I guess I'll throw my two cents in...

 

IMHO, if those students say they were waving that flag with no racial intent, I say they are lying. Now, Im sure we may not have all the info, but as rockmom asked earlier, do they wave this flag when Caucasian players are shooting foul shots?

 

People can call it their heritage if they want, but from an African-American standpoint, I see it as a negative image. To some people, it represents the South during the Civil War, and not racism. My question is, what was going on in the South during/before the Civil War? :lol: I think it is a very touch subject between African-Americans and SOME Caucasians as to the true meaning of the flag.

 

Pigman nailed it on the head when he mentioned that we have to look at this as a 2006 issue. I think many people in our society are trying to remove such symbols as the Confederate Flag because they know what it implies. The youth today (especially African-American youth) seem to be more and more against symbols and actions of prejudice, as they should be IMO. Things have changed, and some folks need to realize those changes.

 

The trouble is, Deuce, prejudice is not illegal. It may be wrong, but it is not illegal. Too many people confuse prejudice with legal discrimination, and they are not one and the same. While I applaud the efforts of people to persuade others to eliminate overt symbols of prejudice voluntarily, it rankles me greatly when one group or another gets to choose which symbols they claim are prejudice and attempt to have them legally banned.

The trouble is, Deuce, prejudice is not illegal. It may be wrong, but it is not illegal. Too many people confuse prejudice with legal discrimination, and they are not one and the same. While I applaud the efforts of people to persuade others to eliminate overt symbols of prejudice voluntarily, it rankles me greatly when one group or another gets to choose which symbols they claim are prejudice and attempt to have them legally banned.

 

I understand its not illegal. And I also understand that by perhaps banning the Confederate Flag, those same students could say that a symbol used by the African-American community offends them, and seek to have it removed also.

 

The only problem that I really have with it is in the intent that the flag was used...If these students are using the flag ONLY to represent their school msacot, then let them wave it until their arms fall off. But, with the bit of info coming to the surface that they were waving it while an African-American player was shooting freethrows, that makes me seriously question their intent.

Let me start by saying that this post is not meant to be an attack on you. I assume that you are a fine person, debating a political issue. However, you seem to only be focusing on the "poor Allen Central kids" that won't get to fly their Rebel flag. Do you have any sympathy for the kids that the same flag brings negative feelings upon?

 

Keep in mind that many framers of the constitution also "owned" slaves, so if they were alive and well today, they might wonder about that, too.

 

Can anyone justity why a Rebel flag is Kentucky heritage when we never seceded from the Union?

 

 

It matters not whether I am a "fine person" or not. All that matters is protection of the constitutional rights of our citizens. The Allen Central people have a right to free speech. Just because it may (real or orchestrated) or may not offend someone else is of no relevance. I oppose the constant war against Christianianity in the entertainment field but I must accept that they are covered by the First Amendment.

 

Those of you who side with TDS in this are doing so out of emotion. Our rights are not based upon emotion. If they were, a lot of our civil rights and civil liberties, including many of minorities, would have been extinguished long ago.

 

Legally, TDS, its "handlers", and all of you who support this fiasco are wrong. The freedoms of the First Amendment go in both directions whether you and I like it or not. You, out of nothing more than emotion, want to limit the rights of the people of AC. You are wrong. However, as I have stated before, you will win this one in the end. One small step for censorship, one hard hit against our freedoms.

Legally, TDS, its "handlers", and all of you who support this fiasco are wrong. The freedoms of the First Amendment go in both directions whether you and I like it or not. You, out of nothing more than emotion, want to limit the rights of the people of AC. You are wrong. However, as I have stated before, you will win this one in the end. One small step for censorship, one hard hit against our freedoms.

 

And this re-affirms my beliefs on the intent of the use of the Confederate Flag....

 

For you to call me wrong because I have doubts about the use of a flag that MANY people still use as a RACIAL symbol today is WRONG. You want to talk First Amendment? Ok...You say they can use the flags however they want, it's their right...Alright, fair enough. It's MY right to say that those flags are being used in a racially charged way, and I can express my distaste and concern for it.

It matters not whether I am a "fine person" or not. All that matters is protection of the constitutional rights of our citizens. The Allen Central people have a right to free speech. Just because it may (real or orchestrated) or may not offend someone else is of no relevance. I oppose the constant war against Christianianity in the entertainment field but I must accept that they are covered by the First Amendment.

 

Those of you who side with TDS in this are doing so out of emotion. Our rights are not based upon emotion. If they were, a lot of our civil rights and civil liberties, including many of minorities, would have been extinguished long ago.

 

Legally, TDS, its "handlers", and all of you who support this fiasco are wrong. The freedoms of the First Amendment go in both directions whether you and I like it or not. You, out of nothing more than emotion, want to limit the rights of the people of AC. You are wrong. However, as I have stated before, you will win this one in the end. One small step for censorship, one hard hit against our freedoms.

 

If Allen Central can stand on principal say they are not going to quit flying the flag - then The David School has just as much right to stand on their principal and say they are not going to play. Refusing to play does not preclude Allen Central from flying the flag. Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences. Just ask The Dixie Chicks.

 

Also, while prejudice and discrimination are distinctly different, when prejudice is practiced by a government entity (i.e. a school) then when are entering into a seriously gray area.

 

I think Centre College does an excellent job or reprepsenting their southern heritage with the Old Southern Colonel as their mascot, and they do it without a tinge of racism.

It matters not whether I am a "fine person" or not. All that matters is protection of the constitutional rights of our citizens. The Allen Central people have a right to free speech. Just because it may (real or orchestrated) or may not offend someone else is of no relevance. I oppose the constant war against Christianianity in the entertainment field but I must accept that they are covered by the First Amendment.

 

Those of you who side with TDS in this are doing so out of emotion. Our rights are not based upon emotion. If they were, a lot of our civil rights and civil liberties, including many of minorities, would have been extinguished long ago.

 

Legally, TDS, its "handlers", and all of you who support this fiasco are wrong. The freedoms of the First Amendment go in both directions whether you and I like it or not. You, out of nothing more than emotion, want to limit the rights of the people of AC. You are wrong. However, as I have stated before, you will win this one in the end. One small step for censorship, one hard hit against our freedoms.

 

If you were replying to my post, you have not addressed any of the questions/comments in it.

 

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

 

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

 

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

The trouble is, Deuce, prejudice is not illegal. It may be wrong, but it is not illegal. Too many people confuse prejudice with legal discrimination, and they are not one and the same. While I applaud the efforts of people to persuade others to eliminate overt symbols of prejudice voluntarily, it rankles me greatly when one group or another gets to choose which symbols they claim are prejudice and attempt to have them legally banned.

I would submit that when it is being held at a public school that is supported by TAX dollars than that changes the issue. Ironic thing is if AC wanted to start the game with a prayer that would be not allowed because it might potential offend someone and would the school/government endorsing a Christian religion. But somehow it would be acceptable for the school to allow a racist symbol that would offend some.

That piece of cloth is not the flag in question. That's a whole different thread. IMO when the confederate flag was first stiched together it did not symbolize racism, that's all I'm saying. White, black, yellow or red, we are all too easily offended in this country. If I were the David School I'd be more offended by the way my team was getting beat.

The point of my post was in reference to the comment that a piece of cloth should offend no one. And I questioned the poster on what they felt about the robes of the KKK.

1. TDS has a right, regardless of how I think it came about, to its position. It has no right to force its beliefs on AC. Someone once said, your rights end where my nose begins. That should be applicable here.

 

2. If TDS had a sincere objection, since they had full prior knowledge of the AC situation,why did they schedule the game in the first place? No one has ever answered this question.

 

3. If, for some unexplained reason, TDS scheduled the game without prior knowledge (actually not a possibility but we'll use it for discussuion purposes), why did they not just cancel the game without the fanfare? Can one of you answer that one?

 

4. Obviously, the intent was to get some major publicity (AP, CNN, DI, LHL, etc.) which they have done so that they can coerce AC. And, sadly, it will work in the end.

 

5. TheDeuce says that just because something is legal doesn't make it "right". I would ask TD, who decides what is right and what is wrong? "Right" is an elusive concept that is strictly in the eyes of the beholder. That is a major reason why we need laws that don't "go with the flow".

 

6. As I have stated in this forum before, I am not a great proponent of the First Amendment- particularly in regard to how it has been interpreted in the last 50 years or so. However, this one is not a difficult issue. The proper conclusion is obvious. Nonetheless, publicity and pressure will bring a victory for the "handlers" at the expense of free speech.

 

7. Ladiesbballcoach is concerned about this being a public school. So what. Local public schools are run by local people. If there is an abuse, others can and do step in. There is no abuse here but, instead, individuals trying to impose their idea of what should and should not be on others. To use another often used phrase, TDS, Pillersdorf, the downstate "handlers", et als. have no dog in this fight. The game is merely a ploy and a set up.

 

8. You who are so offended should give this matter a little thought. Next time, maybe you and your First Amendment rights will catch the attention (and the ire) of the "handlers". How will you react then?

 

9. Don't forget the famous words of one of our founding fathers, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Now, since "speech" has been extended to include "expression", whether TDS and its "group" like AC's nickname or not should be irrelevant. It would seem that some would look at this some way other than reactionary emotion and self-righteous concepts of what you personally think is right and wrong. We have long established laws to cover those matters. Your personal philosophy and, yes, personal prejuduces are not a part of that law.

I understand that the confederate flag stood for some people's history and their culture. However, it supports a group that backed slavery, which obviously is wrong on every level.

 

For what it's worth, everytime that I have seen the confederate flag emblazoned, it has been with someone that dignifies what is wrong with the flag in general...

 

So yes, I have a problem with the flag.

5. TheDeuce says that just because something is legal doesn't make it "right". I would ask TD, who decides what is right and what is wrong? "Right" is an elusive concept that is strictly in the eyes of the beholder. That is a major reason why we need laws that don't "go with the flow".

 

First, TheDeuce didn't say anything....True Blue said it and I agreed....

 

And posing the question about who decides whats right and wrong is a good point....Who says its right to be able to wave a flag that offends people of another race??

I understand that the confederate flag stood for some people's history and their culture. However, it supports a group that backed slavery, which obviously is wrong on every level.

 

For what it's worth, everytime that I have seen the confederate flag emblazoned, it has been with someone that dignifies what is wrong with the flag in general...

 

So yes, I have a problem with the flag.

 

You have a right to your "problem" but it has nothing to do with the law. I will assume that you are a Catholic. So am I. Many have a problem with many of our religious symbols. Should they be able to make us remove them merely because they have a problem with them?

First, TheDeuce didn't say anything....True Blue said it and I agreed....

 

And posing the question about who decides whats right and wrong is a good point....Who says its right to be able to wave a flag that offends people of another race??

 

Some queries are beyond a response. This is clearly one of them. I could point you to the law but what good would that do?

 

Best wishes to all. I must leave for Lexington.

Should they be able to make us remove them merely because they have a problem with them?

Nope....but schools, should be allowed to refuse competition, or any dealings with them, without penalty.