The ACLU will be bringing a lawsuit now, cant have God in a school setting.

 

 

An article from a few years back concerning the ACLU in Sumner County, TN.

 

Public school coaches told not to participate in prayer - WSMV Channel 4

^^^ I certainly respect your opinion Guru... but from my stance I am proud of my alma mater for not being afraid to "let their banner show".

 

It's not like Belfry just opted to do this for the Finals and to create some sort of shock value... every banner they have did for the past two playoffs have featured a Bible Verse and frankly I think it is quite original. Belfry is a very close knit community that has went through some very hard times over the past few years from an economic standpoint and coal industry that would be considered shaky at best... yet the three constants you will find are Belfry Football, Phillip Haywood, and a community deeply routed in their Christian Faith. Haywood is the man who is the pivot point where the secular and the religious aspect meet.

 

I am not one to start an entire debate about "tolerance", "Freedom of Speech", or "Religious Freedom".. frankly if you are on any sort of social media I am sure you are tired of that right now in light of recent situations... but what I will say is that we live in a culture where people simply are timid to take a public stand of their beliefs for fear of backlash, legal ramifications, or being labeled as a "bully" (don't get me started on this one). Gone are the days of knowing where people stand... gone are the days of actually respecting that someone comes from a staunchly different background but we are all God's children and we can find common ground and love each other and treat each other well... gone are the days where people were identifiable and unique.. instead we live in a Nation that is painfully lukewarm with rounded corners and underlying tones that we are all forced to secretly harbor judgement and push it deep down and rot our core.

 

To me it's not an issue of I'm Right vs. You're Wrong... Christianity vs. Government...it's about the human condition of being painfully and utterly a non-descript shade of grey. So I say bravo to a community not afraid to paint in bright red (literally). I find it refreshing that this piece of paper, glitter, and paint.... probably 10.00 worth of material... is enough to let the entire State of Kentucky..and anyone else in the World... know what BELFRY is built upon.

My personal thought is that GOD does not care who wins a high school football game. HE does care about the participants on both sides (equally). I'm not sure the banner was meaning a "Victory" on the football field? I've always taught my kids to NEVER pray for a victory (see first sentence) on the scoreboard, only to pray for safety (for all players) and to do their best, play fair, etc. To me that is the "victory."

Since you asked me for my stance, I personally think it is over the line.

 

I think it is over the line and likely to many many who read it (and maybe to those who painted it as well) a misinterpretation of scripture.

I think it is over the line and likely to many many who read it (and maybe to those who painted it as well) a misinterpretation of scripture.

You are likely correct in the compact view. Many probably take a broader view of it and accept it as a good thing.

 

I'm just glad Belfry is trying to get God on our side, I don't think the Catholic schools should hog him.

I read a really compelling book earlier this year called "The Three Languages of Politics" that really stuck with me. The author's theory is that liberals, conservatives and libertarians all view political action along a certain axis and that the axes are different for each of them...

 

Liberals: Oppressor ------ Oppressed

Conservatives: Civilization ---------- Barbarism

Libertarians: Coercion ----------- Free Choice

 

I tell you that bit to tell you this: imagine looking at the history of Christianity with an oppressor/oppressed set of glasses on. You see a brief period at the outset of Christianity being a minority group and then 1500 years of Christian domination.

 

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm talking about perception, which is at least fifty times more potent than reality.

 

Seeing Christianity in this light means you see ALL other groups as minorities who are, therefore, in some way oppressed by the dominant group. So the natural consequence is then to say that WHATEVER has to be done to alleviate the oppressed then needs to be done.

 

If the things that need to be done come at the expense of the power, wealth and influence of the dominant group, so be it, because these things must be done.

 

That's how theory goes anyway.

 

So if you're looking from that perspective, then a white, male, American, Christian is darn near the top of the sociological mountain and so not only is that person wielding great influence, then if political power is a zero-sum game (it shouldn't be, but sometimes it's viewed that way), then he's likely maintaining that power, wealth, or influence, at the expense of the non-dominant or minority groups. Therefore, in an effort to alleviate that oppression, even if sub-consciously, the rights of the dominant are less important in any pursuit of change.

 

I'm not exactly sure if what I wrote there makes any sense and I might have even said some things I don't mean. I'll try to put together some examples of exactly what I'm talking about...

 

So, this theory says, simply, as I interpret it: Anything that can be changed from the status quo of those who have historically been in "power" is a good thing...even if that change is wrong. Or am I off base here?

 

Perfect example: The OJ Simpson verdict. I heard it expressed that, even IF OJ did do it, and even some who rejoiced in his acquittal did think he did it...it was still a good verdict because it helped "strike back" at possibly hundreds or even thousands of unjust guilty verdicts in the past to blacks that had been perpetrated by whites. Am I on the right track here?

So, this theory says, simply, as I interpret it: Anything that can be changed from the status quo of those who have historically been in "power" is a good thing...even if that change is wrong. Or am I off base here?

 

Perfect example: The OJ Simpson verdict. I heard it expressed that, even IF OJ did do it, and even some who rejoiced in his acquittal did think he did it...it was still a good verdict because it helped "strike back" at possibly hundreds or even thousands of unjust guilty verdicts in the past to blacks that had been perpetrated by whites. Am I on the right track here?

 

It's not an ethical system, it's about viewpoint. I don't know that it has any use to an individual try to evaluate a situation apart from helping explain how certain people might view the world.

 

But I absolutely think that there may be some truth in what you say about how some people viewed the OJ verdict.

It's not an ethical system, it's about viewpoint. I don't know that it has any use to an individual try to evaluate a situation apart from helping explain how certain people might view the world.

 

But I absolutely think that there may be some truth in what you say about how some people viewed the OJ verdict.

 

I guess I should have stated my viewpoint was based on the oppressor..........oppressed portion of the theory you posted. I have heard something similar expressed before.

I guess I should have stated my viewpoint was based on the oppressor..........oppressed portion of the theory you posted. I have heard something similar expressed before.

 

I don't know how good it is for evaluating where a person might come down on a specific event, but I think it helps explain how some people might think the way they do about certain generalities.

 

It is fun to use in a specific situation like the one you mentioned though. And like I said, yeah, I think you might be right about how some people view that verdict along the oppressor/oppressed spectrum.

What about a School winning while expressing their faith in God? God may want that team to be victorious and prevail over others to show the strength of God. Exhibit above: A team that puts God first can never lose.

 

Here's the problem I have with the invocation of the Almighty when it comes to the fortunes of sports teams: You would have us believe that He was all in for Belfry and is, by extension, smiting the folks in Wayne County (who I would argue consider themselves every bit as self-righteously down with the Lord as those in the South Williamson area).

 

Why should God hold Belfry at a higher regard than Wayne County? Did the Cardinals not pray as loudly as the Pirates?

 

See how ridiculous this all is?

Pray to do your best and not get hurt or seriously hurt someone.

Pray to do your best and not get hurt or seriously hurt someone.

That's kind of what I think, too. Don't wish ill on anybody.

In all seriousness, where is the line drawn on something like this?

 

The line that has been drawn is as crooked as can be.

You know what I find weird about this whole thread? We can take the one on Phil Robertson and see all kinds of misapplications of "Constitutional Rights". We can take this one, and look at issues of free speech and separation of church and state, you know actual Constitutional issues, that are wholly more applicable, but no one aside from Ram and some of the replies to him is really discussing them.

Here's the problem I have with the invocation of the Almighty when it comes to the fortunes of sports teams: You would have us believe that He was all in for Belfry and is, by extension, smiting the folks in Wayne County (who I would argue consider themselves every bit as self-righteously down with the Lord as those in the South Williamson area).

 

Why should God hold Belfry at a higher regard than Wayne County? Did the Cardinals not pray as loudly as the Pirates?

 

See how ridiculous this all is?

I wasn't contending that God willed Belfry to win, I was only giving a rational approach at to why God may have a vested interest in who wins a sports contest after someone said God would have no opinion in who won a game.