home
RSS
Cheerleaders win temporary injunction in high-profile free speech case
October 18th, 2012
04:14 PM ET

Cheerleaders win temporary injunction in high-profile free speech case

By Jason Morris, CNN

Dallas (CNN)– Cheerleaders from a small eastern Texas town have won the first battle in their crusade to display Christian religious messages on banners at their high school's football games.

State District Judge Steve Thomas of Hardin County implemented a temporary injunction Thursday in favor of the Kountze High School cheerleaders, and by setting a trial date of June 24, 2013, Thomas effectively allows the cheerleaders to keep displaying Bible-quoting signs at Kountze athletic events through the end of this current school year.

Macy Matthews, a 15-year-old Kountze sophomore, was eating lunch at cheerleading camp last July when her friend Megan became inspired by images she saw on social media.

"She saw a picture on Pinterest of a team that had made a run-through sign with a scripture on it, and as we were sitting down eating, she showed us and asked if we would be interested in doing that for the football season. So, we all talked about it," Matthews remembered. "We all loved the idea and thought it was really cool and encouraging."

Macy's mother, Coti Matthews, said the girls were excited to use Biblical phrases they considered motivational and uplifting for both the Kountz Lions and their opponents.

"It's their Christian belief, and they liked the idea and thought it was very positive, instead of doing traditional banners that say things like, 'Cage the Eagles,' or 'Bash the Tigers,' she said.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Instead, before the first three home games this season, the football players bolted onto the field through banners bearing New Testament verses such as "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Philippians 4:13; "I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:14; and "If God is for us, who can be against us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31.

Phrases such as those have embroiled the cheerleaders from the small east Texas town of Kountze in a legal controversy: Are the banners, when used at a public school event, a legitimate individual expression of free speech, or do they violate the concept of separation of church and state?

The cheerleaders recently found out via an intercom announcement during the last period of school that they were no longer allowed to use Bible verses on their run-through banners. Macy Matthews said the decision came abruptly, with no explanation. "I was shocked, but I was also very hurt that we couldn't do it anymore, and I didn't understand how we were violating any rights," Matthews told CNN.

Thomas agreed enough to impose the injunction in Matthews v. Kountze Independent School District, ruling that, among other things, the plaintiffs would "suffer a probably imminent and irreparable injury in the interim" without the injunction.

Texas' Attorney General Greg Abbott praised the judge's ruling.

"Today's decision is an important victory for the cheerleaders' freedom of religion. The Constitution has never demanded that students check their religious beliefs at the schoolhouse door. Students' ability to express their religious views adds to the diversity of thought that has made this country so strong," Abbott said. "Texas law supports students' right to freely express their religious beliefs without discrimination. We will not allow groups or individuals to wage a war on religion by trying to intimidate students into embracing a secular mindset."

How this case went to court

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national nonprofit organization based in Madison, Wisconsin, that advocates the separation of church and state, ignited the spark that brought the story into the national spotlight. The organization said it received a complaint about the religious nature of the cheerleaders' signs from somebody in the community, but citing privacy concerns, wouldn't reveal any additional details. The foundation then sent a letter to the Kountze Independent School District, claiming that the religious nature of the cheerleaders' signs was illegal.

Based on a precedent set in a 2000 Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, the Kountze Independent School District's attorneys advised Superintendent Kevin Weldon to immediately ban the religious banners. In that case emanating from southeast Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not allow the broadcast of student-initiated and student-led prayer over the public address system before high school football games.

After the Kountze Independent School District's decision, the cheerleaders and their families filed suit on September 20. Judge Thomas issued a temporary two-week restraining order later that day, allowing the cheerleaders to continue using their "spirit run-through banners," and extended that order another two weeks on October 4.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Thomas Brandt, the lawyer who represents the Kountze ISD and Superintendent Weldon, says this situation is very similar to Santa Fe v. Jane Doe, and in good faith, they asked the court for clarity and interpretation of the law so they can do the right thing.

"The school district is trying to walk a very thin line here, and to obey the law. That's the primary motive, the primary focus of the school district," he said. "On the one hand, we're trying not be endorsing any particular religion. On the other hand, we're not trying to be hostile to religion. We're trying to walk that very thin line of this elusive neutrality that we are required to achieve."

Texas intervention

On Wednesday, the state of Texas intervened, filing a petition with the Texas District Court of Hardin County to support the Kountze cheerleaders on the basis of defending the constitutionality of Texas statues.

"We will not allow atheist groups from outside the state of Texas to come into the state to use menacing and misleading and intimidating tactics to try to bully schools to bow down to the altar of secular beliefs," Abbott said Wednesday.

In a statement, the Attorney General's office explained that the Texas Religious Viewpoints Anti–Discrimination Act requires school districts to treat a student's voluntary expression of religious views in the same manner that the district treats a student's expression of any other point of view.

"Those banners, which the cheerleaders independently produce on their own time with privately funded supplies, are perfectly constitutional. The State of Texas intervened in this case to defend the cheerleaders' right to exercise their personal religious beliefs - and to defend the constitutionality of a state law that protects religious liberties for all Texans," the statement read.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry even Skyped with the cheerleaders last week to show his support.

"As government leaders, we owe it to people of all religions to protect expressions of faith, to ensure everyone has a right to voice their opinions and worship as they see fit," Gov. Perry said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation said it was "shocked" and "flabbergasted" at the intervention by Attorney General Abbott and Gov. Perry, calling those actions "highly unprofessional." The foundation's lawyer, Randall Kallinen, accused the politicians of pandering to their Republican constituents for votes.

"It's 100% politics. In their party, that is a fact that it's in their platform to be more favorable to the religious right," Kallinen said.

He added that he thinks today's ruling was "purely a political decision," and that if the case was tried in federal court, there would be a very different outcome.

"I doubt the case will even go to trial," Kallinen told CNN. "The people being sued and the judge have to be re-elected, so I don't see how we can get very far."

Interpreting the First Amendment

Kallinen argued that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing a particular religion.

"People have freedom of speech. So, individuals have freedom of speech, but also there is the right that the government shall establish no religion. So, the question becomes, 'Is what the cheerleaders are doing private speech,or is it school-sponsored speech?'" Kallinen said. "What the school district is saying is, 'You are in the uniforms that have the name on it. You are in the property of the school. It's a school football game, and you are putting these religious banners onto school property. Therefore, it is school-sponsored speech.' And when it is school-sponsored speech, then it is subject to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and that is that the government should not promote, endorse, or advance a particular religion."

Mike Johnson, who is representing many of the cheerleaders' families as senior counsel for the Liberty Institute - a nonprofit group which says it is "committed to defending and restoring religious liberty across America" - disagrees that the banners are school-sponsored, and argues that this is a quintessential example of students' private free speech and expression.

"If you have student-led, student-initiated expression, it is to be regarded as private speech. And because it is private speech, it can't be censored or silenced by the government, short of some reasonable limitations on school kids such as obscenity or a material and substantial disruption to the school day. We don't have any of that here," Johnson said.

Interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is something Brandt says can be "a bit confused and confusing."

"Most legal scholars and many judges will admit that the opinions that come out in the Establishment Clause area have been lacking in consistency," Brandt told CNN. "There doesn't seem to have any clear guidance as to individual circumstances."

Kountze locals say town is "united"

A Facebook page started after the school district's decision called "Support Kountze Kids Faith," now has over 48,000 members, far surpassing the reaches of the roughly 2,100 residents of Kountze.

Coti Matthews says the whole town of Kountze supports her daughter and the cheerleaders, and believes they should be able to exercise their freedoms without interference.

"It was student-initiated, student-oriented. The school doesn't pay for any supplies. The school doesn't buy their uniforms. The school does not pay one dollar for anything having to do with cheerleading," she said. "The parents buy the uniforms, the camp clothes, shoes, pom-poms. The school doesn't purchase the paper or the paint or anything to make those banners."

Her daughter Macy looks forward to making religious-themed banners for the rest of her high school career.

"I would like to do this every year," Macy said. "We get into it pretty big."

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Courts

soundoff (859 Responses)
  1. Chuck

    As many have pointed out, there are 2 things to ponder:
    1. The girls have every right to practice their free speech around religious beliefs, as long as they do not use public property. This is the very basis of separation of Church and State. Therefore they have no legal standing in this issue.
    2. IF the cheerleaders and their parents and the town folks believe they have the right to use their religious scriptures for motivation, they should have no objections to muslims using slogans from the Koran, or the Hindus from the Bhagvat Gita, etc.

    The Founding Fathers included the phrase "one nation under God", and not "one nation under Christ".

    Keep your religious beliefs confined to your homes. This is a secular country. It is as much a Christian country as it is a Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Jewish country.

    October 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • WASP

      @chuck: i agree on your two points, minus a couple things.
      1) the founding fathers didn't use "one nation under god"
      2) that phrase is in the pledge of allegiance, not our founding docu-ments.
      Official versions the pledge of allegiance.
      1892
      "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
      1892 to 1923
      "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
      1923 to 1924
      "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
      1924 to 1954
      "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
      1954 to Present
      "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

      October 19, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Chad

      "The girls have every right to practice their free speech around religious beliefs, as long as they do not use public property"

      =>really???

      where, exactly, do you get that from??

      October 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • It's like this, Chad

      Religion cannot be done as a part of school functions unless every religion has the opportunity to be equally represented . . . which isn't happening here. School is a government insti.tution, subject to the Consti.tution's limitations on government, including the establishment clause.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Chad

      "Religion cannot be done as a part of school functions unless every religion has the opportunity to be equally represented .. . . . which isn't happening here."

      =>they are preventing other self funded faith groups from displaying banners?
      where was that in the article.. I somehow missed that..

      October 19, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • It's like this, Chad

      You keep shifting your argument. That's intellectually dishonest.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • CosmicC

      Assuming that the cheerleaders are a school organization, placing scripture on the banner is a de facto endorsement of that particular religion by the school district. That is a violation of the first amendment. I would not limit this disenfranchised group to non-christians. I'm am sure there are christians who are offended and alienated by the concept of athletes on the way to a violent meeting running through biblical passages.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @CosmicC "A ssuming that the cheerleaders are a school organization, placing scripture on the banner is a de facto endorsement of that particular religion by the school district."

      "Those banners, which the cheerleaders independently produce on their own time with privately funded supplies,

      October 19, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • WASP

      @chad: easy way to solve this.
      1) are they on school property?
      2) are they displaying religious material during a school event?
      3) is everyone in the school or attending the event christian?
      4) do the cheerleading uniforms bear the name of the school?
      5) was this done in front of the public instead of in private the way jesus instructed?

      to sum this all up, these cheerleaders were wrong and obviously seeing the principle had to step in and say soemthing someone at that school WAS offended and spoke up about it. otherwise why would the principle say anything at all?

      October 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • The Truth

      ""Those banners, which the cheerleaders independently produce on their own time with privately funded supplies, " which they then take onto public school property during a sanctioned school event and make it appear as if the school is endorsing their banner by having the school sanctioned football team run through it including parents of some of those kid's who may disagree completely with religion and yet watch as their son is forced to parade through scripture as if it actually meant something to him.

      So w t f are you not understanding about this Chad?

      October 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      'You are in the uniforms that have the name on it. You are in the property of the school. It's a school football game, and you are putting these religious banners onto school property. Therefore, it is school-sponsored speech.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • OneTruth

      Chad, Would you be as happy if banners supporting other religions or gods were displayed at schools? Wiccans, Buddhists, Taoist, etc. are all fine with you?

      October 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Katie

      It's a seriously Christian town, though. So a 2,000 Christian town cannot display Bible signs because a federal anti-religion organization said so? Other religions aren't displaying their religion there not because they wouldn't be allowed to but because you can trust me that you simply WON'T FIND other religions in that town.

      November 28, 2012 at 10:38 am |
  2. You GO GIRLS!

    So they put the word "God" on a sign that is intended to be torn to shreds by the modern equivalent of gladiators?

    Personally I am all for the idea of Christians ripping up Jesus signs.

    October 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
  3. LinCA

    A few things are blatantly wrong here.

    If there is even one kid on the cheer leading team or the football team that doesn't share the delusion of the ring leaders, her or his rights are violated. Whether or not anyone has expressed concern about his or her religion not being represented by this banner, is immaterial. Since for minorities there is often serious risk to publicly state their position or beliefs, even an anonymous a poll of those involved may not reveal there are any. It is the responsibility of the administrators to protect the rights of all students. To protect the religious freedom of all kids involved, team religious activities need to be prohibited.

    This is also clearly not "individual speech". While the idea was probably proposed by an individual, the entire cheer leading team is holding these religious banners on public property. They do so sporting the school name and colors, at a school sponsored game, giving this the appearance of a school sponsored event.

    If these kids want to show off how well they are indoctrinated, they should do so via individual expressions of those delusions. Maybe the uniform designs allow for a "free expression zone" somewhere on them. For the football players, they could assign an area below their name, for instance, for them to show off their ignorance. The cheerleaders could print their favorite verses on their asses (it would assure plenty of attention from the crowd).

    October 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Chad

      no.. see

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to peti tion the Government for a redress of grievances. First Ammendment

      October 19, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Mike D

      Right, Chad...that's why, in Ahlquist v. Cranston the Supreme Court ruled that the school in question had to take down religious signs on its property. Buddy, you can't just go reading amendments any way you want.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The government restricts the rights of believers when they are on public property, Chard. You don't have the right to erect a manger scene on the county courthouse lawn.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The government restricts the rights of believers when they are on public property, Chard. You don't have the right to er ect a ma nger scene on the county courthouse lawn.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • h.m.

      Not surprising considering it is Texas! I am no longer amazed at what anti-democratic actions and beliefs come out of that backwater. But this case is another example of the religious right trying to set up a theocracry in our country and at the expense of respecting any of the other religious beliefs that freely exist here. It thus is disrespectful of all the people who hold other beliefs. It is abusive to them! It follows the same pattern of the Talaban that insists on dictating what can and cannot be thought and/or done in a part of the world we are in conflict with–a group that we look down on as evil. Pot call the kettle black, etc.! My favorite argument against such behavior as shown here is the child going to a school (which is required by law) and being forced to observe and participate in religious actions which are actually directly AGAINST their culture and religious beliefs. Such is ABUSE! It's what the Talaban does. It should exist nowhere in our country! SHAME on Texas and any other community that gets involved in such actions!

      October 19, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Chad

      @Mike D, Ahlquist v. Cranston had to do with an official school prayer..
      not anything like this case..

      read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlquist_v._Cranston

      October 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • CosmicC

      Chad, it is exactly the same. Establishment through implicit or explicit endorsement is not permissible. It creates a class that is more priviledged based on their beliefs. If you don't see that, maybe it's because you are already receiving the benefits of being a member of that class. If you don't see a problem with that, then maybe you don't understand the basics of our country.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Chad

      uh.. you mean like this?

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are inst ituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

      one of us doesnt understand the principles of this country, that is certainly true..

      October 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Chad

      Thank you for posting the text of the first amendment. The intervention by the State of Texas clearly violates it. By intervening and allowing this religious exercise on public property, the State of Texas, in effect, made a law that respects and establishes a religion.

      Also, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      By not protecting the individuals that don't share the particular delusion from it being forced upon them, the State of Texas failed to afford equal protection of their right to freely exercise their religion.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • The Truth

      Im sure Chad and all the other evangelicals wouldn't mind if these were a group of muslim girl cheerleaders who wear burkhas over their cheer uniforms and decided to put up motivational scriptures from the Koran at their high school football games, right?

      October 19, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Chad wrote, " Ahlquist v. Cranston had to do with an official school prayer.."

      Chard you ignorant fundiot nutter – The Ahlquist case concerns a fucking religious BANNER hanging in a public school.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Chad
      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are inst ituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

      Here Chad, lemme give you a simple example of YoozYerBrain....you highlighted "endowed by their creator" (who to me are my mom and dad) but you DIDN'T highlight "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" which is the part that counts. See, that's where we made our break with the Old World. It means government isn't handed down by the supernatural like a monarchy, but rather from the people. See? Why do you want us to be a theocracy? Are you truly, TRULY anti-American or just a troll, cuz I'm not sure I can figure it out. What I do know is you don't seem to get it, so to echo GotMahSkoolinInTexas, what part of the texas theocracy do you represent? You haven't actually answered a single argument here and I noticed that TomTom gets sick of dealing with you really quickly....YoozYerBrain- PLEASE!

      October 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • WASP

      @chad: the last time i checked it takes two humans to create another human. no god required.
      i know there wasn't any god there while me and my wife created our children, if there would have been i would have shot the pervert for trying to watch. lmfao

      we are created equally because we are all born from ONE mother and ONE father, not created by some god.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Chadwatch, a public service

      YoozYerBrain,
      You are correct that TTTPS, Primewonk, LinCA, and others quickly lose their interest in dealing with The Chad. He is notoriously tedious and occasionally dishonest. Proceed at your own risk.
      Sincerely,
      Chadwatch, a public service.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      I do appreciate Chad's contribution as the "Mouthpiece of the Ignorant" because it highlights how many people here really DO get it. Thanks Chad! Uplifting comments section today.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Chad

      @Primewonk "The Ahlquist case concerns a @#$## religious BANNER hanging in a public school."
      @Chad "the banner reflected the school prayer, and the school creed.
      do yourself a favor and read the decision 🙂

      @LinCA "The intervention by the State of Texas clearly violates it. By intervening and allowing this religious exercise on public property"
      @Chad "there is nothing that prohibits a religious exercise on school property.
      Our church meets in a High School auditorium.

      October 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Chad

      You said, "Our church meets in a High School auditorium."
      I'm assuming you are speaking of a public high school (it would be disingenuous if you weren't).

      I bet these meetings are advertised as a church meetings. I also bet that these meetings are not part of a school activity. I sure hope nobody would feel pressured to attend these meetings.

      For fear of being or becoming an outcast, I'm sure that peer pressure will cause almost any high school student to participate in pre-game religious activities, even if these activities are initiated by students. Using peer pressure to coerce students to participate is bullying. By intervening, the State of Texas gave the ring leaders the right to bully a minority.

      October 19, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
  4. Primewonk

    Texas has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation – consistently in the top 3. The rates in East Texas are even higher.

    I sure hope that those of you posting here claiming these girls have a biblical right to trample my constîtution will also support our right to stone these harlots when they turn up preggers.

    Also, having these girls pick out bible verses and putting them on banners that the men have to read is Biblically wrong. These girls are in fact lecturing to men on matters of faith. Paul clearly said this was wrong and that women are not allowed to teach men especially in religious matters.

    Seems like you fundiot nutters want it both ways.

    October 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Chad

      Old Testament was brought to an end with the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, we now live under a new testament. If you want the right to stone women to death for having a child out of wedlock, you'll need to move to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc..

      It isnt a violation of anything for a private group, privately funded, to produce their own banner. Are you always in favor of eliminating free speech?

      October 19, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Chad

      "Also, having these girls pick out bible verses and putting them on banners that the men have to read is Biblically wrong. These girls are in fact lecturing to men on matters of faith. Paul clearly said this was wrong and that women are not allowed to teach men especially in religious matters."

      =>putting a verse on a banner is "teaching"? lol

      and, dont forget, God allows women to be in positions of authority, see Deborah, Judges.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      Ah yes, CHAD, the American Taliban shows up. First, Chad says no OT since now we have NT, but non-existent jeses said himself that the NT does NOT invalidate the OT. But then, you go to say women can have positions of authority and use an OT verse to support your point- Which is it CHAD tard? Ooh never mind it's both if you say so I'm sure since you know what "god" meant, right?

      October 19, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • OgLikeRock

      Rock say to OG – "yay, Chad is back, I feel smarter already!" Rock smart. Og like rock.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • GotMahSkoolinInTexas

      goody, ah lak chad, he talks reeel gud bout gawd an stuff frum that theyr bable buk wut ah caint reed to gud. thanck you chad fer beein brilyant an shuttin up them theyr librals wit brayns n stuf. ya'll fum tessas too?

      October 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Chad

      @YoozYerBrain "Ah yes, CHAD, the American Taliban shows up. First, Chad says no OT since now we have NT, but non-existent jeses said himself that the NT does NOT invalidate the OT."

      =>you mean this?
      Think not that I am come to destroy the blaw, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pa ss, one jot or one t ittle shall in no wise pa ss from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew

      When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit John

      pretty straightforward. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law.

      The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. Romans 8

      October 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • GotMahSkoolinInTexas

      brilyant! wut paht o tessas yu fum agin?

      October 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Sorry Chad, but that's just more wacky fundiot nutter bullshit. Your very own Jesus said severral times that the OT rules and laws would remain in play until heaven and earth pass away. Is earth here Chad?

      This isn't a free speech issue Chad. This is a separation of church and state issue. If a small group of these cheerleaders were putting verses from the quran on these posters, do you honestly expect those of us with more than 10 functioning neurons would believe that you and the other fundiot nutters would be supporting their right to do so?

      And yes Chad, these girls putting bible verses on the banners for the men to run through IS having the girls lecture men on matters of religion. Can you post Paul's words for us Chad? Or do you need me to do it?

      October 19, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Chad
      First, YOU said OT not viable and then YOU cite an OT passage, not me. You are intellectually inconsistent. And you didn't address that.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Chad

      Second, it doesn't matter how many times I quote Tolkien as fact and fight for that belief, it's still fantasy, just like the bible, so quoting it as proof of it's own truth is intellectually dishonest. You approve of teaching fantasy as fact to children I assume? You know what I think of that right? I account that with the Jerry Sandusky's of the world.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Chad
      Third, NEVER in 2000 years of searching has a single OBJECTIVE piece of evidence been found for the actual existence of this person, so your quoting a non-ent ity is useless. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, please provide or admit you are talking nonsense.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Chad
      Finally, you quote Mathew. I'll do the same...you know what's coming....
      Mathew 10:34 "Think not that I came to bring peace, for I came to bring the sword".
      But again, quoting fantasy is quoting fantasy, so intellectually it's just metaphysical mass turbation, of the masses so to speak. Try to YoozYerBrain, please!

      October 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Shaking my head

      @Chad – "Old Testament was brought to an end with the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross"

      Actually, the Bible doesn't say that, and Chad singlehandedly has abolished the Ten Commandments. He also has abolished any problems God had with gays, for that is all Old Testes stuff.

      Interesting that God was such a moral relativist that he would up and change all the rules like that.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • CosmicC

      YYB – I must disagree. I've read the Silmarion through at least three times and I know that it's all true. We are living in the 4th age. Elves have passed into the west, dwarves have gone underground, hobbits live in New Zeeland and the orcs have teabags hanging from their hats.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @YoozYerBrain: you are getting confused at the differrence between the "Old Testament" books (Genesis – Malachi), and the "Old Testament", which I should really have referred to more accurately as the "Old Covenant", the Sinaitic Covenant which was brought to a close by Jesus death on the cross.

      =====
      @Shaking my head "Actually, the Bible doesn't say that"

      =>yes it does 🙂
      For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. Hebrews 9

      When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircu mcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross Colossians 2

      October 19, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ CosmicC, sorry, didn't mean to offend you as I believe in the Silmarillion as the divinely inspired word of Iluvatar myself, but I thought it might be a good literary allusion to prove a point. As the false-belief super sti tions of abra ham die out, the true faith of Valinor will be seen as the ultimate truth. Again, my apologies.

      @ Chad.
      Once again with the circular argument. Got any OTHER sources? Oh right, no you don't....go to YouTube and look up Betty Bowers, and watch and learn from a REAL bible authority. Jeez, what a mor mon!

      October 19, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Chad – Please prove your concept of inherant sin without using the bible as a reference. I submit to you that I have never sinned, prove to me that I have and am deserving of death because of it, and again, no scriptures please. I submit that your guide book is flawed and should be thrown away in it's entirety, for the good it contains cannot outway the evil which commands humans to kill in the name of an invisible deity.

      October 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Chad

      Well, if you have never lied, cheated, stole, hated anything.. ever.. not once

      then

      CONGRATULATIONS!! you're in!! and only the second person in history to have done so.. wow.

      what's your real name? Actually, I would like to meet you.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • The Truth

      "never lied, cheated, stole, hated anything" Nope, is that it?

      And just out of curiosity, where did you come up with these "sins" without using your book? Or are those just things you have come to understand are "sins" through personal experience?

      And if you have not understood my point yet you are denser than I thought. Religion and your book of ancient faulty morality are no guardians of what constltutes a "sin". And the idea that we were all somehow "born" into sin is pure conjecture invented to control the masses. I know you have drunk deep the wormwood of babylon and are poisened and embittered to free thinkers who do not ascribe to your fairy tale morality or accept your onerous "debt" for which I say "There is no debt and no invisible deity waiting for a payment to keep him from sending the repo man to get his soul back. It's beyond foolish to believe in such outright manipulative lies that have been passed down from Church to Church, all the while getting more proficient at extorting all they can from mankind.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Chad

      A. I dont believe that a baby is sinful, if you do please direct me to the chapter/verse that states that.
      B. If you never lied, cheated, stole, hated then when you stand before God, you're all set!! Just tell Him you were perfect and you're in.

      congratulations BTW, being only the second person to do something in all of human history is like.. WOW.. amazing

      October 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      Do you believe in original sin?

      October 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert "Do you believe in original sin?"

      =>as in a baby is born with a debt of sinfulness?
      no

      where is that in the bible?

      October 19, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • WASP

      @chad: dude is your brain seriously stuck in a permenant loop?
      there is no god, thus no orginal sin. you keep rounding back to this "if you never lied when you are before god.......you're in."
      there is no when i'm before god because there is no god. i'm human i've lied to my parents, stole when i was 5, drank and smoked under age, had unwed s ex, etc etc etc.............and for all that i'm still a good person.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • Pete

      Depending on how old he is he may be the third person in history to have never sinned because I have never committed a sin either.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @WASP "there is no god.."

      @Chad "really? What is your proof for that?
      remember, "you havent proved that He does exist, do He doesnt" is fallacious logic. If you are going to claim the God of Abraham doesnt exist, then you have to back that claim up..

      October 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Chad

      Pete, that's amazing.. Never hated, cheated, lied, stolen, thought and deeds perfect.

      congratulations, when you meet the God of Abraham, you're all set.

      now.. dont forget. one little sin is all it takes.. there is no sliding scale, there are just two conditions: perfection, and non-perfection.
      "Pretty darn good", or "better than anyone I know", dont count..

      but, all that doesnt matter, since you're perfect.. Congrats!

      October 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • WASP

      @CHAD: here is the verse: ROMANS 5:12 " WHEREFORE AS BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED INTO THE WORLD, AND DEATH BY SIN: AND SO DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN,FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED."

      so i would say the term ALL would include babies.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      It isn't expressly in the bible, though the idea is based on Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. It is also an accepted doctrine in christian denominations, Catholic and Protestant.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • OneTruth

      Chad. No matter how many times you are told you never seem to grasp. God is used as the reason for all we see. There is no evidence for a god or gods, it is the believers that need to substantiate their claims. The non-bleievers are just saying there is no evidence for your claims – so the onus is on believers to provide that evidence.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ Chad
      "congratulations, when you meet the God of Abraham, you're all set." The god of abraham was Adad, the Sumerian God of Thunder (semitic = yahweh). Is that who you mean?

      By the way, you have to first PROVE the god of Abraham before we can dis prove it. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. I challenged you to disprove Zeus weeks ago, but you still haven't done that. Remember how proof works- no single-source attributions. And....GO!

      October 19, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Huebert,

      as @Chad has told us before. He is non-denominational, so he gets to make up his own dogma according to his own lights.

      He does however like you to make assumptions about what he believes in so he can tell you how foolish you are when you guess incorrectly.

      He is willing to admit his beliefs if pressed but will sometimes try to semantically argue his way out of a direct answer.

      October 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @WASP "here is the verse: ROMANS 5:12 " WHEREFORE AS BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED INTO THE WORLD, AND DEATH BY SIN: AND SO DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN,FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED." so i would say the term ALL would include babies.

      @Chad "Your interpretation of that verse is flawed..
      Why would "for that all have sinned" be there if we are born with a debt of sin already?
      Why would we have needed the Law to prove that we were sinners if we were born with a debt of sin already?
      Why would there have been such a necessity to clas sify specific behaviors as sinful and others not, if we were born with a debt of sin already?

      October 19, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "as @Chad has told us before. He is non-denominational, so he gets to make up his own dogma according to his own lights."

      =>what exactly is my made up dogma?

      and, strike #2 to you if you dont provide a specific answer..

      October 19, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @YoozYerBrain "The god of abraham was Adad, the Sumerian God of Thunder (semitic = yahweh). Is that who you mean?"
      @Chad "hmm.. no
      God of Abraham.. see Genesis 1.

      ============
      @YoozYerBrain By the way, you have to first PROVE the god of Abraham before we can dis prove it"
      @Chad "hmmm.. no again
      perhaps this will help, pay special attention to the bold parts about shifting the burden of proof..

      note that these came from atheist web sites

      from:
      http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2012/03/03/atheism-agnosticism-and-burden-of-proof/
      http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
      http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

      The burden of proof is always on the person a sserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the as sertion. The source of the fallacy is the ass umption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

      The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim. A claim may be positive or negative. For example there may be a claim that "X is real" or "X is unreal." Both types of claims (X and not X) require supporting evidence or logical defense. However, it is much more difficult to prove that something does not exist than that something does exist.
      When anyone makes a claim, either positive or negative, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it. It is easy to get around the obligation to present proof ("burden of proof"). For example, instead of stating "X is unreal" or "X does not exist," subst itute "I do not believe X is real," or "I do not know of any evidence that X is real."

      October 19, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Long story short, Chard, you can't prove there's a god. Simple.

      October 19, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      why do you insist on playing silly slippery games?

      You ask: "=>what exactly is my made up dogma?"

      Other than appearing to be essentially a Protestant bible literalist, with a different interpretation of Genesis than most literalists that accommodates your (very logical and understandable) acceptance of evolution, I have no idea what your dogma consists of Chad. To the best of my knowledge, you have not shared that you belong to any group with a specific orthodoxy. It is up to you to tell us. Please feel free to testify and witness to your beliefs.

      Those of us who are genuinely interested with a dialog with you (the reasons for which become less and less clear to me with each of my exchanges with you) will ask – in a genuine attempt to understand you for the purposes of mutual understanding, but routinely get from you, as your first response, evasion.

      I understand the desire not to be too autobiographical here. But with the anonymity here, why hedge so much?

      I made this observation: "He [Chad] is willing to admit his beliefs if pressed but will sometimes try to semantically argue his way out of a direct answer."

      Let me provide you with an example (where the context was a Christian trinitarian view)

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/21/my-take-i-dont-know-if-jesus-was-married-and-i-dont-care/comment-page-17/#comments

      ----------------------
      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
      @Chad,

      So, is Jesus God?

      September 21, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Report abuse |
      ----------------------
      I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
      @Chad, (reposted from above)

      I can't wait to hang around. I've got to run.

      I hope you will get back to me on this one. A binary answer will suffice.

      Is Jesus God?

      September 21, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Report abuse |
      ---------------------- (at which point I left)
      Chad
      @GOPer "So, is Jesus God?"

      @Chad "you'll have to clarify "is"

      by way of illustration, I am a son, and also a father. I am both, I have two ti tles, in one situation, one, in another, the other.
      Does this same situation describe how Jesus and God are "one"?

      if so, who is Jesus talking to here?
      'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'” Mark 15

      and, who was God talking to here?:
      This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. Luke 9

      September 21, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Report abuse |
      ----------------------
      So no Chad, I can't be very specific as to your dogma. You avoid telling me when I ask.

      Apart from questions about creation, what do you believe – in terms of the divinity of God, original sin, achieving heaven by good works or being elect or a lucky dip or whatever?

      Someone once asked if you were a Mormon. I don't recall your answer.

      October 19, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "as @Chad has told us before. He is non-denominational, so he gets to make up his own dogma according to his own lights."
      @Chad “what exactly is my made up dogma?”
      @GOPer “I have no idea what your dogma consists of Chad. To the best of my knowledge, you have not shared that you belong to any group with a specific orthodoxy. It is up to you to tell us. Please feel free to testify and witness to your beliefs.”
      @Chad “well, if you have no idea what my dogma is, who are you making a statement like I make up my own? I would have thought that you would feel compelled to provide an example of made up dogma??

      ==========
      @GOPer “I made this observation: "He [Chad] is willing to admit his beliefs if pressed but will sometimes try to semantically argue his way out of a direct answer." Let me provide you with an example (where the context was a Christian trinitarian view):
      -
      @GOPer “So, is Jesus God?”
      @Chad "you'll have to clarify "is" by way of illustration, I am a son, and also a father. I am both, I have two ti tles, in one situation, one, in another, the other.
      Does this same situation describe how Jesus and God are "one"?
      if so, who is Jesus talking to here?
      'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'” Mark 15
      and, who was God talking to here?:
      This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. Luke 9
      @GOPer “So no Chad, I can't be very specific as to your dogma. You avoid telling me when I ask.”
      @Chad “well:
      A. How you feel that you can state that “I make up my own dogma” when you then claim that “you don’t know what my dogma is”, is beyond me..
      B. I’m SO SORRY to have spoiled your little game of “gotcha”, but the reality is, the question of “Is Jesus God” requires a very detailed answer, otherwise ignorant people use the sound bite for their own purposes.
      If you are unwilling to take the time to explore and understand my answer, then why ask it? Unless of course you aren’t interested at all in learning.. you just want to play the gotcha game.

      October 20, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      not-GOPer-

      Chad's doctrine is gaseous in nature and has to be forced into his blow-up God by compression against rational thought (humor him). Even within its final confines it is disordered and tends to escape so he has to return again and again.

      Here you go Chad: by the standards of mainstream Christians, who have adhered to Trinitarianism for some time now, you are a failed defender of Christianity, having avoided supporting the triune God. One of the reasons no one really knows what to make of you.

      October 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Chad

      Did I spoil your game also?
      🙂

      I dont attempt to defend derived doctrines, I defend the bible 🙂
      "What does the bible say" is the first question that should always be asked.

      Both of your frustration clearly stems from the fact that what you desire is to critique mans organization and mans dogma. What you have clearly no interest in is seeing if that dogma has any basis in the actual biblical text.

      Both of your objections are with man. Why not find our what God is saying?

      October 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Chad

      Oh, and my doctrine is very clear:

      For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Corinthians 15

      The reason you dont like it, is it's true.

      October 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
  5. Badda Bing

    What does a Texas Christian cheerleader say after the first time she has sex?

    "Daddy, where are my cigarettes?"

    October 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Damocles

      I feel bad because I laughed at that. Still funny though....

      October 19, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Primewonk

      "Daddy! You remember to pull out! I don't wanna be birthin' my own brother!"

      October 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Prime

      Stop! You are making me laugh more and feel worse about myself.

      October 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  6. Texas hasn't seceded yet?

    If this was a private school, this would be perfectly legal. However, Texans prefer to put their kids in socialist government-funded public schools, and those socialist establishment clause and equal protections clauses kick in.

    Damn socialist Consti.tution.

    October 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
  7. Bitsy Brainiac, Christian Cheerleader from the dirtlands of eastern Texas

    Alla y'all commie athee . . . afiesz . . . aaathee. . . godless libtard . . . Daddy, what are those other words I am supposed to think? Oh yeah, unAmerican misceginaturs . . . Daddy, don't y'all gots some smaller words for me?

    All y'all Jesus-haters otts to burn forever and be whipped and kicked and torment in Jesus' Cake of Fire, you haters! Scuzzy jerk otts to learn luv from us Christians.

    Daddy says he misses lynching commies like y'all.

    Gotta go now. Time to slop the pigs.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  8. Robert

    I hope all the other religious groups show up and start waving their signs too. Then there should be some atheists there too waving signs saying your religion is bogus! That could be such a fun time for all!

    October 19, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Maybe we should ban football from all sign-waving contests.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
  9. Scott

    This isn't a Free Speech issue - the people who are the cheerleaders can do whatever they want on their own. This is a government endorsement of religion issue. As cheerleaders, they are acting for the government. People have rights, the government does not.

    When acting for the government, the cheerleaders have no more "right" to endorse a religion than they have to endorse nonreligion.

    It's easy to see this that this is a government endorsement issue not a free speech issue if you imagine the cheerleaders were holding up political signs instead of religious signs.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • snowboarder

      scott – that is a very salient point.

      October 19, 2012 at 11:58 am |
  10. ProductOfTexasEducationalSystem

    Gawd made them thare cheer leeders and gawd dont make no mistakes, besides f ags and feriners i meen. and al kida, and smart peepel, and hollywood, and hey maybe gawd makes a fyew mistakes but we heyah in texas kin fix gawds liddel mis takes cuz we no what he ment. go gawd!

    October 19, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • Mike D

      Your name gives you away as a fake...in Texas it's spelled "edumacational."

      October 19, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Mike D is a Texas-hater!!!

      We don't say "edumacation", you jerk! Too many sylllaballs. We say "skoolin"

      October 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • GotMahSkoolinInTexas

      Hay, yall wuz rat! Ah had mah c umpyewter make mah name an it wuz all scrood up! So's ah fissed it up now. wutchoo thank? purty gud now huh? go gawd!

      October 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
  11. gager

    This opens a can of worms, next the muslims will want to wave a banner at the school. Goodbye religious freedom

    October 19, 2012 at 11:46 am |
  12. Al

    Texas is a very Christian friendly state. Maybe the girls can make a banner for Warren Jeffs to run through when he returns from prison.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Cheerleaders: Fierce defenders of the Constipitution

      I here they have a "God Hates Fags" sign for the Westboro Baptist people to run through next time they protest a soldier's funeral.

      October 19, 2012 at 11:48 am |
  13. dion

    I guess these backward donkeys do not understand the freedom to not see your religion in a state operated facility. The absence of religious advertising is prohibited so that everyone is accommodated evenly. I guess some are too blind to see and understand that concept. its the basic idea between separation of church and state. As for this judge – they need to drop him for such a ruling that is so counter to what this nation was founded upon.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Dan

      Are you referring to the concept of free speech?

      October 19, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Dan

      It cuts both ways.

      October 19, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • YoozYerBrain

      Dan, YoozYerBrain, it's not free speech, it's an issue of separation of church/state. The fact that the morons at the school district, as well as the State officials, don't IMMEDIATELY realize that there is no RIGHT to do this at a public facility is worse than the ignorant cheerleaders whose only mistake was being raised in close-minded homes. The fact that this is all anti-American first needs to be taught to those administrators, and then down the line. Civics is gone in America, replaced by ignorant jingoism. Political-correctness? It's the right wing neo fascists that are the ones driving this and are the most sensitive to criticism, screaming "freedom of speech" so loudly as to drown out the "separation" issue. YoozYerBrain, and you can see through the supers ti tion but in the meantime, oh those poor kids! The victims of the insti tutionalized child-abuse of the teaching-fantasy-as-fact crowd. Keeping their minds enslaved. Sad for them.
      Criminalize the teaching of religion to people under 21 since it's more dangerous to developing minds than alcohol!

      October 19, 2012 at 11:58 am |
  14. Bill D.

    I'm not religious, not in the least. But if the girls want to invoke God's name on their banner, who am I to say they can't? I get so tired of all this politically correct garbage.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Mike D

      Politically correct "garbage" of this exact variety has resulted in Supreme Court cases, Bill. It's here for a reason and it's here to stay. Sorry you dislike it, but feel free to go have a good cry over it if it makes you feel better.

      October 19, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • YoozYerBrain

      Like that politically-correct "free the slaves" garbage? The politically-correct "women should have the right to vote" garbage? The politically-correct "right to organize" garbage? The ridiculously politically-correct "Civil rights" act garbage? Yeah, yer a good American.

      October 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • CosmicC

      Is it politically correct to fight against repeated attempts to create a theocracy?

      October 19, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  15. Mike D

    These hayseeds need to google Ahlquist v. Cranston ASAP.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:38 am |
  16. HypocrisyAlert

    Hypocrisy Alert Hypocrisy Alert Hypocrisy Alert woop woop woop OMG!

    Can you imagine Perry supporting an atheist message? Koranic? Jewish? Hypocrites teaching children, no wonder TX is so stupid!

    October 19, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  17. Other Foot

    YAY!! That's why we have churches!!

    October 19, 2012 at 11:31 am |
  18. snowboarder

    the simplest test for this issue is "would there be an issue if the banners contained quotes from the koran?"

    October 19, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  19. TAK

    Way to go girls. You've really reinforced the stereotype of intellectually vaccuous cheerleaders.

    October 19, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Huebert

      When insulting someone's intelligence, it would be prudent to spell vacuous correctly.

      October 19, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  20. Just another sign of the impending doom of christianity

    It’s a sign of the impending doom of christians illegal strangle hold on government. They lost keeping evolution out of public school, then they lost government enforced prayer in public school and now they are fighting to keep the bible on the public school sports field. They will lose this one too. One step at a time they are being forced to give up their special government privileges. Inevitably they will finally be forced to play fair on an even field

    October 19, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • HypocrisyAlert

      Like making the hypocrites pay taxes as they meddle in political affairs, taxing them as the political organizations they are? CAN'T WAIT!

      October 19, 2012 at 11:37 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.