• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:39
CEST 10:39
KST 17:39
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week1[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation14$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Season 1 - Final Week Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [G] Progamer Settings ASL20 Preliminary Maps [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 557 users

Student gets ostracized for refusing to pray - Page 83

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 81 82 83 84 85 92 Next
sandroba
Profile Joined April 2006
Canada4998 Posts
May 29 2011 23:49 GMT
#1641
Lol stop. Laws get interpreted different ways all the time, and as soon as there's a supreme court's rulling it becomes the stapple and creates precedent for any further rulling. That's all. Also separation of church and state is the logical choice. If your country does not follow this you are behind in human society evolution (monarchy?).
RockIronrod
Profile Joined May 2011
Australia1369 Posts
May 29 2011 23:51 GMT
#1642
On May 30 2011 08:42 aoeua wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2011 08:41 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.


A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.

You understand the Constitution by interpreting the meaning of it, not trying to find loopholes within it when it suits your needs to do so.


I quite agree. And now I should like you to demonstrate to me the passage in the Constitution of the United States which forbids government funded bodies to hold prayers in public.

Look up Reynolds vs. US wherein people more qualified then you affirmed that yes, you are not allowed to do that, and that it is illegal, by researching the matter and coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was intended to be secularist.
It is part of the law, just because your interpretation differs, doesn't mean it is legal.
aoeua
Profile Joined February 2007
United Kingdom75 Posts
May 29 2011 23:52 GMT
#1643
On May 30 2011 08:49 sandroba wrote:
Lol stop. Laws get interpreted different ways all the time, and as soon as there's a supreme court's rulling it becomes the stapple and creates precedent for any further rulling. That's all. Also separation of church and state is the logical choice. If your country does not follow this you are behind in human society evolution (monarchy?).


I suppose you would have been in favour of the Jim Crow laws in 1953 then? Declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Behind in human society evolution? Curious.
polysciguy
Profile Joined August 2010
United States488 Posts
May 29 2011 23:53 GMT
#1644
in the supreme court case lee v weisman in 1992, the court ruled that any prayer at a graduation violates the first amendment of the constitution. that is what makes what the school is doing illegal. there is no arguement to be made for the school or the community, they have been performing an illegal act.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/505bv.pdf
page 603 is where it begins
glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever---napoleon
sandroba
Profile Joined April 2006
Canada4998 Posts
May 29 2011 23:55 GMT
#1645
They eventualy can get overruled by the supreme court. It does not make the decision permanet, but it is the norm until contested. And yes, you are behind in that regard, as monarchy and state relgion have no practical use in modern society.
aoeua
Profile Joined February 2007
United Kingdom75 Posts
May 29 2011 23:55 GMT
#1646
On May 30 2011 08:51 RockIronrod wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2011 08:42 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:41 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.


A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.

You understand the Constitution by interpreting the meaning of it, not trying to find loopholes within it when it suits your needs to do so.


I quite agree. And now I should like you to demonstrate to me the passage in the Constitution of the United States which forbids government funded bodies to hold prayers in public.

Look up Reynolds vs. US wherein people more qualified then you affirmed that yes, you are not allowed to do that, and that it is illegal, by researching the matter and coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was intended to be secularist.
It is part of the law, just because your interpretation differs, doesn't mean it is legal.


I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just.

What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers!
aoeua
Profile Joined February 2007
United Kingdom75 Posts
May 29 2011 23:57 GMT
#1647
On May 30 2011 08:55 sandroba wrote:
And yes, you are behind in that regard, as monarchy and state relgion have no practical use in modern society.


Ah, I see. Thanks for the update. I shall move to Brazil posthaste.
sandroba
Profile Joined April 2006
Canada4998 Posts
May 29 2011 23:59 GMT
#1648
Several things are not explicit in the constution, that's just how it works. The norm gets adjusted overtime, by the means of different rulling and interpretation, to match the current society mentality.
RockIronrod
Profile Joined May 2011
Australia1369 Posts
May 29 2011 23:59 GMT
#1649
On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2011 08:51 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:42 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:41 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.


A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.

You understand the Constitution by interpreting the meaning of it, not trying to find loopholes within it when it suits your needs to do so.


I quite agree. And now I should like you to demonstrate to me the passage in the Constitution of the United States which forbids government funded bodies to hold prayers in public.

Look up Reynolds vs. US wherein people more qualified then you affirmed that yes, you are not allowed to do that, and that it is illegal, by researching the matter and coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was intended to be secularist.
It is part of the law, just because your interpretation differs, doesn't mean it is legal.


I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just.

What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers!

Please show me exactly where it says I am not allowed to make love to giraffes.
The Constitution is not all encompassing, and we can't exactly bring back the founding fathers to reconsider anything they hadn't thought of comes up.
We can however legally declare something as unconstitutional by interpreting the intent of them as they wrote it.
sandroba
Profile Joined April 2006
Canada4998 Posts
May 30 2011 00:00 GMT
#1650
I see I hit a soft spot there. Maybe it would serve you better to get rid of your pride and see the big picture. =)
polysciguy
Profile Joined August 2010
United States488 Posts
May 30 2011 00:01 GMT
#1651
On May 30 2011 08:55 aoeua wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2011 08:51 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:42 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:41 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.


A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.

You understand the Constitution by interpreting the meaning of it, not trying to find loopholes within it when it suits your needs to do so.


I quite agree. And now I should like you to demonstrate to me the passage in the Constitution of the United States which forbids government funded bodies to hold prayers in public.

Look up Reynolds vs. US wherein people more qualified then you affirmed that yes, you are not allowed to do that, and that it is illegal, by researching the matter and coming to the conclusion that the U.S. was intended to be secularist.
It is part of the law, just because your interpretation differs, doesn't mean it is legal.


I'm not arguing whether its legal or not. It's clearly illegal. That's a statement of fact. But that doesn't mean that the law in force is constitutional or just.

What's the need for research? The Constitution is clear. Someone just show me exactly where it says that publically funded bodies may not offer public prayers!

the constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to an attorney either, yet it is your right isn't it?
glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever---napoleon
Timerly
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Germany511 Posts
May 30 2011 00:06 GMT
#1652
Get a grip, the interpretation of "how a law was intended" is standard practice in the science of law. Teleological approaches have been common in many countries for ages and for a good reason. Many, many years ago the constitution was created with different ideas behind it, the only reason for the consitution's existence is to preserve these ideas. Application of a constitution can never be a plain text approach when it comes to very specific matters. I mean in Germany we have one of the most modern (youngest) constitutions and even here we have these problems although it was created with many of today's applications in mind that could never have been in the american constitution.

Apart from that, secular states are the only way to preserve equality between all religions and the non-religious. When a president has to swear "so god help him" but doesn't believe in god he's in a problematic situation, don't you think so? Discriminate much?
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-30 00:12:31
May 30 2011 00:11 GMT
#1653
On May 30 2011 08:48 aoeua wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2011 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.


A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.


Yes, if you're looking for something else than what was intended.

Just, fyi, that's not how law works.


How do you know what was intended? You don't. You read the Constitution, and precisely what it prohibits in this instance is very clear. It does not prohibit publicly funded bodies to hold a prayer in public. It prohibits Congress to pass laws about religious organisations.


And the Supreme Court has clearly interpreted that passage to mean more than literally a law. They do this all the time. Forgive me if I trust the Supreme Court's opinion more than some random guy on the internet.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
tuggiesFTW
Profile Joined May 2011
8 Posts
May 30 2011 00:12 GMT
#1654
Should have just done what my school did. Tell the guest speaker, class president and valedictorian that if they felt it was appropriate, they could include a short prayer in their speech. Our class president talked to the other two people and included a brief, non-denominational prayer in their remarks.

No one was required to pray. No atheists or agnostics mentioned it. None of the ultra-religious students had an issue with it. Seems like everyone was happy to me (or at least realized that the majority was happy and it wasn't worth stirring up a shit storm over)
Chimpalimp
Profile Joined May 2010
United States1135 Posts
May 30 2011 00:14 GMT
#1655
On May 30 2011 08:48 aoeua wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2011 08:44 HellRoxYa wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:39 aoeua wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:35 RockIronrod wrote:
On May 30 2011 08:06 aoeua wrote:
I suspect the Supreme Court is wrong (it would be far from the first time). The phrasing of the Constitution on this matter is unequivocal. It says that the government may not establish a church. There is no reference to prayer.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist church, containing the phrase "Wall between church and state", which is where we get "separation of church and state."
This isn't the Supreme Court misinterpreting what the founding fathers intended, they wanted the U.S. to be a secularist entity.


A letter which was written while Thomas Jefferson was not even in the United States is not part of the Constitution. What does it even mean to interpret what the founding fathers wanted? You don't understand the Constitution by trying to deeply penetrate the psyches of the founding fathers. You understand the Constitution by reading the Constitution.


Yes, if you're looking for something else than what was intended.

Just, fyi, that's not how law works.


How do you know what was intended? You don't. You read the Constitution, and precisely what it prohibits in this instance is very clear. It does not prohibit publicly funded bodies to hold a prayer in public. It prohibits Congress to pass laws about religious organisations.



That's one way to interpret the constitution, but the supreme court generally does it differently. I mean if you want to be precise about how the Constitution should be interpreted, then allowing people to have guns only includes muskets and primitive firearms, as that is what the founding fathers intended when they wrote certain parts of the Constitution. My point is that interpretation is speculative, but it is commonly understood by law abiding officials that the separation of church and state is implied by the Constitution and is law.
I like money. You like money too? We should hang out.
polysciguy
Profile Joined August 2010
United States488 Posts
May 30 2011 00:30 GMT
#1656
On May 30 2011 09:12 tuggiesFTW wrote:
Should have just done what my school did. Tell the guest speaker, class president and valedictorian that if they felt it was appropriate, they could include a short prayer in their speech. Our class president talked to the other two people and included a brief, non-denominational prayer in their remarks.

No one was required to pray. No atheists or agnostics mentioned it. None of the ultra-religious students had an issue with it. Seems like everyone was happy to me (or at least realized that the majority was happy and it wasn't worth stirring up a shit storm over)


outlawed in lee v weisman 1992
glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever---napoleon
BlackMagister
Profile Joined October 2008
United States5834 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-30 00:51:12
May 30 2011 00:50 GMT
#1657
Damon Fowler (the guy this thread is about) talks on an atheist show called "The Non Prophets" along with another student Jessica Ahlquist on their experiences protesting religion at their schools.
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml
Damon is introduced about 3 minutes in and talks for about 20 minutes.

Jessica Ahlquist is protesting over a prayer banner at Cranston West in Rhode Island. It would deserve it's own thread, but it would end up with the same arguments here.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/CRANSTON_PRAYER_LAWSUIT_04-05-11_HINCG5L_v55.1af71b3.html
DragonDefonce
Profile Blog Joined April 2008
United States790 Posts
May 30 2011 00:58 GMT
#1658
I won't get into the legal details (because I'm not a lawyer) and I won't even argue in favor of either party.

I would however like to say a hearty fuck you to his parents. Their own son is getting bullied and harassed by everyone in town, and they disown him. Honestly, I think that is the most fucked up part about this whole ordeal, and if hell isn't a place for people like them, then hell doesn't exist.
polysciguy
Profile Joined August 2010
United States488 Posts
May 30 2011 01:01 GMT
#1659
On May 30 2011 09:58 DragonDefonce wrote:
I won't get into the legal details (because I'm not a lawyer) and I won't even argue in favor of either party.

I would however like to say a hearty fuck you to his parents. Their own son is getting bullied and harassed by everyone in town, and they disown him. Honestly, I think that is the most fucked up part about this whole ordeal, and if hell isn't a place for people like them, then hell doesn't exist.

you can be most assured that they will most likely be headed to the 9th circle.
glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever---napoleon
BlackMagister
Profile Joined October 2008
United States5834 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-05-30 01:26:25
May 30 2011 01:25 GMT
#1660
It's kind of disturbing how people relish in dreaming about how others will suffer eternally in hell. Second what his parents did was wrong, but wasn't anything special in the context of the community. I'm sure a lot of parents in that community would have kicked out their children if they did what Damon did.

Really it's not like his parents are demons incarnate, they just have horrible misconceptions that they've been raised believing. According to Damon he wasn't kicked out of his home when they found out he was an atheist (he was outed by someone else a few weeks before this incident), he was kicked out when they found out he opposed his prayer. His parents like many people in the community are too used to thinking of themselves as being in the right simply because they are the majority. Being an atheist is one thing, but to actually question them is another , the death threats and horrible comments were not by just a few people.

Oh another interesting thing is Damon said he overheard them planning to jump him after graduation, but he got out of their as soon as it ended plus there was extra protection that the school had to provide because of the Freedom from Religion group. Although the school claimed it was to protect the students from atheists.

http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/nonprophets.xml
Prev 1 81 82 83 84 85 92 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 21m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
actioN 323
Hyuk 305
Backho 217
Noble 78
Sharp 45
JulyZerg 32
sorry 31
yabsab 21
Soma 19
Sacsri 15
[ Show more ]
Bale 13
NaDa 11
Free 11
IntoTheRainbow 7
Dota 2
XcaliburYe385
XaKoH 328
League of Legends
JimRising 609
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss724
chrisJcsgo77
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor139
Other Games
tarik_tv1376
shahzam852
Stewie2K796
ceh9480
monkeys_forever264
crisheroes248
Liquid`RaSZi147
SortOf68
Lowko64
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick23128
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH392
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• tankgirl 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota2177
League of Legends
• Lourlo1286
• Stunt434
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
1h 21m
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
4h 21m
Replay Cast
15h 21m
RSL Revival
1d 1h
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d 7h
OSC
1d 11h
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
2 days
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.