United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: High School tennis stars score religious liberty victory in Washington state
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: https://www.thedailysheeple.com/hig ... y-victory-in-washington-state/
Published: Aug 31, 2019
Author: Sean Walton
Post Date: 2019-09-01 12:24:22 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 10167
Comments: 185
Siblings Joseph & Joelle Chung Two high school tennis stars scored a religious liberty victory in Washington state after being kicked off the court for their faith. The Chung siblings, Joseph, 15, and Joelle, 17, both Seventh-day Adventists, a Protestant denomination that observes Sabbath on Saturday as recorded in the Bible, sued the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) earlier this month after Joelle was disqualified from her final state tennis postseason competition because she doesn’t play on Saturdays. The Chung family, represented by Becket, a religious liberty law firm, filed a motion to withdraw their federal suit on Tuesday after WIAA agreed to add religious observance to its reasons for missing games without being penalized. Paul Chung, Joelle’s father, told “The Ingraham Angle” earlier this month that his daughter, who was undefeated on the court, valued her commitment to God more than tennis. “She was disappointed that she couldn’t help the team but she shouldn’t have to choose between religion and playing tennis,” Chung said. Joe Davis, Becket counsel and attorney for the Chungs, told Fox News Friday “it’s an important win for religious student-athletes in Washington and sets a favorable precedent nationwide.” “It’s common sense that Sabbath observers shouldn’t be excluded from any postseason sports competition at all just because of the hypothetical possibility of a schedule conflict somewhere down the line—and after the rule change, they won’t be.” WIAA denied her family’s request for a religious accommodation last season because WIAA’s previous rules stated that if an athlete could not commit to playing in every level of the tournament, barring injury or illness, they were not allowed to participate at all and would be subject to penalty. WIAA had no exception for sincerely-held religious beliefs. “For the Chung family, keeping the Sabbath holy is a serious commitment,” Becket, a religious liberty law firm, wrote in a complaint filed Aug. 6. The Chungs, both playing for William F. West High School, had conflicts with the WIAA’s state championship schedule, which included a Saturday. While Joelle had to sit out her final postseason play, Joseph, a rising sophomore, was set to have the same fate this year before the rule change. “We’re hopeful that the WIAA will take the next step and eliminate the schedule conflicts altogether, as the law requires,” Davis added. Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-45) not displayed.
.
.
.
#46. To: misterwhite (#44)
I see. So, in your opinion, it is only "fanatics" that would insist on observing the 4th commandment in any meaningful way instead of dismissing their religious obligations entirely so they can play some crappy bush league sport at which they have a 0.1% chance of ever getting a scholarship, let alone make a living at? I liked you better when you stuck to simple copsucking as a hobby.
How about: "Remember the Sabbath, how Jesus Christ kept it perfectly holy for me, because I couldn't..." That is the substitutionary life that we Christians enjoy.
That's a good answer, as good as you'll get. I think Vic would like that if you've read some of his posts before. Jesus did quote nine of the ten commandments though. I'm not sure that you've dealt with that adequately. But maybe you prefer to plow on through and hope God doesn't hold a little deliberate commandment-breaking against your record.
I don't call a tennis tournament "meaningful". They insist on changing the rules of a crappy bush league sport which affected nobody before they showed up and will affect nobody when they leave.
Or so you hope. You fear that this might spread or you wouldn't be so vehement against these Adventist commandment fanatics. You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends while the churches continue playing their puny little league sports on Sundays? Making the churches the most unholy commandment-breakers in American society? That outcome is entirely possible. I think you know it.
If it spread and more and more players refused to play because of their devotion to their faith, then perhaps the WIAA would be open to a rule change. That's how things used to be done. "You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends … …" You say that like it's a good thing. Two people, for purely selfish reasons, changing the rules for participants from 800 statewide schools through threat of legal action just so they can play under their interpretation of the fourth commandment.
And good for them. They adhere to their religion. In much the same way that Abraham, for purely selfish reasons, adhered to his new religion. In much the same way that Jesus and the Apostle Paul, for purely selfish reasons, adhered to their religious tenets. You can apply "purely selfish" to almost any religious figure who ever made any history at all. And it is generally the case that those who do stand up for their "purely selfish reasons" are despised in their own era by a majority of the public. And this case is no different. You underestimate the power of this case. It has genuine disruptive potential. And you just can't stand the thought of it. I'd like to see it go all the way to the Supreme Court and set national precedents.
What these two Adventists have done is open the door for Muslims to sue. They'll be playing tennis in burkas soon thanks to the Adventists. What a terrible shame against the Adventists...how dare they take non-Christians to court against the clear teaching of Scripture.
So you're ready to tell all Christians they can never take anyone or any organization to court again ever just so you can justify denying their sabbath rights to two mediocre Adventist tennis players? Is that right? But I'm sure they would assure you that they are not dragging inter-Christian disputes into the secular courts. 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. No, they are dragging a secular organization into court to compel that secular organization to make reasonable accommodation of their solemn religious observance. They are not suing their (alleged) fellow-Christians, something I'm sure they would be quick to point out to you. You're welcome. I'm liking these Adventists more all the time.
What if they strictly adhered to Leviticus 20:13 in the Bible: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Should we change the laws to accommodate them? Is it still, "Good for them"?
Should we be forced to stop eating pork because it offends Muslims and Jews? Here's what I think. I think if Muslims and Jews don't want to eat pork, they should not eat pork. If the 99% of the rest of us want to eat pork, we eat pork. Now, do you get the analogy or do I have to spell it out for you?
I agree. But I believe that if you're going to disrupt society over a religious issue, it should be to remove obstacles to the practice of someone's faith, not force the rest of us to adhere to the tenets of their religion. "and set national precedents." Uh-huh. Ready for Sharia law?
Sure. And why not? America is far from unique in its religious traditions but there are a few that stand out. Thanksgiving is one. In Europe at that time, businesses were subject to closure for the various feast days of the Roman church. And in most cases, the business owners not only had to close but were forced to subsidize these feast days directly. This was widely resented. This was Thanksgiving, a post-harvest festival as an element of state-sponsored religion. In America, no establishment of the church was allowed. And in the era prior to the dozen or so official holidays we now have as federal holidays, in America businesses did not have to pay for religious gatherings and food for the public and they did not have to close and give their workers the day off. America instituted the secular Thanksgiving tradition. Now it has devolved to where it's been turned into one of the few 4-day weekends in the calendar. So you give your employees the day off for Thanksgiving and they all expect to get Black Friday off too (not applicable for employees of Xmas-oriented-retail outlets or food/lodging establishments who rarely even get holiday overtime pay). In part, this is what we mean when we talk about Protestant work ethic. But few people know the story of America's Thanksgiving and why it was actually a radical modification of what America's immigrants had experienced in Europe before they came here. Even fewer care anything about it except for a few oddballs like me. But I like both the old-style secular Thanksgiving with workers still toiling in their mills and I like these litigious but plucky Adventists.
So if we don't stop these mediocre Asian tennis players now, then Osama bin Laden will finally win? LOL You can't be serious. However, you might see a push by Hindus, Muslims, Jews to make reasonable accommodation to their religions, just as Sunday and even Saturday are unpopular to schedule games or tournaments even today. These Adventists are taking a torch to Saturday/Sunday sports events or practices at the public schools. Which is why you seem to hate them.
Pork is not tennis. Food choice from a menu is not comparable to offering equal opportunities to participate in publicly-funded sports and other activities in the public schools. And check just how much halal meat is being fed into our schools via federal programs. Then check how much meat at your local meat outlet is also halal-compliant (meaning acceptable to both Muslims and Jews). Muslims have most of the same dietary issues that Jews have. Muslims are allowed to eat kosher food as it is considered as proper as halal slaughter methods. And they are definitely winning the Battle Of The Carcass. And that carcass is decidedly not pork, the single most negative factor affecting future growth of the pork industry in America. They are maxed out on their domestic market already. Because they are not halal/kosher and never will be.
So do you want them to violate Leviticus or are you suggesting they have already violated Leviticus? I don't even understand why you want to drag sodomy into an issue about reasonable accommodation of religious observance of the 4th commandment. Yes. No. Maybe. I'm not sure what you're even driving at here. Wanting to play tennis on a schoolday instead of your sabbath day should not be compared willy-nilly to acts of sodomy. You're becoming deranged over these Adventists and their subversive sabbath-keeping ways. You sound like you're afraid of them or something.
Sure it is. She HAD an equal opportunity to participate in publicly-funded sports and other activities in the public schools. She CHOSE not to participate. And that's my point. We have pork and you can choose not to eat it. You want to change the rules and eliminate pork because some don't like it.
If you're willing to change the rules to accommodate the religious observance of the 4th commandment (that apparently only two people observe), I'm asking if you're willing to change the rules (laws) to accommodate the religious observance of the Bible -- specifically Leviticus 20:13? Don't act so obtuse.
Hate them? No. I admire them for their devotion to their faith. If they believe their faith says they can't play, they don't play. Period. If that results in negative consequences, so be it. What bothers me is them using the threat of a lawsuit to make changes to long-established rules (which they initially accepted) simply to accommodate their personal needs.
Let me repeat this...seems you missed it: Read 1cor.6:1-6 over and over again until you get it. Christians must avoid going to the courts...with believers and non-believers. Why? Because we are "aliens and pilgrims" in this world (1Peter 2:11) This world is not our home. The courts are not ours. We are foreigners from another land...we are not here to force our will upon this world. We are here to be "salt and light" and that's about it. The Adventists make a big fuss about being "holy"...the word means set apart/separate. They are not exactly being separate from the world when they use the world's court system to impose their will.
And that invalidates any insistence that amateur league high school sports reasonably accommodate requests for respecting religious observance obligations which occur on weekends completely outside the official hours of school attendance. You're on far weaker legal grounds than you can apparently imagine.
Why progress to the regulation of sodomy if you can't even agree on keeping the sabbath holy? Apparently, you have some sodomy issue you're trying to work out. "Well, if you Yankees don't give in to sports on Saturday, we'll all start buttfucking each other just to get revenge on you." Where's the connection in your mind between sodomy and remembering the sabbath, to keep it holy? You don't have a fetish about committing sodomy on the sabbath, do you?
Well, against fellow-Christians in the same church or even denomination. The apostles, while railing against divisiveness and false teachers in local churches that they had established by missionary work, were not shy about calling out the false teachers and nominal Christians in their midst. They did so by name and left a record which is still in the New Testament today. The New Testament never says anything about never suing anyone for any reason. It does discourage, in Paul's voice primarily, taking a fellow-Christian from the local church to court for any reason. So, no sale. What you're saying here is not even an argument really.
What bothers me is them using the threat of a lawsuit to make changes to long-established rules (which they initially accepted) simply to accommodate their personal needs. Maybe you should consider whether anyone should ever stand at your back in a similar situation. Or whether they'll just dismiss it all because they don't want to "accommodate" misterwhite's "personal needs". Are you sure you really want it that way? How many defeats do traditional types have to suffer before they recognize that there is some value in solidarity against those who hate them and their entire way of life and will, if not stopped, impose those values on everyone in society? It's a threat far greater than "Osama will win if we let these Adventists win and force schedule changes so no puny high school tennis gets played on Saturday. Or Sunday. Defending the Saturday sabbath is a rare opportunity. Both sabbath days should be protected against secular intrusion.
So you think the holiest thing you can do is let them deprive the Adventists of their Saturday sabbath on the road to depriving you of your Sunday sabbath? Or are you just confident that they'll mostly leave the Sunday as the default Sabbath in America, at least in your region? I don't grasp why you are so opposed to the idea of any sabbath-keeping. Because you do sound opposed.
I think it's shallow, hypocritical and, frankly, non-Christian of me to say I'm observing the tenets of my faith by forcing others to make changes to accommodate me.
What?? Deprive?? I'm not depriving anyone of anything. As I said before, she's free to observe her Saturday sabbath and not participate in sports. "I don't grasp why you are so opposed to the idea of any sabbath-keeping. Because you do sound opposed." I'm not opposed to the idea of sabbath-keeping. I'm impressed that she observes it and I support her observation of it. But I oppose her use of the legal system to force the school system to void long- standing rules (rules she was aware of) simply to accommodate her fanatical interpretation of what constitutes "working" on the sabbath.
Are you saying I have to keep the sabbath holy? I think I see your problem. And it is your problem.
I'm not opposed to Sabbath keeping...which btw means many different things to many different people. No one is stopping the girl from keeping her Sabbath. I just don't want her to impose her Sabbath on all the other athletes who have trained very hard to compete. Let HER sacrifice her tennis for God, no? I also don't believe she has the Biblical right to take non-Christians to court in order to impose her belief on them. Are her teammates going to think Christianity is a good thing after she drags them through the courts? She gets to ruin others so she can play tennis when it is convenient for her?
So you're fine with the idea of abolishing Sundays or any other day as a day of worship, reserved for religious observation? The world you know was changed to enforce Sunday as a sabbath and it still prevails as a (much diminished) custom even in 2019. Damn, I didn't think you'd just admit to it outright. You're kind of a sabbath-hater. You've displayed nothing but contempt for these two Adventists who just want to play tennis at school on schooldays, not weekends when they expect to be left in peace to worship as they please. I hate to tell you but that is no cloak of righteousness you're wearing.
They're school sports. Participating in them requires school attendance. Why should it not be expected that these sports - for which children have to attend the public schools daily in order to participate - hold their competitions on scheduled school days. The extracurricular part of school, the sports, are being allowed to invade the weekends and the worship habits of Christians (Adventists and others), Muslims and Jews. Or is the only Sabbath-keeping you're willing to tolerate the people who observe Sunday as a sabbath and then only if the local high school hasn't scheduled some puny game or tournament outside school hours?
These two Adventists intend to make it your problem. I couldn't be more pleased. Anti-sabbath Christians don't appeal to me. I have more respect for Christians who respect their own sabbath and the sabbaths of others. But thanks for your honesty.
You seem to think the only solution is to exclude certain participants, people who aren't so popular or so common in your neck of the woods. Like Adventists, Muslims, Jews for instance. Why not hold all school sports during school hours? Or at least as an event after a scheduled school day? Is it important enough to you to have weekend high school sports that you'll deprive (some) Christians, Jews and Muslims from participation in those sports if they refuse to stop observing their religious holidays and obligations? I'm surprised at how fast people are to slam the door on non-Sunday sabbatarians. Or even on sabbath-keeping on Sunday, if push comes to shove with high school or church league sports events. Fortunately, I can cheer on these two courageous Asian Adventists in their tennis victory. They won far more in court than they could have won if they'd won every scheduled match in the season. I hope they keep suing the WIAA and the school(s) so they can win again and pound the lesson home.
How other Christians follow their faith is none of my business. I don't understand why it's yours. She was free to follow her faith. No one interfered with that.
You mean, like, after school? After the scheduled school day? Outside of school hours? Perhaps even off school property? Well, gosh, if that's OK with you, then why not on a Saturday or Sunday? What's the difference?
Other than this girl, who was complaining? 800 schools in the WIAA and she was the only one? Say 50 kids from each school involved in the WIAA program. That's 40,000 kids. ONE complained? Doesn't seem like she's all that common in HER neck of the woods.
It's not a sacrifice if nothing is lost. It's an inconvenience. She wants her cake and to eat it, too.
And she followed it right into a courtroom to demand her God-given right to worship as she pleases, a right explicitly recognized under constitutional law. Not just when some puny high school sports association tells her she can worship.
Since it is school-sponsored and school-staffed, most people think it is appropriate to hold regular games in school facilities which are better equipped to deal with handicapped people, insurance, parking, etc. You really can't suggest a better venue than the school itself. Preferably during school hours but directly after school hours otherwise.
How much more hatred and contempt can even you muster against these children who just want to honor their commitment to keep the sabbath holy? It's like you really resent them venomously. As surprising as it may be, did you know that at one time, schools did not have intramural sports at all? Schools were provided to educate the public, not provide sports venues. You know, back when we achieved 98% adult literacy by eighth grade even among the most rural uneducated people.
I'll send you cash if you post, "Let them eat cake." followed by "Off with their heads." It would be a dream come true.
Comments (87 - 185) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou are turning this issue into a grand theological debate when it only affect two fanatics who interpret the fourth commandment differently than everyone else.
#47. To: Tooconservative (#42)
How about: "Forget the Sabbath. And don't you dare to keep it holy."
#48. To: watchman, Vicomte13 (#47)
That is the substitutionary life that we Christians enjoy.
#49. To: Tooconservative (#46)
it is only "fanatics" that would insist on observing the 4th commandment in any meaningful way
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
They insist on changing the rules of a crappy bush league sport which affected nobody before they showed up and will affect nobody when they leave.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)
You fear that this might spread or you wouldn't be so vehement against these Adventist commandment fanatics.
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
Two people, for purely selfish reasons, changing the rules for participants from 800 statewide schools through threat of legal action just so they can play under their interpretation of the fourth commandment.
#53. To: misterwhite, Tooconservative (#51)
"You realize, perhaps, that the two Adventists could set a legal precedent to stop all school sports on weekends … …"
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers! 1Cor.6:1-6
If we Christians are not to take other Christians to court, how much less are we to take non-Christians?
#54. To: watchman (#53)
If we Christians are not to take other Christians to court, how much less are we to take non-Christians?
Biblia: 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 6 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
#55. To: Tooconservative (#52)
And good for them. They adhere to their religion.
#56. To: Tooconservative (#54)
No, they are dragging a secular organization into court to compel that secular organization to make reasonable accommodation of their solemn religious observance.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#52)
You underestimate the power of this case. It has genuine disruptive potential.
#58. To: watchman (#53)
What these two Adventists have done is open the door for Muslims to sue.
#59. To: misterwhite (#57)
Uh-huh. Ready for Sharia law?
#60. To: misterwhite (#56)
Here's what I think. I think if Muslims and Jews don't want to eat pork, they should not eat pork. If the 99% of the rest of us want to eat pork, we eat pork.
#61. To: misterwhite (#55)
What if they strictly adhered to Leviticus 20:13 in the Bible:
Should we change the laws to accommodate them? Is it still, "Good for them"?
#62. To: Tooconservative (#60)
Food choice from a menu is not comparable to offering equal opportunities to participate in publicly-funded sports and other activities in the public schools.
#63. To: Tooconservative (#61)
I don't even understand why you want to drag sodomy into an issue about reasonable accommodation of religious observance of the 4th commandment.
#64. To: Tooconservative (#59)
These Adventists are taking a torch to Saturday/Sunday sports events or practices at the public schools. Which is why you seem to hate them.
#65. To: Tooconservative (#54)
But I'm sure they would assure you that they are not dragging inter-Christian disputes into the secular courts.
If we Christians are not to take other Christians to court, how much less are we to take non-Christians?
#66. To: misterwhite (#62)
We have pork and you can choose not to eat it.
#67. To: misterwhite (#63)
If you're willing to change the rules to accommodate the religious observance of the 4th commandment (that apparently only two people observe), I'm asking if you're willing to change the rules (laws) to accommodate the religious observance of the Bible -- specifically Leviticus 20:13?
#68. To: watchman (#65)
Christians must avoid going to the courts...with believers and non-believers.
#69. To: misterwhite (#64)
Hate them? No. I admire them for their devotion to their faith. If they believe their faith says they can't play, they don't play. Period. If that results in negative consequences, so be it.
#70. To: watchman (#65)
The Adventists make a big fuss about being "holy"...the word means set apart/separate. They are not exactly being separate from the world when they use the world's court system to impose their will.
#71. To: Tooconservative (#69)
Maybe you should consider whether anyone should ever stand at your back in a similar situation.
#72. To: Tooconservative (#70)
So you think the holiest thing you can do is let them deprive the Adventists of their Saturday sabbath
#73. To: Tooconservative (#67)
Why progress to the regulation of sodomy if you can't even agree on keeping the sabbath holy?
#74. To: Tooconservative (#70)
I don't grasp why you are so opposed to the idea of any sabbath-keeping. Because you do sound opposed.
#75. To: misterwhite (#71)
I think it's shallow, hypocritical and, frankly, non-Christian of me to say I'm observing the tenets of my faith by forcing others to make changes to accommodate me.
#76. To: misterwhite (#72)
What?? Deprive?? I'm not depriving anyone of anything. As I said before, she's free to observe her Saturday sabbath and not participate in sports.
#77. To: misterwhite (#73)
Are you saying I have to keep the sabbath holy? I think I see your problem. And it is your problem.
#78. To: watchman (#74)
No one is stopping the girl from keeping her Sabbath. I just don't want her to impose her Sabbath on all the other athletes who have trained very hard to compete. Let HER sacrifice her tennis for God, no?
#79. To: Tooconservative (#77)
Anti-sabbath Christians don't appeal to me.
#80. To: Tooconservative (#76)
Why should it not be expected that these sports … hold their competitions on scheduled school days.
#81. To: Tooconservative (#78)
people who aren't so popular or so common in your neck of the woods.
#82. To: watchman (#74)
Let HER sacrifice her tennis for God, no?
#83. To: misterwhite (#79)
(Edited)
She was free to follow her faith. No one interfered with that.
#84. To: misterwhite (#80)
You mean, like, after school? After the scheduled school day? Outside of school hours? Perhaps even off school property?
#85. To: misterwhite (#81)
Other than this girl, who was complaining? 800 schools in the WIAA and she was the only one? Say 50 kids from each school involved in the WIAA program. That's 40,000 kids. ONE complained?
#86. To: misterwhite (#82)
She wants her cake and to eat it, too.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]