Search This Blog

Friday, September 21, 2012

AP Gov Extra Credit #2

Read the article about the cheerleaders in Kountze, Texas. Using what you know about the Santa Fe case and look up the Tinker v. Des Moines case, (if that isnt the case you are working on), do you agree or disagree with the JUDGE in this case? (If you are looking for some interesting commentary, read the comments at the bottom of the article!)

Due by Wednesday September 26th!

15 comments:

  1. I agree with the Judge in the article about the cheerleaders and how he allowed them to continue using the banners until Oct. 4th because it is more inspirational and was liked by the football players. The students did raise their own money to create the signs and it is expressing their own freedom of speech. Plus it is more original than saying "Kill the Eagles" or "Crush the Cats" as stated back in the article. Even though they are showing the banners at the game which is just like pretty much "forcing" the people to read them, they aren't saying them out loud or actually putting it in front of their faces to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree with the judge this is another example of Christians pushing their religion on others and government officials siding with their beliefs instead of being unbiased. Had it been Arabic Calligraphy this would be a story about terrorism and the judge's opinion would be the opposite of what it is Football games are school events this collides with the separation of church and state, if they wanted to make inspirational banners they could have made banners depicting historical battles or quotes from real people. Things that actually happened and weren't just made up

    ReplyDelete
  3. I disagree with the decision made by the judge-by allowing the cheerleaders to display the banner he is allowing them to basically advertise their beliefs to everyone else in the school. Though they may not be forcing anyone to read it they are still putting it on a huge banner and waving it around for all to see. Suppose there are those who do not believe in the religion, and I'm sure there may be. What are they supposed to do? Not go to the game? That wouldn't be fair. The judge should discourage such acts instead of allowing them for this exact reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I disagree with the decision of the judge because the banners are showcasing one religion that not all students may follow. By having the cheerleaders show bible passages it is also causing "tension" in their high school. The students of the high school are obviously not all for it if they are picking sides. If all students where to not have a problem with it, there wouldn't be such "tension" going on in the school. Instead of avoiding a problem with students and parents the judge led it on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i disagree with the judge's decision because they are exposing people to one religion. when there are people who dont have a religion they believe in. if they where in a religious school i would totally understand they could do the banner and other people who dont have the same believes would have to deal with it but not in a public place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree with the judge's decision because the cheerleaders are breaking the rules(laws) with the use of religious banners.This banners are not a form of symbolic speech therefore they should not be allowed in a public shools,those signs can offend peolpe that do not believe in the bible or are not christians for this reason the judge should have banned any use of the banners. This is another case such as Engel V. Vitale where religious restrictions should be applied in public schools.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I disagree with the judges decision because the cheerleaders are violating the establishment clause because they are in a school sponsored event. Since schools are provided by government and taxation it can be seen as government preference of one religion, so it violates the establishment clause.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with the judge allowing the cheerleaders to maintain their religious beliefs. Unlike the Santa Fe case, these cheerleaders werent over stepping their boundaries by forcing the crowd to acknowledge the signs. These girls are using an alternate form of motivation favored by the football team.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In the case of the Santa Fe and tinker v. Des Moines, I would have to disagree with the judge. I disagree with the judge because basically is given the cheerleaders to put a prayer in a public school where everyone could see and is making a religion seem dominant than the others. Other people have beliefs and how come they don't have the chance to put up a prayer in that school too if they allowed the cheerleaders to post them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the case of the cheerleaders putting up religious signs during football games, I will have to disagree with the judges decision on letting them do it. I say this because they are just showing one religion in public, and what happens to the rest of the religions that are in the school? They don't get any form of acknowledgement? Just one is favored and shown. I get that the cheerleaders are doing it for a good cause, in trying to inspire there football team but its in a public place. Other people from different religious belief will see this because they are banners and I just don't think it is fair for the rest of the religions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would disagree with the cheerleaders being able to display religious Signs during a football game because it could be offensive to others whom have different beliefs and some might take it as an insult towards their religion, and might make a huge deal about something so small. Although the cheerleaders may have no intention in insulting others, different people have different thoughts and opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I disagree with the judge's decision in allowing the cheerleaders to use religious ways to motivate their football team. Even though the students themselves thought of this idea unlike in the Santa fe court case, it still disrespects the beliefs that other students have. The cheerleaders most likely didn't mean it intentionally but thy influnce others and there should be an equal balance of others beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I disagree with the judge’s decision because he is allowing the cheerleaders to support their team with religious poster. Even though everyone knows that there are many other ways to support a football them just like dancing and cheering. Plus he is like forcing the other footfall team to listen to their religious sayings or see their posters.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I disagree with the judge's decision because he is allowing the cheerleders to motivate the team with a religious poster. The poster might offend other players or even the other team. They are forcing the football team to be a symbol of their religious belief. In other words, people see the football team beign supported by a religion so they join the religion to support the team.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would disagree with the judge's decision because the cheerleders that are motivating the team with the posters, are in some way making other footplayers uncomfortable as well as other individuals in the benches during the game. These cheerleders are commanding those individuals to belief in their beliefs.Making the people that do no belief in that certain reigion be oscracize.

    ReplyDelete