Thank you Bulldog Fans!

[robanadana]

I can't speak for the rest of the Pirate faithful, but I really appreciated the applause after the young lady who led the invocation ended it with "in Jesus name." I try not to be political on the board but I do believe the vast majorityof Texas high school football fans are made to bow to the wishes of the very few.

[Olddog]

Amen ! Great post . Love the no quit factor in these black & gold teams . It 's never over til it's over! Great game .

[olddadt49]

Thank you for noticing. It should be allowed EVERY time. That's just my humble opinion.

[GoDogs27]

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe

On June 19, 2000, in the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (99-62), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Texas public school district's practice of opening high school football games with a prayer is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court first ruled against school-sponsored prayer in 1962 in Engel v. Vitale. Since then, the Court has consistently ruled against school-sponsored worship, while permitting voluntary student-initiated religious activities. The Santa Fe case began in 1995 when the parents of two students sued their Texas school district in federal court following adoption of a policy allowing students to elect a classmate to deliver a prayer over the stadium's public address system prior to football games.

 

Romans 13:1 "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

 

Sounds a bit contradictory if my assumption is that you believe in the Christian bible. This topic has been brought up several times over the past few years and it is the same narrative for both sides so I am not looking for a yearly repeat on the issue. Nobody will change another's opinion on this so debating viewpoints is not worth it in my opinion. Let each person have their own view of the issue. But facts are facts, and the fact is that VISD is in clear violation of the law whether you, I, or anyone else thinks that it should or should not be in violation. Simply put, they are breaking the law.

[mytwocents-28]

I was just waiting on you to chime in godogs.

[GoDogs27]

Just saying the facts. Does it hurt my feelings? no.. Not my individual feelings, but I wonder how many of you would react if a muslim student led a prayer? Would there be this much support? Sometimes you really do have to be careful for what you wish for....

[texas13]

Just saying the facts. Does it hurt my feelings? no.. Not my individual feelings, but I wonder how many of you would react if a muslim student led a prayer? Would there be this much support? Sometimes you really do have to be careful for what you wish for....

name a time where something was said about Muslim prayer.

[NDNation]

The Majority should win. We base Voting on Majority. The people that are making these laws were voted in by the majority. The Majority wants prayers in school. Christian prayers. Something needs to change.

[outanup]

name a time where something was said about Muslim prayer.

I believe what he is trying to say is that if you allow a christian prayer you have to allow the others as well. Personally, I dont want my 1st grader to hear a muslim prayer every morning at school.....So no organized prayers by any group.....My children were raised in church and pray on their own. Its the world we live in.

[tvc184]

The Majority should win. We base Voting on Majority. The people that are making these laws were voted in by the majority. The Majority wants prayers in school. Christian prayers. Something needs to change.

 

 

I hate to weigh in on this again but that argument is invalid and the very reason for our constitution. The majority does not rule if it violates the constitutional rights of another. If the majority votes that the police can search your house without cause or without a warrant, would that simple majority vote invalidate the Fourth Amendment? 

 

I could go on with almost endless examples but the majority does not rule if it is in conflict with the Constitution. 

[texas13]

I believe what he is trying to say is that if you allow a christian prayer you have to allow the others as well. Personally, I dont want my 1st grader to hear a muslim prayer every morning at school.....So no organized prayers by any group.....My children were raised in church and pray on their own. Its the world we live in.

have you heard of any group being criticized about those things beside the Christian religion. My answer to this is simple, let any religion pray in school and make others feel welcomed by an open concept

[NDNation]

I disagree. We were praying in schools in my time. Wasn't an issue. The Constitution was around then. Why is it different?

[tvc184]

I disagree. We were praying in schools in my time. Wasn't an issue. The Constitution was around then. Why is it different?

 

Too easy.

 

The Constitution was around when there was slavery. The Constitution was around when women could not vote. The Constitution was around when the police got confessions without allowing the Fifth or Sixth Amendments and before Miranda came out in 1966 (almost 200 years as a country). The Constitution was around when the police could arrest for "suspicion" and did not have probable cause. The Constitution was around .........

 

So where do you want me to stop?

 

Under your premise, there is no longer a need for the Supreme Court because all constitutional issues have been rendered. 

[texas13]

Too easy.

The Constitution was around when there was slavery. The Constitution was around when women could not vote. The Constitution was around when the police got confessions without allowing the Fifth or Sixth Amendments and before Miranda came out in 1966 (almost 200 years as a country). The Constitution was around when the police could arrest for "suspicion" and did not have probable cause. The Constitution was around .........

So where do you want me to stop?

Under your premise, there is no longer a need for the Supreme Court because all constitutional issues have been rendered.

then why deem separation between church and state to be constitutionally correct?

[jordibug15]

Lumberton does a prayer before home games

[mytwocents-28]

And here we go.....

[Knoddy1]

This is a winless argument, but just want to say my little opinion. First I truly tip my hat the folks in Vidor and Lumberton and any others who have the guts to stand up to a decision handed down by the Supreme Court. Of course if a school violates these rulings then the Feds can withhold Federal Funding to that school....But what would happen if all our Moms Dads, and Kids got on the Internet and all agreed to start Praying on Friday nights.???I think the Supreme Court would have to crawfish a little cause I don't think they would shut the entire Educational System down.....I think would be a mini revolution.

[NDNation]

TVC, why are laws being made to satisfy the few? This is not murder, rape or slavery. Those things are horrible. I've only heard applause when a prayer is said at a stadium.

[tvc184]

then why deem separation between church and state to be constitutionally correct?

 

Geez.

 

Article III Section 1 of the US Constitution says "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court". 

 

Section 2 goes on to say: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution". 

 

So the SCOTUS has the judicial power of the USA. That power shall extend to "all" cases arising under the Constitution. 

 

Cases have come before the SCOTUS regarding your question and under the Constitution, they have rendered verdicts which they have the constitutional authority to make (See Article III, Sections 1, 2). 

 

 

I can understand when people say they do not like or agree with a ruling. I can say that about Obamacare but the case was presented and a verdict was rendered. If you don't like some decisions, great. When you ask "why deem" if something is "constitutionally correct", read the aforementioned sections. 

 

It is like people only want to read the parts of the Constitution that they like and ignore the sticky parts. 

[tvc184]

TVC, why are laws being made to satisfy the few? This is not murder, rape or slavery. Those things are horrible. I've only heard applause when a prayer is said at a stadium.

 

Because our constitutional republic was laid out for the very reason that a majority cannot take away rights of an individual. Can the still majority of whites in this country vote out minorities? Sorry Black, Asian, Hispanics..... we vote that you no longer have indisputable rights. We have voted them out. 

 

Like the saying goes (usually wrongfully attributed to Benjamin Franklin), "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner". That is the difference between democracy and freedom. Freedom is the rights of the individual over the majority. 

 

Do you really want to give up any rights on a simply majority vote? I do not. 

[tvc184]

Oh yeah, I bowed my head during the prayer in Vidor and also clapped. I applaud their decision however if someone ever contests it in a lawsuit, under the current case law I believe that Vidor would lose and suffer heavy civil penalties if they continued. 

[texas13]

Geez.

Article III Section 1 of the US Constitution says "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court".

Section 2 goes on to say: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

So the SCOTUS has the judicial power of the USA. That power shall extend to "all" cases arising under the Constitution.

Cases have come before the SCOTUS regarding your question and under the Constitution, they have rendered verdicts which they have the constitutional authority to make (See Article III, Sections 1, 2).


I can understand when people say they do not like or agree with a ruling. I can say that about Obamacare but the case was presented and a verdict was rendered. If you don't like some decisions, great. When you ask "why deem" if something is "constitutionally correct", read the aforementioned sections.

It is like people only want to read the parts of the Constitution that they like and ignore the sticky parts.

you still did not answer my question. You did the ol dc dip and twirl.

[tvc184]

you still did not answer my question. You did the ol dc dip and twirl.

 

Yes, it was answered. 

 

What are you looking for, what the individual judges had in their minds when they voted? I can read their decisions and I can show you where it is constitutional for them to do so but I have yet to figure out how to read their minds or maybe you need to rephrase you question. 

[NDNation]

No I don't either. I also don't want my kids growing up in a Godless Country.

[texas13]

Yes, it was answered.

What are you looking for, what the individual judges had in their minds when they voted? I can read their decisions and I can show you where it is constitutional for them to do so but I have yet to figure out how to read their minds or maybe you need to rephrase you question.

where in the Constitution does it even hint at it being unconstitutional. I understand judicial power and judicial review. I have also read and understood everything you previously stated way before you had to feel empowered to show that you have brains and put it up. Cool stuff bro. Show me some hard evidence written somewhere within any constitutional document. That shows that this is unconstituional. Then I will shut up.