Jump to content

Not a rival, but funny nonetheless


AU alum

Recommended Posts

This is from wsfa.com

Associated Press - May 14, 2007 2:34 PM ET

A unanimous ruling by the Alabama High School Athletic Association that bans games on Sunday has put the Hoover High football team's appearance in a nationally televised contest in jeopardy.

On Wednesday, the AHSAA Central Board of Control denied the Bucs' request to play in a September 2nd game on the campus of the University of Cincinnati. It's part of the third annual Kirk Herbstreit Ohio versus USA Challenge.

The Labor Day Weekend matchup between Hoover and Ohio powerhouse Colerain High was to be aired live on ESPN2 at 12:37 pm.

Executive director Dan Washburn told the school that - quote - "Sunday is for worship." He said there is no specific written rule that prohibits games from being played on a Sunday, but he called it a policy established through practice. Washburn said a game could be played on Sunday, but only under emergency circumstances.

Hoover coach Rush Propst said the ruling is unfair and that the lack of a solid rule prohibiting Sunday play bothered him. Propst said Hoover could appeal the ruling.

I really don't like Hoover or Rush Propst, so I liked this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I really don't like Hoover or Rush Propst, so I liked this.

Propst is the biggest lying a**hole on the planet. He's going to get knocked down a peg (don't they always?) and it will be sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Probst got slapped down but.... the "Sunday is for worship" statement is problematic. The Founding Fathers established separation of church and state.

If the Hoover players and parents don't want to participate in a Sunday game, fine, but I don't think Washburn's reasoning will hold up in court, should any choose to pursue that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush Probst or not, this has the potential to become a big time story. A man dealing with the public school system has made a decision based on "worship." Sunday is for worship? I'm guessing Washburn isn't Jewish. Being an education major, I've had enough "separation of church and state" crap shoved down my throat to know that Washburn could be in for a serious battle if the right lawyers get involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush Probst or not, this has the potential to become a big time story. A man dealing with the public school system has made a decision based on "worship." Sunday is for worship? I'm guessing Washburn isn't Jewish. Being an education major, I've had enough "separation of church and state" crap shoved down my throat to know that Washburn could be in for a serious battle if the right lawyers get involved.

True. I hate Probst as much as the next guy, but this is just asking for another lawsuit that proves Alabamans can't quite grasp the concept of Separation of Church & State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't care if Hoover plays the game or not. But I hate that the argument used is "Sunday is for Worship". Really? That's their job to decide? A government run institution is playing the religion card? That's stupid. And I'm a devout Christian.

I just don't think it's fair that we ASSUME everyone else is. What about Jews who go to Temple on Friday nights? What about people who worship on Saturday?

I'm so sick of Alabama politicians making us look like idiots and religious crazies who can't understand that seperation of church and state MEANS seperation of church and state.

What a bunch of idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a devout Christian.

This always cracks me up. How is this different than plain ol' "Christian"? Are you somehow better than those simple "Christians"? Is there a merit badge for devout-ness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a devout Christian.

This always cracks me up. How is this different than plain ol' "Christian"? Are you somehow better than those simple "Christians"? Is there a merit badge for devout-ness?

Sigh...no. There ARE a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but couldn't even tell you what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a devout Christian.

This always cracks me up. How is this different than plain ol' "Christian"? Are you somehow better than those simple "Christians"? Is there a merit badge for devout-ness?

Sigh...no. There ARE a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but couldn't even tell you what it means.

Judge not...

Or somesuch. I forget, I never finished reading the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so sick of Alabama politicians making us look like idiots and religious crazies who can't understand that seperation of church and state MEANS seperation of church and state.

What a bunch of idiots.

Except "separation of church and state" is a mirage. Show me where the constitution puts those walls up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a devout Christian.

This always cracks me up. How is this different than plain ol' "Christian"? Are you somehow better than those simple "Christians"? Is there a merit badge for devout-ness?

Sigh...no. There ARE a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but couldn't even tell you what it means.

Judge not...

Or somesuch. I forget, I never finished reading the book.

"Get over yourself". You can find that one in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a devout Christian.

This always cracks me up. How is this different than plain ol' "Christian"? Are you somehow better than those simple "Christians"? Is there a merit badge for devout-ness?

Sigh...no. There ARE a lot of people who call themselves Christians, but couldn't even tell you what it means.

Judge not...

Or somesuch. I forget, I never finished reading the book.

"Get over yourself". You can find that one in my book.

Hmm...I missed that part. Must be sandwiched between the "Artful Dodger: Or How to Avoid Answering Direct Questions" and the "There is No Spoon: Houndstooth Hats Do Not Exist" chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so sick of Alabama politicians making us look like idiots and religious crazies who can't understand that seperation of church and state MEANS seperation of church and state.

What a bunch of idiots.

Except "separation of church and state" is a mirage. Show me where the constitution puts those walls up.

Well, the first few words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think the language here is clear cut. Government stays out of religion. Period.

Unfortunately, over time, there are various demogogues who try to use government as a tool for their own prosletyzing. Hanging up the Ten Commandments in courthouses. School prayer. Creationism. So, in order to uphold the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Church and State doctrine has come about.

After all, this country has had laws banning Catholics from office, banning the consumption of alcohol, banning sex toys, mandatory school prayers, Blue Laws, and a host of other legislation that demonstrated one religious groups determination to force everybody else to behave according to its standards.

I'm sorry, by the way. This post ran over 2 sentences. I hope the members of this board will forgive me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't care if Hoover plays the game or not. But I hate that the argument used is "Sunday is for Worship". Really? That's their job to decide? A government run institution is playing the religion card? That's stupid. And I'm a devout Christian.

I just don't think it's fair that we ASSUME everyone else is. What about Jews who go to Temple on Friday nights? What about people who worship on Saturday?

I'm so sick of Alabama politicians making us look like idiots and religious crazies who can't understand that seperation of church and state MEANS seperation of church and state.

What a bunch of idiots.

Having paid dues to the AHSAA for many years and seeing some of the inner workings of the AHSAA, you don't argue with Dan Washburn. If the Hoover Booster Club/Board of Ed wants to argue with Mr. Washburn in the court of law, you can expect the AHSAA to remove Hoover H.S. from the membership list/stop sanctioning Hoover athletic events while this law suit is going on (so long to playing for a state championship). Even if Hoover can keep from getting the boot from the AHSAA, where will they hire football officials? From the AHSAA's Metro B'ham association? Or they can fork out the money for guys to come from out of state to 'call' their football games? It is a no win situation for Hoover.

By the way, the AHSAA is not a 'government run institution' it is a private institution. If publicly funded schools want to be sanctioned participating members (i.e. play for state championships) they use their funds to contract AHSAA officials and play by AHSAA rules.

AHSAA

Yeah, it is a good ole boy system, but it works. TigMajor can back this up.

The intent of the 'Sunday is for Worship' comment by Mr. Washburn; read between the lines here 'NOBODY is scheduling games on Sunday, because this will open up the door for every school in every sport to start scheduling games on Sunday, and it is hard enough officiating/overseeing contests six days a week'. Mr. Washburn lets Hoover play their one little game on TV, every girls volleyball team to soccer in every corner of the state will be crying to schedule non-area and area games on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so sick of Alabama politicians making us look like idiots and religious crazies who can't understand that seperation of church and state MEANS seperation of church and state.

What a bunch of idiots.

Except "separation of church and state" is a mirage. Show me where the constitution puts those walls up.

Well, the first few words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think the language here is clear cut. Government stays out of religion. Period.

Unfortunately, over time, there are various demogogues who try to use government as a tool for their own prosletyzing. Hanging up the Ten Commandments in courthouses. School prayer. Creationism. So, in order to uphold the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Church and State doctrine has come about.

After all, this country has had laws banning Catholics from office, banning the consumption of alcohol, banning sex toys, mandatory school prayers, Blue Laws, and a host of other legislation that demonstrated one religious groups determination to force everybody else to behave according to its standards.

I'm sorry, by the way. This post ran over 2 sentences. I hope the members of this board will forgive me.

No, that language from the first amendment is not clear AT ALL in terms of separation of church and state. It does not say that schools cannot have prayers, county buildings must not display Christmas trees and decorations or that city hall can't display a picture of Moses. The first amendment prohibits the federal government from "IMPOSING" a religion on people by requiring worship or membership and it prevents the federal government from banning personal religious practice. It was never intended to kick Jesus in the manger off the courthouse square. There IS no doctrine of "separation of church and state." It's a figment of the imagination and an often-used excuse for eliminating any public expression of faith.

You've got if completely backward in your "over time" argument. Over time we've stripped our public institutions of the last vestiges of morality and driven many of those of faith out of public service. Creationism (a truth) was taught a hell of a long time before evolution. School prayer was routine for over a century before the Supreme Court cowered before an insignificant minority.

You can dispute it all you want, but the founding principles of this country were Judeo-Christian. Those principles form the basis of our laws. People can go back and excise certain writings and pull quotes from different people out of context, but the fact remains that religious principles are the underpinnings of everything this country was founded on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so sick of Alabama politicians making us look like idiots and religious crazies who can't understand that seperation of church and state MEANS seperation of church and state.

What a bunch of idiots.

Except "separation of church and state" is a mirage. Show me where the constitution puts those walls up.

Well, the first few words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think the language here is clear cut. Government stays out of religion. Period.

Unfortunately, over time, there are various demogogues who try to use government as a tool for their own prosletyzing. Hanging up the Ten Commandments in courthouses. School prayer. Creationism. So, in order to uphold the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Church and State doctrine has come about.

After all, this country has had laws banning Catholics from office, banning the consumption of alcohol, banning sex toys, mandatory school prayers, Blue Laws, and a host of other legislation that demonstrated one religious groups determination to force everybody else to behave according to its standards.

I'm sorry, by the way. This post ran over 2 sentences. I hope the members of this board will forgive me.

No, that language from the first amendment is not clear AT ALL in terms of separation of church and state. It does not say that schools cannot have prayers, county buildings must not display Christmas trees and decorations or that city hall can't display a picture of Moses. The first amendment prohibits the federal government from "IMPOSING" a religion on people by requiring worship or membership and it prevents the federal government from banning personal religious practice. It was never intended to kick Jesus in the manger off the courthouse square. There IS no doctrine of "separation of church and state." It's a figment of the imagination and an often-used excuse for eliminating any public expression of faith.

You've got if completely backward in your "over time" argument. Over time we've stripped our public institutions of the last vestiges of morality and driven many of those of faith out of public service. Creationism (a truth) was taught a hell of a long time before evolution. School prayer was routine for over a century before the Supreme Court cowered before an insignificant minority.

You can dispute it all you want, but the founding principles of this country were Judeo-Christian. Those principles form the basis of our laws. People can go back and excise certain writings and pull quotes from different people out of context, but the fact remains that religious principles are the underpinnings of everything this country was founded on.

Yes, but which version of Judeo Christianity? That's the problem. Because you put a Catholic, an Episcopalian, a Baptist, a Seventh Day Adventists, a Jew, and a Mormon all in the same room, and ask them to discuss any practical application to government of widely-held religious principles and you will not find any agreement on any subject. Contraception? Sunday retail sales? Beer? R-rated movies? Earrings? Women working outside the home? When it comes to teaching Creationism, do you teach Old World Creationism or New World Creationism (Neither of which have any scientific basis. Both are a glorified gainsaying of Evolutionary theory. Personally, I think if you aren't absolutely literal, Genesis and Darwin are not contradictory)? No matter what you do, you'll find some sect of Christianity or Judaism that objects. So if you outlaw any of these things, then you automatically prefer one faith over the others.

Heck, Catholics and Protestants and Jews don't even have the same Ten Commandments. They're markedly different in content, not just wording. Whose version are you going to install down at the courthouse? The language of prayer itself is denominational in basis, containing theological concepts of proximity to God, the redemptive power of Christ, and the willingness of God to intervene in our world. Whose vision prevails in the scribbling out of the morning devotional in school? After all, there are number of Christian denominations that take Matthew, Chapter 6 to heart and shun any kind of public prayer whatsoever as a contradiction to Christ's teachings. Let's not even discuss some religious groups who believe that the New Testament is an implicit endorsement of the Welfare State. See how the sword cuts both ways?

And, I know from personal experience, that if you give any group an inch, they'll take a mile. In my public school, I went to a lot of mandatory assemblies that featured entertainment, but were no more than a fig leaf for evangelicals to talk about their faith and hand out literature at the door. My eighth grade Social Studies teacher had mandatory scripture readings by each of the students. My senior literature teacher refused to allow term papers about authors who were atheist. That's the kind of nonsense the first amendment was written to prevent.

Further, I would argue that church/state separation has been wise and ultimately beneficial to this country. In decidedly secular countries such as Germany, France, and the Netherlands, you have legislation that enshrines the church in ways that would be unheard of here. In fact, all German citizens must pay 1% of their income to the Lutheran church. Yet I don't see any religious fervor in those countries, while churches dot the landscape in America--and are typically full on Sunday mornings.

Finally, you don't really believe the nonsense that this country was once a paragon of virtue, do you? Statistics from the early 1900s show that narcotic addiction was roughly the same as it is today. We had violent discrimination, unbelieveable worker exploitation and unsafe working conditions to squeeze out more profitability, ad infinitum. So the people who went to church on Sunday tacitly agreed to some pretty horrible stuff that took place during the rest of the week. And the percentage of churched population at the beginning of the 1800s was hovering around 10%. Not exactly what I would call a republic steeped in faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he didn't want everyone to schedule games on Sunday, just say that. To use the argument of Religion as the reason behind the veto.

You can argue all day long that "seperation of church and state" doesn't exist in the constitution. But either way, you can't show favoritism to one religion. We are not a theocracy.

Again, I ask the question...If it is fair to deny games on Sundays because that's when most Christians worship...why is it fair to exclude Jews who go to Temple on Friday nights? What about the groups who worship on Saturday?

I just don't think it is the government's job to enforce Religious policy. ASHAA may be a privately run institution, but it enforces rules on government institutions. And you guys can't tell me that it's right to tell Jews and 7th Day Adventists that their Holy days are less important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Hoover grad, I find it funny so many of you have Propst envy.

He's a filthy jack-hole, but I don't see what this has to do with that. Just because you want a piece of the guy is no reason to side with the AHSAA. They are CLEARLY in the wrong.

The game will NOT be played during worship hours. The AHSAA must have a reason for shutting out Hoover, but I'm not buying the whole "Sunday is for worship" excuse. If THAT was the case, they'd ban Sunday practices in the summer. They'd ban non-Christians from sporting events, etc. "Abdula Sharif?! You can't run the football, it's non-Christian if you score a TD."

Because of the AHSAA's short-sightedness the 16-18 year old kids will get one more Sunday in their respective churches in Hoover, but miss-out on yet another life-long memory that playing at Hoover has afforded them. It feels like meddling. It feels wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that language from the first amendment is not clear AT ALL in terms of separation of church and state. It does not say that schools cannot have prayers, county buildings must not display Christmas trees and decorations or that city hall can't display a picture of Moses. The first amendment prohibits the federal government from "IMPOSING" a religion on people by requiring worship or membership and it prevents the federal government from banning personal religious practice. It was never intended to kick Jesus in the manger off the courthouse square. There IS no doctrine of "separation of church and state." It's a figment of the imagination and an often-used excuse for eliminating any public expression of faith.

Could you say that the statement, "Sunday is for worship," imposes religion on people?

This is a rather weird situation because the Hoover football team is part of Hoover High School, which is supported and funded by the government school system. Therefore the school must submit to the rules and policies outlined in the constitution. What makes this difficult is that the AHSAA is its own organization not regulated by the government. And our forefathers did mention separation of church and state. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson said, "'I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

Engel vs Vitale outlawed prayer in schools because it violated the 1st amendment. Justice Hugo Black argued against the notion that prayer is voluntary because it promotes religion in the first place. By saying that Hoover can't play football because of worship promotes religion. I really don't think Washburn's reasonings would hold up in court.

My stance as a Christian leads me to believe in the Sabbath. However, if you can show me in the bible where God proclaimed Sunday as the definite Sabbath, then I'll agree with Washburn. I think that Coach Probst and the Hoover administration should give the players the option to go or not go. This gives equal treatment to everybody involved, something I believe is essential for a civilized culture. To deny non-religious public school students the opportunity to participate in a school affiliated event because of another person's religion is neither fair or constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Hoover grad, I find it funny so many of you have Propst envy.

He's a filthy jack-hole, but I don't see what this has to do with that. Just because you want a piece of the guy is no reason to side with the AHSAA. They are CLEARLY in the wrong.

The game will NOT be played during worship hours. The AHSAA must have a reason for shutting out Hoover, but I'm not buying the whole "Sunday is for worship" excuse. If THAT was the case, they'd ban Sunday practices in the summer. They'd ban non-Christians from sporting events, etc. "Abdula Sharif?! You can't run the football, it's non-Christian if you score a TD."

Because of the AHSAA's short-sightedness the 16-18 year old kids will get one more Sunday in their respective churches in Hoover, but miss-out on yet another life-long memory that playing at Hoover has afforded them. It feels like meddling. It feels wrong.

The real question: Does Hoover want to be a participating member of the AHSAA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tigrinum Major

Dan Washburn is all powerful when it comes to Alabama high school sports. For better or worse. And it will continue that way until July, when Steve Savarese takes over as executive director. I've met and respect both of these guys a great deal.

I don't agree with the decision, just for the record. I think it opens a Pandora's Box, which is exactly what Mr. Washburn was trying to avoid.

Would the AHSAA go as far as not allowing Hoover to participate in championship events if they took them to court? Probably not. That would cause the people of Hoover to cover themselves with sackcloth and ashes.

I think whoever made the comment about scheduling the game and allowing the players to decide if they wanted to go or not. I guarantee you if they aren't playing that game that day, they'll be on the practice field or in the film room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this not be played as a non-AHSAA sanctioned game? Or does AHSAA have a rule against AHSAA teams playing non AHSAA games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tigrinum Major

I think there is a rule against it. I think that the basketball teams that go to Vegas have to get permission. If they don't, it is considered an "illegal" game/practice and the school can be fined and/or put on probation.

I know there are rules about AAU and recreational league teams having a certain percentage of players from a school team on their roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the AHSAA go as far as not allowing Hoover to participate in championship events if they took them to court? Probably not. That would cause the people of Hoover to cover themselves with sackcloth and ashes.

I think whoever made the comment about scheduling the game and allowing the players to decide if they wanted to go or not. I guarantee you if they aren't playing that game that day, they'll be on the practice field or in the film room.

Sackcloth and ashes.......... of course the people of Hoover will be sad when they don't get a chance to lose the Super Six Championship game.

Does Hoover have a Friday night game scheduled after this Memorial Day weekend? If so, then the arguement is, "You can't give high school players only four days off before playing another game".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...