and knowing my U.S. History!) the conclusion I come to is that public schools should not be in the business of religion. But I have to admit, I did smile when I saw the image of those cheerleaders holding up that huge banner with verse. It seemed something I’d find more than acceptable if it had been parochial school like my alma mater, which even had the word God in its motto. Actually, I’m still wondering how they constitutionally can even have the verse displayed on the school property at the games?

  • MyVoice3

    The principal by allowing the cheerleaders to display their banner must now give equal access to all students to express their faith. If he or she allows and encourages one faith, and excludes or ignores the others, by default endorses that faith. We are living in an increasingly diverse society and must recognize that not everyone believes or does not believe as we do.

  • MichaelDCQueer

    This from our friend B202: Man, what a developmental sewer the South is. They differ from rural Afghanistan only in the style of clothing they wear. Much as I dislike the imposition of Christian or other religious ritual at public, government-sponsored events, I found B202’s comment a little troubling. S/he is as ill-informed and intolerant of the South as s/he would have us believe Christians are of of the larger world. I think this is the thing that most troubles me about liberal sensibility: We are as intolerant of people who take an unshakable stand as they are of those who are enslaved to nuance and shades of gray. Can’t we all just get along? Or must we disdain even as we disagree?

  • ztcb41

    …”We are a nation of laws, founded by the “LIVING GOD upon whom all our wisdom/knowledge/given. We here will be remembered for what we did and failed to do, we will be remembered for standing on the side of “FAITH” or not. As for me I shall continue to give thanks to the “Living God of Israel for whom he has poured out countless blessings upon this great nation and on whom all live depends. In conclusion my fellow American’s “PRAY TO THE LIVING GOD ask him to give you “FAITH/HEALTH/HOPE/LOVE” ask and you shall receive, knock, and the door will be opened, and never give up on God.” …”Call unto me and I will answer thee, and show thee, great and mighty things.” (Jeremiah 33:3). …”Let your hope make you glad. “Be patient in times of trouble, “AND NEVER STOP PRAYING.” (Romans 12:12). …I believe therefore I am, I hope, therefore I live, I love, therefore I am.

  • revbookburn

    Is it a special ed program? Are we living in the tribal areas of Pakistan? Religion is personal like their panties. It does not belong in neutral and public facilities. If they remain clueless about the Constitution, they can visualize having the opposite or competitor’s beliefs at the game. Rev. Bookburn – Radio Volta

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Of course most of the people in the town, including the principal, would like the cheerleaders to continue to display these inspirational messages. All of you people who live in New York, LA, Washington, Boston, etc. and look at Glenn Beck’s popularity with bewilderment, just take a look at yourselves. You are forcing your Godless values on people you know nothing about. In some of these school systems, the Gettysburg Address is still taught: “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Government is no longer of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that is why people in these “backwaters” are angry. They want their government and they want their school systems back.

  • coloradodog

    hey want their government and they want their school systems back. Posted by: IgnorantHillbilly | October 3, 2009 7:40 AM ___________________________________—- My sentiments exactly – but I want them back from Huckabee theocrats who make Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist children second class citizens in these schools.

  • bryan37

    Interestingly, the fundamentalists pushing religion on public schools having been getting local schools to ban Halloween celebrations. What world do these people live in?

  • coloradodog

    What if the other team prays to win, too? What’s a God to do?

  • GDWymer

    “Our Founding Fathers had one thing in mind when they founded this country,” Georgia state Rep. Jay Neal said a crowd at a rally in support of the Bible banners, “and it was a Christian nation built upon the principles of Jesus Christ.” First, as is often the case, the honorable Representative from Georgia is embarrassingly ignorant of American history and the actual writings of our Founding Fathers. Second, this is in Georgia. Finally, they’re cheerleaders and jocks. So who cares what they think or believe.

  • joel5

    Breaking and trampling bible verse. Interesting metaphor. What if non Christians treated God’s word with the same disrespect?

  • overed

    tmcproductions2004 wrote: This is soooo creepy. Is everything in life an exercise of worship?? What’s next? Pooping for Jesus?????!!!! ****************** Can you imagine the amount of communion wafers they would need for that?

  • mydogshakespeare

    Why should any school allow much less promote the words and wisdom of liars? Hang with me for a few sentences… Believers support both teams with prayers. Jesus promised, in John 14:14, If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it. No doubt Home Team Believers prayed for their team to win; Jesus promised he would do it. No doubt Visitor Team Believers prayed for their team to win; Jesus promised he would do it. BUT THE PRAYERS OF ONLY ONE TEAM’S BELIEVERS WERE ANSWERED! Jesus made a promises to the losing team that he could not keep. In short, Jesus lied. Why trust anything he said? And why allow Believers to profess anything publicly from a book of certifiable nonsense?

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    coloradodog: Well, you’ve got them back. The ACLU and the Democratic Party has done a good job in effacing all references to Christianity from the public schools. There is an occasional flair up in remote towns like Fort Oglethorpe, but you have won. The ACLU and the Democrats have also done a good job in rewriting history. David Waters, the esteemed and learned author of this blog, tells us that Representative Jay Neal is a historical ignoramus for suggesting that Christianity was once an integral part of education and culture in the United States. According to Waters, the Founding Fathers would have never tolerated the religious zeal of the cheerleaders and their views are recorded in the Constitution to protect us—their posterity. Of course, we did have non-sectarian Bible study in public schools into the 1950s, and of course we had school pray into the 1960s. Nine of the original thirteen colonies had Christian state churches and continued to have state churches after the Constitution was ratified. It was only through the diktat of the US Supreme Court that these long established practices were abolished against the will of the people using the canard of the “wall of separation,” which is not found in the Constitution itself. But of course only an ignorant hillbilly would hold such delusional views of US history.

  • treetopflyer

    tmcproductions2004 wrote: This is soooo creepy. Is everything in life an exercise of worship?? What’s next? Pooping for Jesus?????!!!! ****************** Can you imagine the amount of communion wafers they would need for that? ———————————- Didn’t Robert Mapplethorpe try that? Maybe I’m mistaken. 0:-) All religions are a best guess. God laughs at the words we put in His mouth. Word to the wise – just because you believe in God, doesn’t mean every stray thought of yours comes from Him or the Devil (which apparently Paul thought).

  • backspace1

    I’m disappointed… There are very few players on the field willing to do “contact fouls” for the team! Of course, the coach! agreed with official, pulled the play-er (after 3)and smiled . Victory?

  • steviana

    Will those wonderful Christians who want to peddle their stuff to the rest of the non-Christians approve what the Taliban does? Yes I know Christ is the true God, etc. But then so is the God of the Talibans. So who really represents the truth? Well, of course, whoever’s got the biggest bomb! Herein lies the root of terrorism.

  • bigbrother1

    There’s nothing to debate here. These girls are clearly are using their prominent positions to engage in the sort of evangelism that is simply not permitted in government run schools. For punishment, they should be suspended from one game and required to write a paper on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

  • RichardHode

    Here they come again, the stupid Southerners with their Jeebus and Gawd. Whar’s the Flyin’ Spaghetti Monster, y’all, and his Son the Macaroni? (“Spaghetti?” “Macaroni?” Ain’t them furrin’ words?)

  • ElSith

    Man, what a developmental sewer the South is. They differ from rural Afghanistan only in the style of clothing they wear. POSTED BY: B2O2 | OCTOBER 3, 2009 1:13 AM REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT B202 – You are so right. Is it too late now to let them secede?

  • iamerican

    An explication of our legal spiritual historic foundation, from the same anointed hand which authored America’s Declaration while the English war-fleet for military invasion and conquest was debarking eighty miles from Philadelphia, can be read by all intelligent Americans, of which Pastor Neal – betrayer of the oath to the U.S. Constitution, and Georgia’s, taken when he became a state representative, is not one:

  • jdsher00

    Somewhere in the article, I thought somebody was going to comment on the nearly obscene rudeness of claiming that God has called their team in Christ Jesus to victory. Victory over Satan, Paul might have been talking about, but victory over the other team? Is the other team Satan? Has God called the other team to defeat? Why don’t any of these supposedly reverent people recognize how appalling it is to talk about a sports game in this way?

  • Darwin26

    Dear heavenly father we beseech thee in the name of winning – in the name of lining our pockets with gold and ribbons – in the name of ripping out the eyes and genitals of the unholy other team. We beseech thee in the name of your wonderful fickle love and transient grace. We beseech thee in the name of the lord of futbol to smite thee other team and make their cheerleaders barren. We prostrate ourselves like the stupid fools who believe in invisible friends and fictitious ramblings. Amen

  • greenispeace

    Welcome football fans to tonight’s broadcast of Redemption football apocolyplse, featuring Lakeview-Ft Oglethorpe up against the sinners and fornicators from Devil U High. With me in the broadcast booth tonight is Jesus Christ himself who will be play calling in tongues and casting Devil players between the uprights and into the gates of Hell. J C, I understand you’ve got a little action on this game, pretty heavy odds, 4-to-no chance in hell! Oh, look, here come those vestal virgins onto the field now to rally the faithful with their short skirts, flashing panties and a darn good Bible verse to boot. All you Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists and anybody else who ain’t white or drink beer out in the audience tonight, take heed, if God don’t smite you, the good Samaratins in the KKK will. I’d like to take this time to remind you folks watching at home that this country was started by those Jesus freakin Founding Fathers, the 1% white male uppper class slave kidnapping pluarchy. After butchering off the Native Americans who’d lived here for 40,000 years before my budy J C ever showed up, of course. And what better way to epitomize that great spirit of smash-and-grab nation building than a contest of watching our children smash their heads together while we watch our neighbor’s daughter show us the money! Folks, this is what it’s all about; we don’t show up for feats of geometry prowess. We couldn’t be any less enthusiastic of our kids academic accomplishments, let alone any of those sissy sports real Christians don’t play! Violence and pedophilic sexual fantasizing with a good dose of stuffing the Bible down someone’s throat! Go team! Peace

  • chatard

    I am pretty well getting sick and tired of anti-faith activists preaching that public schools are part of government. Public schools are NOT part of government. They are not part of the executive, they are not part of the legislative and they are not part of the judicial. The principle to be followed is the SEPARATION OF EDUCATION AND STATE, “Barack Hussein Obama, MMM! MMM! MMM!” to the contrary notwithstanding. It is not for government to dictate to the people what “government” is. It is for the people to dictate to government what “government” is. Public schools TEACH government. No government official has a constitutional right to dictate, legislate or litigate what is taught or said or understood or felt or believed in a public school unless it entails the VIOLENT overthrow of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. The public school is an entity of the local school district. No child from another district has a federal right to attend that district’s schools and no child or child’s parents from another district have the right to demand one curriculum or another or one code of conduct or another in that particular district. That district is beholden to the citizens of that district.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Dear material-energy-time-and chance, We thank you for the sexual liberty you have granted us; we thank you for no-fault divorce; we thank you for illegitimacy; we thank for abortion in the last trimester; and we thank you for sanctifying sodomy. And most of all, we thank you for enlightening us to now consider the rape of the 13 year old as simply the peccadillo of a brilliant artist. We thank you that our illegitimate kids cannot read and cipher and cannot compete with the rest of the world. We thank you that drugs have set us free to kill one another in the inner cities. Dear material-energy-time-and chance, we thank you for the manifold blessing you have bestowed upon us. Amen.

  • hadenuff1

    This is nothing more than a back door attempt to bring religion into the schools. What do want to bet that some fundamentalist preacher suggested this idea to his congregation and they took it from there. Practice your faith, but don’t expect the public to pay for it.

  • trippin

    “I am pretty well getting sick and tired of anti-faith activists preaching that public schools are part of government.” Well, let’s all hope you have health insurance that won’t reject your claim for having a pre-existing condition. The word “public” is the operative word of course — as opposed to “private” in which students are free to be brainwashed in accordance with the wishes of their parents who are paying the tuition. The principle you are following is separation of education and conservativism, a very common practice in the United States.

  • US-conscience

    I think this section of the Post should be called the “Anti Faith” section. I can think of a few quotes from Jesus right about now. “Unless you repent, you will all like wise perish” “It is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgement”

  • Carstonio

    “Of course, we did have non-sectarian Bible study in public schools into the 1950s” “Nonsectarian Bible study” is an oxymoron. It may have been nondenominational, but it still endorsed Christianity over other religions. “Nonsectarian” is often used to wrongly suggest that the only religions worth considering in these debates are the Christian denominations, as if non-Christian religions didn’t exist. “Nine of the original thirteen colonies had Christian state churches and continued to have state churches after the Constitution was ratified.” And it was wrong for those states to do so. The idea of a state religion is inherently wrong, even when it’s an unofficial one, because it confuses religious belief with patriotism and treats citizens of other religions as not real patriots. This is the case no matter what religion we’re talking about. The cheerleaders’ actions didn’t technically violate the First Amendment since they weren’t school officials. But these did violate the spirit of the clause, since they were hijacking a school event for proselytizing.

  • claudio_henrique

    Oh lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz. My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends. Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends. So oh lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz (Janis, where r u when I need you?)

  • Carstonio

    To expand on my point, even if the cheerleaders were honestly trying to encourage their teammates, the effect of their actions was to proselytize. They seemed to assume that all their teammates were Christians, or that all of them should be Christians. That would be a problem even if the proselytizers were Hindus or Shintoists or members of any other religion.

  • [email protected]

    B.F.D.

  • usapdx

    AND WHAT IF SOMEONE HAD A ISLM BANNER ON DISPLAY? KEEP RELIGIONS OUT OF ALL AMERICAN “PUBLIC” SCHOOLS PERIOD.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    US-conscience: you are correct, but I think a more accurate label for the blog is Anti-Christian, or Antichrist. This is essentially a blog where smug intellectuals deride biblical Christianity and scoff at the God of the Bible. And then every four years during the Presidential election the same people are bewildered when poor rural Christians vote against the Democrats, who generally view them as ignorant hillbillies, clinging to their Bibles and guns.

  • Hillman1

    This cheapens religion. Asking God to help you win a football game? Really? That’s what an Almighty Creator is supposed to be summoned for? And what about the other team? You are asking God to make them lose? And it’s a bit creepy. Using impressionable teenagers to foster a message undoubtedly pushed by adults in the community at large. It’s sad.

  • joe_allen_doty

    This is sort of like the “See you at the pole” events. While public school students might claim that it was their idea, it is usually an adult in church leadership which strongly suggests the idea in the first place, even making the students believe that it was their own original idea. The “Pole” thing started after a group of high school students had gone to a denominational church sponsored youth retreat. PLEASE NOTE: The scripture quote is facing the crowd, not the football players who break through the BACK side of the banner.

  • IgnorantHillbilly

    Katavo: Christianity and Catholicism are two different things. This country was founded by Reformation Christians (See the Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, and Baptists). Being baptized as an infant and then ignoring the Bible, ignoring church doctrine, and living as if you believe in energy-matter-time-and chance, does not a Christian make.

  • joe_allen_doty

    My ancestor, Edward Doty, was a passenger on the Mayflower in 1620. He was not a Pilgrim; but, he signed the Mayflower Compact. There are ignorant people who believe that the Pilgrims (only about half the passengers on the ship) came to the “New World” to get out from the authority of the King of England. But, when the men signed that document, they pledged continued allegiance to the King of England. The Pilgrims only came across the Atlantic to get out from under the authority of the Church of England. Although not all of the adults were of the Pilgrim church, the church leaders had control over the religion of the community. The Mayflower was supposed to have landed down near Virginia but it was blown way off course. By the way, Edward Doty got himself into trouble quite a few times.

  • Carstonio

    “PLEASE NOTE: The scripture quote is facing the crowd, not the football players who break through the BACK side of the banner. ” That strongly suggests that the intent was to proselytize.

  • joe_allen_doty

    Before Paul wrote those Epistles to others, he ministered with women who were pastors, Bible teachers, deacons (not deaconesses because “deacon” is a church position title), and evangelists. You need to consider the context and ethnic/cultural situation of the people who received those letters. I would not want a woman attempt to teach me spiritual things when she is ignorant about a lot of things. The women in the church at Corinth were generally uneducated and unlike modern church services, they did not sit with their husband during a church service. By the way, during New Testament times, church services were held in the homes of the members and not in church owned buildings.

  • ryan_heart

    They want their government and they want their school systems back. Posted by: IgnorantHillbilly | October 3, 2009 7:40 AM ————————– and you’d pray the lord to bring slavery back too – because it was a government take over! and Lincoln was a tirrant! face it – something in the water in the south makes you southerners de-evolve with out being conscious of it – just listen to the way you talk slow for a good clue!

  • Carstonio

    Joe Allen, while you have a valid point, a casual reader of the Bible might not know or understand the cultural context. Looking at the text alone, one would assume that Paul was saying that women shouldn’t teach spiritual things because of their gender and for no other reason. This may be too much to ask, but what if Paul questioned the refusal of those cultures to educate women in the first place?

  • Carstonio

    It’s a mistake to treat issues like this as referendums on the merits or faults of Christianity, as either a system of belief or as a collection of believers. It’s also a mistake to frame the issue as Christianity versus atheism, or as belief in the existence of the Abrahamic god or belief that gods don’t exist. The issue instead is about the general principle of neutrality among religions. That neutrality does NOT equal atheism or anti-Christianity, and those two are NOT the same thing, either.

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    We cannot reasonably assert that cheering with banners urging high school football players to win in the name of Christ has nothing to do with Christianity. This sort of thing is rife among both Catholic and Protestant schools, where one sees illustrations of Christ standing behind the home team. Popular culture mirrors politics. Christianity, generically speaking, is and always has been political, i.e., wedded to politics. In its name, horrible evil has been done to non-practioners. It is based on a huge faith commitment along with primitive notions of “purity, and, for both reasons, suffers from huge insecurities, which must be ameliorated by condemning, if not killing, those who do not subscribe to it, and, at times, those who convert. Asserting that my Christ is bigger than yours, that He is on my side, etc., is hardly new, not in football nor in war nor in genocide.

  • backspace1

    1. Running through a banner doesn’t get you employed but it does attract the attention of “recruiters”. 1.a Creativity, strength, honor, tribute, it raises the “Bar” on competition. back in the day, 2. Every game, The Lords Prayer was said. I didn’t understand why until I started seeing players with broken limbs, neck injuries, concussions, abrasions. 2.a I didn’t even know what a prayer was until I heard that. 2.b I always failed on the temptation to clear out stragglers tracking behind the play, resulting in penalty .

  • norriehoyt

    When they get tired of their present banners, I recommend a switch to: …thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them… – Deu 7:1-6

  • EliPeyton

    Man, what a developmental sewer the South is. They differ from rural Afghanistan only in the style of clothing they wear. Posted by: B2O2 | October 3, 2009 1:13 AM ======================================= Thanks for the hope and change.

  • ViejitaDelOeste

    Hmmm, I’ve been gone for a while and it seems like the level of discussion has improved, but only slightly. Would-be evangelizers from the extremes of faith and unbelief prattle on as if any of us are swayed by their preconceptions and circular logic. I would like to point out that while every Catholic school with which I been associated (as student, parent, staff or sports fan) has been crazy for sports, their chaplains and other official speakers are prohibited from praying for victory over the other team. They pray that all the players will play their best and that no one will be injured.

  • Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness

    Use a quote and leave God, Jesus, the Disciples and the citation off. That should satisfy the the ACLU and others. ” ‘The ignorance of FOOLS, will destroy them!’ You can look that up! It’s in the Bible!” – Gen. George S. Patton

  • bigbrother1

    The thing that puzzles me is that people like ignorant hillbilly and the other Bible pushers keep spouting the word “Christ” as if they agreed with his teachings, when in fact they find them abhorrent. He preached to help the poor and the sick, and to make peace with one’s enemies. These “social conservatives” almost to a person consider the former “socialism” and the latter “appeasement”. My question is, why do you all keep pretending that you follow “Christ”? He preached here as a fellow named Jesus, you know. You despise everything that man stood for. POSTED BY: B2O2 | OCTOBER 3, 2009 6:47 PM *************************************************************** A worthwhile question, and worth reposting. But you notice there never was an answer from the ignoranthillbilly or any other the supposed “Christians” here. There is nothing modern American fundamentalist christianity hates more than Jesus and things he said in the Gospels. If you want to find a real anti-Christ, you need look no farther than your average fundamentalist.

  • justillthennow

    Hello logicshouldprevail, Thank you for your clear and insightful post.

  • justillthennow

    Gimpi, Nice posts to IgnorantHillbilly, “We also denied women the right to vote, own property, sign contracts, divorce their husbands, or have any rights to their children or the fruits of their own labor. In some states wives and daughters could be legally beaten and forced arranged marriages were legal. Honor-type killings of unfaithful wives or disobedient daughters, though officially illegal, were often condoned. Children were often regarded as property.(Remind anyone else of the Taliban?) Again, every time each of these policies changed, it was religious conservatives who fought those changes.” The point you make in the last sentence cannot be overstated. Sometimes the ‘ good old days’ had, like everything, two sides to them. As their backside is the ‘evil old days’, at least for those that were prejudiced by the assumptions of those ‘days’.

  • Carstonio

    Thomas, I wasn’t saying that you had evidence, but instead pointing out that I know of no evidence to be found for the assertion of divine inspiration for the Founding Fathers. “There are some things that I know and there are other things that I believe and I try to differentiate between the two.” While I can appreciate the distinction, I don’t understand the basis for it. Belief is about certainty, and to have certainty without knowledge sounds problematic to me. If one doesn’t know, why have the belief at all? For an observer, it’s difficult to distinguish whether a person’s assertion with certainty comes from knowledge or from belief. It also sounds problematic to have any sort of belief in questions of objective fact. That falsely implies that the answers to those questions are subjective. It also implies that knowing the correct answer (whatever the answer happens to be) is unimportant. There’s always the chance that one’s belief may be incorrect, so why take that chance? It’s much more preferable to know that one doesn’t have the answer than to believe in an answer that may be incorrect.

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    A sure-fired solution to NT banner-wielding cheerleaders would be to end cheerleading. Somehow, football and the nation would muddle through.

  • justillthennow

    Hello IgnorantHillbilly, I have enjoyed your posts. I am not in agreement with your worldview, but appreciate your sparring style and passion for it. You are hardly ignorant, hillbilly. I come from the side of the ring more closely associated with the Gimpis of the world, I suppose. “Of course, you talk of freedom, but may I suggest to you that it is not freedom that we now enjoy…” Fact is that many now do experience far greater freedom than they did in your good old days. Blacks, hispanics, asians, women, handicapped, muslims, buddhists, children, divorced women, mixed race couples, people accused of crimes, the list goes on and on and on. You may counter that it has come at a great loss to a standardized concept of white christian morality, and you may have some points in that argument… But then, the point made here is at least twofold. One is that the homogenized christian moral ethic that has gone into decline was itself biased toward the benefit of a narrow demographic. Usually described as white anglo males. By that prejudice, and the sociological and cultural assumptions and indeed institutions that the assumptions supported, the christian ethic was not freedom and liberty and just and godlike. It was not the perfect path that adherents claimed it was. It was bound to fail, for it was flawed. I am not saying by that statement that Christianity is flawed. I am saying that the assumptions and presumptions that mainstream Christians have made, and held inside the American culture, formed an imbalanced and flawed view and prejudice that is not necessarily inherent in the message of Christ, for what we truly know of that, but in their human perspectives that devolved the essential Christian message into the aberration that allowed slavery, wholesale murder of indigenous people (as well as those of related but differing beliefs), sexual slander at a base level, and every form of prejudice justified by the human Christian mind. Manifest Destiny sounded great, and supported more for me. See, I am of Gods Tribe and He will assure my success… Go Team! Where we are going we shall see. But you may yet be surprised. The tenacity and moral fiber of the Depression era American, and the heroic WWII soldier that you uplift, came out of the Roaring Twenties, and the struggle of the working class to unionize against injustice and just another form of slavery. American assumptions and prejudices have been exported around the globe ever since. Perhaps it is that very moral tenacity and belief in freedom and right action that may right this ship, arguably being steered toward the reef by not only the liberals of your nightmares but the conservative blasphemies like Bush Jr. and Nixon.

  • justillthennow

    greenispeace | October 3, 2009 9:57 PM , Loved your play by play.

  • justillthennow

    B202, Just wanted to repeat what you wrote. Not plagiarism as your quote never left the building. “The thing that puzzles me is that people like ignorant hillbilly and the other Bible pushers keep spouting the word “Christ” as if they agreed with his teachings, when in fact they find them abhorrent. He preached to help the poor and the sick, and to make peace with one’s enemies. These “social conservatives” almost to a person consider the former “socialism” and the latter “appeasement”. My question is, why do you all keep pretending that you follow “Christ”? He preached here as a fellow named Jesus, you know. You despise everything that man stood for.”

  • ccnl1

    Hmmm, Thomas, “Talker to god” and “Moses of the NT” Baum, of course has all the answers for who else has seen the true god???

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You wrote, “Belief is about certainty” This may be your definition of belief but it is not mine. Before I met God, I certainly believed in God but I did not know for a fact that God Is. You then wrote, ” If one doesn’t know, why have the belief at all?” If one knows then belief is unnecessary, therefore knowledge may replace belief whereas God rewards, so to speak, a person’s belief with knowledge. You then wrote, “For an observer, it’s difficult to distinguish whether a person’s assertion with certainty comes from knowledge or from belief.” This can be true but from one who has met God some of the absolute garbage being spewed out by some that “claim” to know rather than believe can be rather sickening. You then wrote, “It also sounds problematic to have any sort of belief in questions of objective fact.” It may be “problematic” to you and that is fine but I will give you an example that I have found to be true. In listening to people I have found that there are times when God speaks thru a person when that person does not even have a clue that this is happening. Concrete example: I don’t remember the exact statement but the first time I noticed this was when someone said something and I repeated it back to them verbatim and they did not have a clue what I was talking about, this is when it struck me that God can speak truth thru a person without that person even being aware of it. By the way, satan can speak thru people also, I am not speaking of “The Exorcist” type of speaking either but in every day language. An example from the bible is when Jesus said to Peter “get behind Me satan”, it was Peter speaking and Jesus was not saying that Peter was satan or that satan himself was speaking thru Peter but that satan’s twistations were coming thru Peter by Peter’s not knowing. You then wrote, “There’s always the chance that one’s belief may be incorrect, so why take that chance?” It is some people’s belief that there is no God, should these people take the same advise given by you in the above question? You then wrote, “It’s much more preferable to know that one doesn’t have the answer than to believe in an answer that may be incorrect.” This is just your opinion, no more and no less. I did not “know” that my belief in God was correct or incorrect before I met God but that did not stop me from having that “belief” in God, this is what the word “belief” means. As I have said tho, God rewarded me, this side of breath, with the fact that God Is. Even tho there are some that seem to interchange the words, believe and know, they most definitely do not mean the same thing, even if one were to have a fervent belief.

  • ccnl1

    And Thomas “The god talker/seer” and “Moses of the NT” Baum continues: “I did not “know” that my belief in God was correct or incorrect before I met God but that did not stop me from having that “belief” in God, this is what the word “belief” means. As I have said tho, God rewarded me, this side of breath, with the fact that God Is.” Hmmm, can “Baumianity” the next “true” religion??????

  • ThomasBaum

    ccnl1 You wrote, “Hmmm, Thomas, “Talker to god” and “Moses of the NT” Baum, of course has all the answers for who else has seen the true god???” Who said anything about me having “all the answers”, I have said that God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. By the way, who has “all of the questions”? If by “seen the true God” you mean “have met God”, I don’t know who else has. As I have said, I am just a messenger to let the world know that in spite of the “seeming” fact that very few, if any, either believe or even want God to win Total Victory, in which the dead shall rise and the captives shall be released, it is in fact part of God’s unfolding Plan. Total Victory does not mean that there will not be a Judgement, not by any stretch, what it means is that ultimately ALL will be with God in God’s Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. The “mystery” as in the “mysterious Plan of God” has been revealed to the simple, this does not mean “all of the details”. One can get so wrapped up in the details that one might not only miss the big picture but also that there might even be a “big picture”. I guess the fact that it is simple is what confounds those that think if they “figure it out” there just might be some “bonus points” in it for them. Have you ever noticed that there still seem to be, like the original Apostles, some that are vying for the “best” seat in the house, so to speak, rather than hoping and praying and wishing for a seat for everyone, so to speak. As it has been said, “Somethings they never change”. God looks at the person, not the “label” whether self-imposed or imposed by others. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Carstonio

    Norrie, your suggested verse from Deuteronomy would work well for football when paired with the classic quote from “Conan the Barbarian” – “What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.”

  • Carstonio

    “If one knows then belief is unnecessary, therefore knowledge may replace belief whereas God rewards, so to speak, a person’s belief with knowledge.” Belief is not “necessary,” at least in the way that you suggest. Gaps in knowledge should be respected and not filled with inadequate substitutes like belief. One can speculate in the absence of knowledge as long as one recognizes that one is speculationg. Otherwise, there is only knowledge and the lack of knowledge. “In listening to people I have found that there are times when God speaks thru a person when that person does not even have a clue that this is happening.” As a matter of personal boundaries, it’s inappropriate to claim to know more about a person than a person knows about himself. Even if you speculated that a god was speaking through that person, you have no way of proving this through evidence, so that idea remains speculative. That doesn’t mean that the idea is false, it means that it’s not worthy of being called either true or false. “It is some people’s belief that there is no God, should these people take the same advise given by you in the above question?” Yes, a hundred times, yes. One has no basis for being certain that gods exist or that gods don’t exist. Not believing that gods exist is not the same as believing that gods don’t exist. One can say that the likelihood is small that gods exist given the lack of evidence, but to blindly rule out the possibility of gods existing is to claim to know something that one doesn’t know.

  • backspace1

    Conan stole that from Ghengis Kahn. The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

  • backspace1

    Sorry, I stand corrected…it’s spelled Genghis Kahn and it doesn’t fit football…

  • lepidopteryx

    What does scripture have to do with guys in helmets and shoulder pads kicking a ball or girls in short skirts waving pompoms and turning cartwheels?

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    While eliminating cheerleading would resolve the “dilemma” under discussion, eliminating football would end not only the problem of winning for Christ, but of playing for him, surely the root problem. Wonder who would win if it came down to a choice between football and the NT. Calling the question might be both revealing and mentally healthful to some.

  • JUSTACOMMENT

    I love sports and I participated in 3 competitive sports in high school and college. I’m getting close to the seventh floor and still competing in pick-up games. All this is to tell that I know something about competitive sports, not an expert but somebody that has lived it. I’m planning to elevate a protest to the collegiate sports authorities against the use of a powerful immaterial entity to tilt the results of a high school or college game by praying to a god/gods before the game to make them strong and win. If a team cannot compete against other teams that have steroid athletes, how in the heaven can a team compete against other teams that have God himself helping them with twisting the ball in the air or making the best player of your team to get an injury that sidelines him/her? Even indirect requests to a god, like telling him/her before the game that you are pressing “toward the goal to win the prize for which god has called me” is unbelievable unfair. This should be totally unacceptable from the mere sportsmanship point of view. Not only that, you cannot tell a referee before o during a game that you are pressing for him to get a new car. Equally you should not be allowed to tell something similar to the supposed more powerful entity in the infinite universe, whether he/she/them exists or not (more likely do not exist: nobody with a working brain has met him/her in person and comeback to our beautiful earth.

  • JUSTACOMMENT

    Hola “Viejita del Oeste” While praying for protection against injuries doesn’t get to the level of an unfair advantage for a team, does it has any real life value? I mean, is there any statistics that proves that by praying devoutly no injuries or fewer injuries will occur during the game? While your point probably leads to a more civilized discussion, I found it only anecdotal true. In the Catholic school I attended, they never made us pray before a game. But this is not much relevant to the discussion about permitting a banner with biblical tones in a public high school game. I have read other post from you and respect your contributions.

  • ThomasBaum

    IgnorantHillbilly You wrote, ” We are no longer a Christian nation” This is not a true statement for the simple fact that this was never a “Christian nation”. One of the things that this “nation” was founded upon was “religious freedom” in that one could believe what one wanted without any coersion from the state. I happen to believe that the “founding fathers” were divinely inspired in this since God gave us free will. You also wrote, “George Bush has forbidden military chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus Christ” This is simply not true. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    ztcb41 You wrote, “…I believe therefore I am, I hope, therefore I live, I love, therefore I am.” According to the bible, you “believe” because you have received the “gift” of faith. What do you hope for, is it that you are “saved”? Or do you hope for God’s Will, considering that it says, “It is God’s Will that ALL be saved”? If anyone “loves” it is because they are letting the “Image” that they are made in shine thru since God is a Being of Pure Love. On the cross, Jesus said, “Father forgive THEM…”, did He not? Do you believe that He meant what He said? He did not say ‘except for’, did He. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Carstonio

    Thomas, while I see no evidence for your belief about the Founding Fathers being divinely inspired, I appreciate your point about religious freedom.

  • ThomasBaum

    IgnorantHillbilly You wrote, “Katavo: We spew the Scripture to irritate you, and your response has made my day. Enjoy your place in Hell.” Some of those that “supposedly” reject God, Who the bible speaks of, do not, considering the fact that God is a Being of Pure Love, but some of them most assuredly reject what seems to be your “conception” of God Who is spoken of in the bible. Considering that God is a Being of Pure Love, the “spewage” that you spew out in God’s Name has nothing to do with the “Good News” that Jesus asked us to Proclaim. It is rather sickening to hear people speak of what I refer to as the ‘good enough news’ as opposed to the “Good News”. Do you remember that it is written that at Jesus’s Birth, the Angels said, “This is GOOD NEWS for ALL people”? It seems pretty obvious that knowing God’s Name does not necessarily mean that someone knows anything else about God, considering the Fact that God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and God’s Plan is not only for ALL of humanity but is also for ALL of creation. It is spoken of as “the mysterious Plan of God”. Knowing God’s Name does not keep one from going to hell, which if one does go there, so to speak, one will come to the realization that they have built it themself. Jesus, Himself, went to hell for the simple fact that He took upon Himself the sin and all of the sins of mankind which is part of God’s Plan and as He said, “There is work to be done…”, so God’s Plan is still unfolding before our very eyes. Even those that Jesus “vomits out of His Mouth” will eventually be in the Kingdom. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You wrote, “Thomas, while I see no evidence for your belief about the Founding Fathers being divinely inspired, I appreciate your point about religious freedom.” I didn’t say that it was “evidence”, I said that I believed that they were divinely inspired. If you noticed, I said “believed”, I did not say know. There are some things that I know and there are other things that I believe and I try to differentiate between the two. Not only do I believe that they were divinely inspired but I think that it goes along with what Jesus said about, “Give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and also because we have free will. I tell you something if I thought/believed that God was even remotely like what some that actually have God’s Name right, than there is no way I would want to have anything at all to do with God but I thank God that they are wrong. Thank you for the response. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • artistkvip1

    hi you make some good points thank you.. i do free speech performance art on all kinds of free speech some of which is not very well received in Tallahassee fl. lol, I sometimes wonder if they know what performance art is Tallahassee is not exactly the cutting edge of modern or fine art.. i try to have a sense of humour and try not to make anything personal but people get pretty irate..enve violent threats, sometimes telling me i have to shut up in a public place which should not be the case. (i don’t use obscene speech, or condone violent acts, or anything illegal, i like very much the idea of humor and sticking with traditions in a form that can actually be done like the free preach … zones very clever ;-). many times i guess people think it is one way or the other when in reality there is choices that can be made that satisfy every one. ..I don’t plan to stop my performance art or the questions it actually asks nor should i … with free speech I think there is a great difference between the rights of what and individual person can and does do in public as opposed to a group of people acting together. I see religious rituals take place on tv all the time at sporting events and others by individuals doing thier individual rights spontaneously or even preplanned. . I am an individual.. i will have my voice and my words in the manner I… choose, this is america after all

  • Carstonio

    “This is not what I said, not even close.” I was talking about the effects of your words on others, not your intentions when you wrote the words. “I said it as a fact, it doesn’t matter to me if anyone believes it or not but it is one of the ways that I learn.” If you have no evidence that your god was speaking through that person, then on what basis can you claim that to be a fact? “I believe that God gave us reason to use as we see fit, not how others think we should use our God-given abilities.” Reason alone is not sufficient. One has to empirically test the result of one’s reasoning. Without empiricism, we have no way if knowing whether our conclusions are valid. And if there is no way to test it, then the result amounts to speculation. “If someone has an ‘experience’ and you don’t, does that mean that it is not true for the other person because it is not true for you?” That’s not quite accurate. I have no idea if the person is correct about having the experience, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying. A better description of the experience is that it’s not testable, repeatable, observable, or falsifiable. That doesn’t mean that the person’s assertion of experience is incorrect. It means that there’s no objective way of determining if the assertion is correct or incorrect. It means that it belongs in the category of subjectivity, and not in the category of objective knowledge.

  • Carstonio

    “I have no idea if the person is correct about having the experience, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying.” I’ll phrase that in more general terms – if I say I’m thinking of a purple elephant, all anyone can know is that I claim to be having that thought, and I could be lying in making that claim.

  • drihl

    Clearly, the cheerleaders are acting in good faith, believing that their banners are providing inspiration and motivation to the team. It can also be said that the verses used do impart a motivational message. Unfortunately, their inspirational fervor ignores the fact that they are, by wearing school uniforms and presenting these banners at a public school event, violating the Constitutional exclusion of religion. There are many who have commented here that have more eloquently and precisely explained the legal issues at hand. I would suggest that there might be a compromise. Rather than list the bible verse with chapter and line, and/or invoke Christ’s name specifically, couldn’t many of the more inspirational verses be displayed without reference to the specific bible passage? The meanings of the words are just as inspirational, but this approach would avoid the Constitutional entanglements. I am an Atheist. If I were forced to endure direct references to the bible simply because I wanted to attend my child’s football game, I would object quite strenuously. On the other hand, motivational slogans, absent religious reference would not offend. I am quite familiar with the bible, and would probably recognize just about any verse, but I could accept their use in a secular context, just as many verses are used in everyday life without being beaten over the head by others beliefs.

  • CalSailor

    Ignorant: You said: Nine of the original thirteen colonies had Christian state churches and continued to have state churches after the Constitution was ratified. It was only through the diktat of the US Supreme Court that these long established practices were abolished against the will of the people using the canard of the “wall of separation,” which is not found in the Constitution itself…” It was NOT through the “Diktat” of the Supreme Court, or anyone else, that established churches in the 13 colonies that became the first states were ended. While most of the original 13 states had an established church at the time of their founding, the “First Great Awakening” swept through the colonies before 1776. This Awakening, which caused much upheaval in the colonies helped accelerate a trend against the established churches, as people banded together to start various communities apart from the established church of the colony. As members of non-established communities, they began to object to being taxed to pay for the clergy and upkeep of the approved churches, and there was a lot of heated argument. The Virginia colony was very typical of the situation prior to the Declaration. While you are correct that in 1776 most of the original states had laws on the books establishing a church, even at that date, they were no longer being enforced, and some had even been repealed. By the early 19th century the last of the laws was repealed. The repeal of these laws happened gradually, and the Supreme Court did not demand that they do so. The Constitution nowhere mentions Christianity, and had it done so, there would have been major objections from the Jewish communities of Rhode Island, Mass and Maryland, among others. The Declaration refers to a “creator” and “nature’s God” is NOT necessarily any reference to the Christian God, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (ie, the covenant God of Israel) and the Father of Jesus (where Christians and Jews depart). The Treaty of Tripoli, passed only a few years after the Declaration (1793 or so) explicitly says that the US is “not a Christian nation” — and no matter whether it was in the Arabic version, it IS in the English version, which is the version passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate, the only treaty in our history to receive a unanimous consent. Also, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian is both incorrect on matters of doctrine and faith, and it is highly arrogant for you to determine that a billion faithful who worship in that Church are NOT Christians. They are as much Christian as any other denomination. Who appointed you to decide such matters? Pr Chris

  • artistkvip1

    I did notice my post was not yet posted….I guess sometimes small people think bits of truth are more dangerous than ignorance… or perhaps they own a share in the ignorance corporation…… and can’t make a living any other weigh

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . . Thomas, “The Tree”, “Talker/Seer to god” and “Moses of the NT”, Baum noted: “Jesus did say to us that we are to carry our own cross or “tree/Baum”, if you will, but as Jesus also told us, “Take My yoke upon you…”, so He will help us, just as the “yoke” helps two work animals to work as one, so Jesus’s yoke works. i.e. Matt 11:29 But did the historic Jesus really utter said words???? No, he did not as per the studies and conclusions of many contemporary historic Jesus experts. e.g. “Gerd Luedemann Luedemann [Jesus, 174f] notes the parallels in the wisdom writings (including Prov 8:1-21) and dismisses the saying as inauthentic since he judges the identification of Jesus with Sophia to be a post-Easter development. John P. Meier- professor at Notre Dame Meier [Marginal Jew II,387 n. 174] indicates a preference to regard this saying as coming from the special Matthean source, rather than as being derived from Q or created by Matthew. He clearly does not consider the saying authentic. ” See also:

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    Thomas Baum, You are a patient man. Farnaz :

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You wrote, “I was talking about the effects of your words on others, not your intentions when you wrote the words.” As far as the effects of my words on others: What business is it of yours? Who knows, some might even understand what I am saying whether they agree or disagree, believe or not believe, is up to them. My intention is to speak as simple and straight-forward as I can, the listener/reader can do with it what they want. You then wrote, “If you have no evidence that your god was speaking through that person, then on what basis can you claim that to be a fact?” By the “fact” that that is one of the ways that God, Who Is the God of ALL, works, so to speak, in my life, how God “works” in other’s life is God’s Business, not mine. You also wrote, “Reason alone is not sufficient. One has to empirically test the result of one’s reasoning. Without empiricism, we have no way if knowing whether our conclusions are valid. And if there is no way to test it, then the result amounts to speculation.” I never said anything about “reason alone”, I said that God gave us reason and we should use it. “Reason” and “coming to conclusions” had absolutely nothing to do with my knowing that God Is, it was God revealing Himself to me, the “Trinity”, I might add, that is the “reason” I know that God Is, not the God-given ability “to reason”. I wrote, “”If someone has an ‘experience’ and you don’t, does that mean that it is not true for the other person because it is not true for you?”” You replied, “That’s not quite accurate. I have no idea if the person is correct about having the experience, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying.” It really doesn’t matter if you have “no idea” about it, it is either true or not true no matter what “idea” you have about it. One day you will know that I have met God and it will not be me “proving” this to you. Don’t forget the dawning of the seventh day will arrive but the night of the sixth day shall precede it. See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Carstonio

    “to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian is both incorrect on matters of doctrine and faith” While I’m not an expert in doctrine, I support your objection as a matter of principle. I have been told that most Christian denominations and churches subscribe to interpretive readings of scripture, with fundamentalists following a mostly literal reading. It’s ironic that both fundamentalists and hardcore atheists accuse the interpretive Christians of not adhering to “true” Christianity, and those camps agree on almost nothing else. Maybe both camps are merely varieties of absolutism. Or maybe most of the people in both camps fall on the same part of the Myers-Briggs spectrum, seeing the written word as more solid or concrete than any interpretation of the word.

  • Talynknight

    Carstonio – “It’s ironic that both fundamentalists and hardcore atheists accuse the interpretive Christians of not adhering to “true” Christianity, and those camps agree on almost nothing else. Maybe both camps are merely varieties of absolutism.” I must disagree with this statement. Although I am merely one atheist the way I see it is that none of the Bible is the word of god because there is no god. I believe what you are referring to is an argument that I do often use in that If Bible says A and B and said believer does not follow A then why does that believer follow B to the death. This is not an argument of absolutism, but of interpretation. The point is why does said believer think that god really meant B and didn’t actually mean A if the Bible is the word of god. Most often it is because the believer already agrees with B and disagrees with A and is using a holy text that not everyone agrees with or even thinks is holy to attempt to force everyone around them to do what they want. It isn’t that the whole bible is true the point is to try and find a reason outside of personal interpretation of 2000 year old writings for hating an action, people, etc. etc. etc.

  • Carstonio

    “The point is why does said believer think that god really meant B and didn’t actually mean A if the Bible is the word of god.” That assumes that all Christians see the Bible as the word of the Christian god. It has been explained to me that only the fundamentalist and literalist churches hold that belief. The rest of Christianity, as I understand it, holds that the Bible was written by humans but expresses the truth of the Christian god in interpretive or allegorical ways. Methodism makes this explicit with the four principles of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Different denominations have different theological traditions. I’ve been told several times that the Gideons have it wrong, simply leaving the Bibles in hotel rooms outside of any theological tradition. I would ask that any non-fundamentalist Christians reading this would correct me if I am wrong about any of this. I had very little religion in my upbringing, just a year or so of Sunday school in a mainstream Protestant denomination. If one lacks any real knowledge of theology, one is likely to assume that all Christians believe that their god spoke words and Moses and Matthew and Paul were merely taking the dictation.

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . The next banner should read- “Women (especially cheerleaders) should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)” . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • Carstonio

    To clarify my point about hardcore atheism, the absolutism is in seeing only two positions regarding scripture – that it’s either completely from the mouth of a god, or completely false. This doesn’t take into account the middle ground I mentioned earlier about non-fundamentalist Christianity. It also doesn’t take into account my own middle ground. In my case, I don’t reject the possibility of gods, but I see no reason to believe that they exist. Not only is evidence for gods lacking, gods are defined in unfalsifiable ways. Scripture has no inherent authority – its only authority is whatever individual humans believe about scripture. Some parts of scripture may express subjective truths about the human condition, but that is the case with numerous other books.

  • ccnl1

    Thomas, “Now the Tree”, Talker/Seer to god and “Moses of the NT, Baum, You noted: “One day you will know that I have met God and it will not be me “proving” this to you.” All bow to the leader of “Baumianity” and his approving god!!!

  • ThomasBaum

    Carstonio You wrote, “As a matter of personal boundaries, it’s inappropriate to claim to know more about a person than a person knows about himself.” This is not what I said, not even close. You then wrote, “Even if you speculated that a god was speaking through that person, you have no way of proving this through evidence, so that idea remains speculative.” I did not say that I “speculated”, I said it as a fact, it doesn’t matter to me if anyone believes it or not but it is one of the ways that I learn. Some people, it seems, would be rather amazed to find out what they can learn by actually listening to others. Whether it seems obvious or not, there do seem to be quite a few double monologues going on in the world masquerading as a conversation whether in print or speech. You then wrote, “That doesn’t mean that the idea is false, it means that it’s not worthy of being called either true or false.” I believe that God gave us reason to use as we see fit, not how others think we should use our God-given abilities. If someone has an “experience” and you don’t, does that mean that it is not true for the other person because it is not true for you? You then wrote, “One has no basis for being certain that gods exist or that gods don’t exist” I would agree unless one has actually met God and then I would say that one most definitely has a “basis”. I would also point out that some may have a “fervent” belief and may have no “doubt” but that is not, in my opinion, the same as “knowing”. You then wrote, “but to blindly rule out the possibility of gods existing is to claim to know something that one doesn’t know.” I agree. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • Talynknight

    “That assumes that all Christians see the Bible as the word of the Christian god. It has been explained to me that only the fundamentalist and literalist churches hold that belief.” True. My experience has been that I usually only use this argument against Christians when they have already declared themselves correct because they are following the word of god. So if they do not believe it is the word of god then they would hopefully argue based on other ideals that I would cheerfully argue as well. Personally I try to only bring the bible into the argument when someone else does first, but I understand that isn’t always the case with others that do not believe in Deities.

  • ThomasBaum

    ccnl1 You wrote, “And “Baumianity” continues on and on!!!” Since Baum means tree and some refer to the cross as a tree, if the part of God’s Plan that is called “Christianity” were named after what Jesus was hung on rather than the title, Christ, which means “Anointed One”, maybe so, but it is about a Person, not an object. Jesus did say to us that we are to carry our own cross or “tree”, if you will, but as Jesus also told us, “Take My yoke upon you…”, so He will help us, just as the “yoke” helps two work animals to work as one, so Jesus’s yoke works. Jesus also let us know that He would “Send the Holy Spirit to guide us…”. See you in the Kingdom, along with the rest of humanity. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ccnl1

    . . . . . . . . . . . And “Baumianity” continues on and on!!! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • Freestinker

    “However, a student, who is not an employee or agent of the government, is guaranteed freedom of expression of religion under the free exercise clause of the first amendment.” ——- Bill1230, The cheerleaders are acting an “agent of the government” when they put on their public school cheerleader uniforms. As such, their speech is not personal speech. Instead it represents the entire school, students, teachers, and the administration. That’s why it prohibted and not protected by the 1st amendment.

  • justillthennow

    Carstonio, “Reason alone is not sufficient. One has to empirically test the result of one’s reasoning. Without empiricism, we have no way if knowing whether our conclusions are valid. And if there is no way to test it, then the result amounts to speculation.” Do you have no room in your worldview, or your realm of possibilities, that people can have utterly differing experiences that are utterly true? Empirical results have their own assumptions and limitations, it’s own set of rules and forms of quantifying and measuring. There is an infinite universe, how do you fit it all into the same set of rules? That is near on looking for the Unified Law of Creatorship, aka God…. Won’t find it here. Tis dualistic at best round these parts.

  • ThomasBaum

    ccnl1 You wrote, “All bow to the leader of “Baumianity” and his approving god!!!” I ask no one to either “bow” to me or “follow” me. Don’t worry, you will meet God also. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ThomasBaum

    Farnaz1Mansouri1 Hi Farnaz, hope you are doing fine. Thank you for the comment, I sure don’t feel very patient at times and I can relate to some of the comments attributed to Moses in the Pentateuch and other places in the Tanach. As you know, I refer to the Tanach as the Old Testament and even tho I went to bible studies for a while at a Synagogue, I do not remember the Old Testament referred to as the Tanach, I just thought of it as the Jewish or Hebrew Bible. It is from you that I know it is called the Tanach even tho I did know about the Pentateuch. Even tho the bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments, I do not quite look at it that way but as a flowing rather than a division. This ties in with my speaking about God’s Plan unfolding before our very eyes. We are ALL in this together. Take care, be ready. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

  • ccnl1

    And the first member of “Baumianity” is??? Justillthennow!!! Hopefully he (she?) will never have to use ED drugs since if he (she?) did he (she?) would have to admit these little blue pills are quite useful as a temporary fix just like Anti-E pills would be. Said ED pills by the way will not prevent STDs. Anti-E pills would!!!!! And considering the bill for treating STDs is $14 billion/yr, any method to reduce the spread of these infections is a good thing and posting the names of the carriers would be a great way to reduce the spread and treatment cost of STDs.

  • Freestinker

    “However, a student, who is not an employee or agent of the government, is guaranteed freedom of expression of religion under the free exercise clause of the first amendment.” ——– Bill1230, I would tend to agree with you in general but the problem here is that when the cheerleaders put on their public school cheerleader uniforms and perform on behalf of the school at a school-sponsored event, they are acting as an agent of the government. It would not be unreasonable for the average observer to conclude that the school endorses the religious opinion expressed on the banner. If the students were acting in a strictly private capacity, without any overt perception of endorsement by the school, they would be well within their Constitutional rights to express whatever religious opinion they like but once they put on the school uniform they are clearly representing the school and not themselves.

  • justillthennow

    CCNL, “Thomas, “Now the Tree”, Talker/Seer to god and “Moses of the NT, Baum,” “All bow to the leader of “Baumianity” and his approving god!!!” I do have to say that it is a far more enjoyable experience, for me of course, to read what ThomasBaum posts than the rants that you throw up on the screen. Lets see, the more recent is that we should drug youth to take away their natural human sexual hormonal drive, put then in chastity belts and post the addresses of kids with STD’s on the internet to shame them and forewarn others of their transgressions….. Hmmmm….. I will take Thomas Baum sermons that we will all arrive in the Kingdom of God in the end, any day of the life…..

  • backspace1

    Game Over… where are the cheerleaders?——–