Supreme Court rules for coach in public school prayer case

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  402 comments

By:   AOL

Supreme Court rules for coach in public school prayer case
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field immediately after games, a decision that

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court ruled Mondaythat a Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field immediately after games, a decision that could lead to more acceptance of religious expression in public schools.

The ruling was a victory for Joseph Kennedy, who claimed that the Bremerton School District violated his religious freedom by telling him he couldn't pray so publicly after the games. The district said it was trying to avoid the appearance that the school was endorsing a religious point of view.

In recent years, a more conservative Supreme Court has been inclined to view government actions it once considered to be neutral and necessary to maintain separation of church and state as hostile to religious expression.

One issue in the case was whether the coach's decision to pray in such a prominent place, on the 50-yard line, amounted to a private moment of giving thanks or a public demonstration of his religious faith that his players may have felt compelled to join.

Kennedy urged the Supreme Court to find that he was acting on his own behalf, expressing his own religious views, not speaking not as a mouthpiece for the school. But the school district said the students on the football team looked up to their coach and felt coerced into doing as he did.

Post game prayer (Meegan M. Reid / Kitsap Sun via AP file)

He became an assistant coach of the varsity football team at Bremerton High School in 2008 and later began offering a brief prayer on the field after games ended and the players and coaches met midfield to shake hands. The school district eventually told him he should find a private location for praying.

But he declined and continued his practice of dropping to one knee and praying on the 50-yard line. He later invited journalists and a state legislator to watch. The district gave him a poor performance evaluation, and he did not apply to renew his contract after the 2015 football season. Kennedy sued, claiming violations of his right to free expression and religious freedom.

Lower federal courts said because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves.

Kennedy now lives in Florida but has said that if the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, he would return to Bremerton and seek to regain his job as a part-time football coach.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Translation:  The coach was engaged in a private act of faith.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

In public on school grounds.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.1    one month ago

You can't pray "in public?"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1    one month ago
In public on school grounds.

Perfectly acceptable and fine.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

No, it offends the triggered.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

If you think he wasn't doing it for anything other than show....

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @1.1.4    one month ago

Possibly the most ignorant and uninformed comment to ever grace NT.

And THAT is saying something.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Ender @1.1.4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.3    one month ago

You mean the peaceful protestors, the enlightened and the nasty?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Ender  replied to  devangelical @1.1.6    one month ago

I guess I stepped into my people on ignore fan club.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @1.1.4    one month ago

You knew what was in his heart & mind?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.5    one month ago
And THAT is saying something.

Well, now it is only the second most ignorant comment.

See @ 1.1.6

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago

Yep, when he invites the press to watch.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
1.1.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @1.1.4    one month ago
If you think he wasn't doing it for anything other than show....

We are not talking about Kaepernick here.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Ender  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.12    one month ago

Have at it. I am done with Vic's articles. No more. You all can wallow in what you all create yourselves.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
1.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @1.1.13    one month ago

Good for you.  Now you know how I feel about three posters here.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one month ago

Lol ..... no doubt

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @1.1.8    one month ago

The way you “ignore” people, is quite interesting.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.5    one month ago
Possibly the most ignorant and uninformed comment to ever grace NT. And THAT is saying something.

Dude...  That comment is not in the top 50.

We've spent the last 4 days reading completely hysterical gobshite about how we're living in The Handmaid's Tale, or how women have "no control" over their own bodies, or ....true story... we're returning to slavery.  People have lost their minds.  Completely.  

There is a point to be made about the nature of these public prayers and how there definitely IS an element of doing it for show. In evangelical life, we would say "as a witness".  This guy chooses to pray conspicuously instead of privately because public prayer achieves things private prayer does not.

The key question here that liberals will absolutely refuse to answer is "if a Muslim teacher was leading these prayers for Muslim kids, would they object?"  But it's also a great question for the pro-prayer parents.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.17    one month ago

Hey, I know it’s a pretty high bar but pretty sure that comment Fosbury Flopped right over it.

People would do well to stop worrying about other people and concentrate on the righteousness of their own actions.

Generation Narcissist in action ......

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
1.1.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.16    one month ago
The way you “ignore” people, is quite interesting.

That probably got you on the list.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.19    one month ago

Already safely there ..... allegedly .....

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.21  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @1.1.13    one month ago
"Have at it. I am done with Vic's articles. No more. You all can wallow in what you all create yourselves"

[Deleted]

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.22  pat wilson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.21    one month ago

You too ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one month ago
You knew what was in his heart & mind?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.23    one month ago

Good cut n' paste.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.17    one month ago
The key question here that liberals will absolutely refuse to answer is "if a Muslim teacher was leading these prayers for Muslim kids, would they object?"

This liberal would. But this SCOTUS decision has now made that a moot point. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and all other faiths now have been sanctioned to pray on the 50-yard line

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
1.1.26  evilgenius  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.25    one month ago

I'll be the one laughing when the SCA pulls up with their Baphomet statue. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.27  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.25    one month ago
Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and all other faiths now have been sanctioned to pray on the 50-yard line

Of course.  As they should be.

A melting pot of free people exercising freedoms in a free country. 

And it's almost the 4th of July.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
1.1.28  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Jesus told his followers not to do that, but like many other books the bible is a book that conservatives have never read. . Matthew 6:6-7. Maybe Christians should obey their own bible or would that be a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs?

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

 The problem with this decision is that it is a violation of the separation of church and state because the coach is a state actor. This decision will s be seen as the hypocritical farce that it is when other religions such as the Satanists, Pagans, atheists, and Muslims start to pray on public school property and the job as well as to coerce students to prray a different religion.  This religious decision doesn't just apply to Christians but to teachers and coaches of all faiths taking part in prayer during their job and coercing students to take part. 

 The screeching of conservative Christians will be amazing when that happens because they can not deny equal opportunities to other faith to do the same as this coach.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @1.1.28    one month ago
The problem with this decision is that it is a violation of the separation of church and state because the coach is a state actor.

There is no problem with this decision.

The people whose opinions actually count on the matter have disagreed with you.

The screeching of conservative Christians will be amazing when that happens because they can not deny equal opportunities to other faith to do the same as this coach.

It will be interesting if that ever occurs. I want to see if all the folks complaining about this will defend the "equal opportunities" for other faiths or will your argument be something different?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Translation:  The coach was engaged in a private act of faith.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "private"?  You cannot have a "private" act of faith on the 50 yard line in front of hundreds of onlookers.

So, once again this right wing radical Supreme Court chooses to ignore all past rulings by previous Supreme Courts, and rule contrary to history.

Lower federal courts said because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves.

I wonder how different their decision would have been if it had been a Muslim praying in the middle of the field?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
Do you understand the meaning of the word "private"? 

One of the words, along with public that has been misused here many times.  Are you claiming the Justices don't know the law?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
I wonder how different their decision would have been if it had been a Muslim praying in the middle of the field?

Well, all you have to do to find out is bring a case to court involving a Muslim employed by a school district praying publicly. And have lower courts rule against the person praying.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
1.2.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
"Lower federal courts said because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves."

Interesting but I would have a couple questions:

50 yard line after a high school football game a prominent place?

Acting as a public employee?  The game was over.

Acting in his official capacity?  Really, was he trying to convert anyone?

"I wonder how different their decision would have been if it had been a Muslim praying in the middle of the field?"

Unless the case comes before them all you can do is wonder although that is better than some of the liberals here who will proclaim they already know.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
You cannot have a "private" act of faith on the 50 yard line in front of hundreds of onlookers.

Sure you can, did it many times.

And no one was forced to observe it.     In any case .....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    one month ago

Are you claiming the Justices don't know the law?

Apparently, at least 5 of them don't.  Or are you claiming all the previous judges that upheld Roe v Wade were wrong?

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.2.6  Revillug  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    one month ago
Are you claiming the Justices don't know the law?

They know the law. They intend to change the law.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Revillug @1.2.6    one month ago
They know the law.

That they do.


 They intend to change the law.

Yes, the law wrongly enacted by Harry Blackmun and Co.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.7    one month ago
Yes, the law wrongly enacted by Harry Blackmun and Co.

And, according to you apparently, wrongly upheld dozens of times in court.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    one month ago
You cannot have a "private" act of faith on the 50 yard line in front of hundreds of onlookers.

I’ve got news for you, it happens multiple times, every night in the US under the Friday night lights ..... and you don’t even know it.    In the huddles, individuals to themselves, on every yard line, before the game, after the game, in front of thousands of people, who haven’t a clue.   Well those of who were out there do.

It seems to me that the people who are offended by this could simply look the other way and mind their own business but no ..... they gotta try to manipulate others to their way of thinking.   It’s BS.

A coach praying on the 50 yard line is absolutely a constitutionally protected act.    SCOTUS got this one right.    No matter how some try to spin it otherwise.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.9    one month ago
I’ve got news for you, it happens multiple times, every night in the US under the Friday night lights

How can it be EVERY night, but only under the FRIDAY night lights?  Does the week consist of 7 Fridays in your red colored world?

In the huddles, individuals to themselves, on every yard line, before the game, after the game, in front of thousands of people, who haven’t a clue.

If those thousands of people don't have a clue about it, it is not being done publicly.  It may be in a public area, but the act is being done privately.  The coach was doing publicly so everyone knew what he was doing.

It seems to me that the people who are offended by this could simply look the other way and mind their own business

Even the boys on the team who felt that if they didn't participate the coach would punish them?  Even them?

A coach praying on the 50 yard line is absolutely a constitutionally protected act.

Bullshit.  That's your opinion that has1 single finding for you, but thousands of times prior has been shown to be wrong.  This current extreme right wing majority SCOTUS is making decisions that fly in the face of decades of previous decisions by local, state, federal, and even previous Supreme courts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.10    one month ago
How can it be EVERY night, but only under the FRIDAY night lights?  Does the week consist of 7 Fridays in your red colored world?

No need or purpose for your obtuseness.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.11    one month ago

Obviously someone here thinks that the only sport played under the lights is football on a Friday night. No soccer. No Lacrosse. No tennis. No rugby. Nothing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.11    one month ago

The purpose is to deflect, redirect, attempt to redefine the written word.    In others words, lie to push a narrative.

It’s weak sauce, every time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @1.2.13    one month ago
The purpose is to deflect, redirect, attempt to redefine the written word.    In others words, lie to push a narrative. It’s weak sauce, every time.

Yep, but I don't have any problem in calling folks out for it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.14    one month ago

Yep, it’s not a tough job so everyone should be doing it.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
private

Private and public are opposites.   He was engaged in a public act of faith:

But he declined and continued his practice of dropping to one knee and praying on the 50-yard line. He later invited journalists and a state legislator to watch. 

It was the public aspect that brought this practice into question.   Now the question is answered.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3    one month ago
He was engaged in a public act of faith:

Since when is faith restricted to the confines of a Church?


The free exercise of religion has prevailed. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    one month ago
Since when is faith restricted to the confines of a Church?

Who said it was?     

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.2    one month ago

I'm glad to hear that we agree.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    one month ago

Hold an obvious truth as such and we will agree more.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.4    one month ago

Recognize the truth and we'll do even better.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.5    one month ago

Says the guy who holds that China extemporaneously infected the entire planet with COVID-19 in the hope that it would cause Trump to lose the election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.6    one month ago

What China did when the pandemic burst forth in their country is well known:




It absolutely led to the defeat of Trump in 2020. Oh, that's right, you can't be open minded on anything that pertains to Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.7    one month ago

It is certainly not well known that China intentionally infected the planet.   Your conspiracy theory remains ridiculous.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.8    one month ago

Oh but it is. Did you read the link?

They knew it was a deadly virus. Proof of which was that they locked down all domestic traffic. Then they allowed flights to go out to the rest of the world.

Very easy to understand. No education required.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.9    one month ago

Amazing after all this time and you still believe the ridiculous conspiracy theory that China intentionally infected the planet.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.10    one month ago

Large lettering and blue print won't do it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.11    one month ago

Clearly, since you continue to hold this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Utterly amazing that someone could actually believe that China would extemporaneously use the breakout of a virus to intentionally plunge the planet into a pandemic on the hope that it would cause Trump to lose.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.12    one month ago

Ahh, there it is...the fixation with Trump. The country wouldn't be suffering now if he had been reelected.  

Repeating won't help either.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.13    one month ago

The Trump aspect came from you Vic.   You are the one who argued that China was motivated to plunge the world into a pandemic to get at Trump.

Your conspiracy theory is absurd so your talk of holding to the truth is a fantasy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.14    one month ago
The Trump aspect came from you Vic.  

A lot of people have done things to Trump, including US government agencies.  It's not really in the realm of fantasy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.15    one month ago
A lot of people have done things to Trump, including US government agencies.

The fact that others have 'done things to Trump' is irrelevant.   You justify your ridiculous conspiracy theory that China infected the planet to get at Trump with 'a lot of people have done things to Trump'?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.16    one month ago
The fact that others have 'done things to Trump' is irrelevant. 

Not as far as I'm concerned.


You justify your ridiculous conspiracy theory that China infected the planet to get at Trump with 'a lot of people have done things to Trump'?

Reasons for why China let the virus out to the world are basically conjecture. That being said, Trump had finally turned the tables on the ridiculous trade agreements with China that caused so much damage to this country and greatly benefitted China.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.17    one month ago
Not as far as I'm concerned.

A failure then of basic logic:

  1. Others have done things to Trump
  2. ⛬    China intentionally plunged the planet into a pandemic to 'do something to' Trump.

No, Vic, that is an invalid argument.   Where 'invalid' is referring to the validity concept of propositional logic.

Reasons for why China let the virus out to the world are basically conjecture.

And some conjectures are ridiculous.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.15    one month ago

How ludicrous.

What 'things' have 'a lot of people' done to whatshisname including US government agencies?

What a load of bullshit.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.18    one month ago

Here's one more. If another nation does anything to China, it could happen again.

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.19    one month ago

Did you know there was a hoax and two investigations based on that hoax?

Did you know that FISA warrant applications were doctored?

Did you know that the media demonized him at every opportunity?

Did you know that rioters burned a church and were only yards away from storming the White House?

Did you know there were two bogus impeachments?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.20    one month ago

Conspiracy theories are typically the antithesis of truth since they are almost always based on wild speculation and bias.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.22    one month ago
Conspiracy theories

And let us never forget the "Russian disinformation!"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.24  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.21    one month ago

You just make it all up as you go along.  

Only a fool believes all that.  Only a fool believes any of that.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.25  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.23    one month ago

The difference is that I never engaged in conspiracy theories;  you did and still do.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.22    one month ago
since they are almost always based on wild speculation and bias.

Not recently. Recently there have been OPINIONS based on the obvious.

Remember not long ago how we heard that a FISA application had many safeguards that would keep everything Kosher. How did the FISA Court do when it came to making sure the FBI was honest?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.25    one month ago
The difference is

The difference is that you hate Trump and I will always be in his debt for setting this country on the right course for 4 years, while under constant fire.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.28  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.27    one month ago
"The difference is that you hate Trump and I will always be in his debt for setting this country on the right course for 4 years, while under constant fire."

Delusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.29  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.27    one month ago

I have told you already that I do not hate Trump.   My objection to Trump holding public office has nothing whatsoever to do with emotion.   My reasons, which I have stated dozens of times, are all based on what Trump has done.

You can credit Trump for whatever you wish, Vic, but his profound failures in office which illustrate an abysmal character should cause everyone to never vote for him again.

Finally, you dodged from conspiracy theories (what we were discussing) by bringing up Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.30  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.29    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.4  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Translation:  The coach was engaged in a private act of faith.

No. He wasn't.

  • He was on the job at the 50 yard line.
  • His players were proselytizing for him, encouraging other players to come and pray.
  • When he got told to stop,  he doubled down and went on a media campaign 
  • His lawyer assisted and amplified his hype

His prayer at the homecoming was in public and since he was a public employee and on the job, can be considered an act of the state.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.4    one month ago
His prayer at the homecoming was in public and since he was a public employee and on the job, can be considered an act of the state.  

You used the same argument to defend Colin Kaepernick. Back then our liberal wing told us that his freedoms existed everywhere.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.4.2  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    one month ago
You used the same argument to defend Colin Kaepernick.

Show me where I said that Keapernick was a public employee. 

Back then our liberal wing told us that his freedoms existed everywhere.

Employees for a public entity represent that public entity while on the job. Anything that the employee does while on the job reflects on the public entity and can reasonably be construed to be sanctioned by the public entity, especially an act at an event like a homecoming game.  

I don't care if he prays on his own time,  or silently wherever he is, but the fact that he was being public about what he was doing combined with the fact that he was actively courting media attention means that he was not simply doing it as an act of faith but had other motives as well.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
1.4.3  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.4.1    one month ago

Colin Kapernick was not a public actor when he was praying. This is an issue of the separation of church and state because the coach was employed by the government at the time. The state is to be neutral on all issues of faith, so he should not be praying and coercing students to take part on the job. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @2    one month ago

Captain meme strikes again ..... pow, bang, zoom!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
2.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2    one month ago

Of course you would post some stupid meme like that. Meme are easy. But governing and life is not.  I hope you are smart enough to realize that once again, some liberals try to condense all people issues down to a. . . stupid meme.  Once again, trying to 'discount' peoples religious beliefs. Pathetic.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2    one month ago

Progressives have a real issue with folks that are not their kind.

Real issues .....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2    one month ago

FWQ9yshUcAAoBn3?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
2.3.2  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @2.3.1    one month ago

I'm not sure what Tessy' said but I probably would have agreed with it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @2    one month ago

they are giving catholics a bad name

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4    one month ago
they are giving catholics a bad name

Who is they? 

Who sees the bad name? 

Why do they pay attention to this minority?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.1    one month ago

huh?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.2    one month ago
huh?  They are giving catholics a bad name

Are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett giving catholics a bad name?

Who sees the bad name?  Who stigmatizes catholics based on this bunch

Why do they pay attention to this minority? Why don't they pay attention to the good that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are doing/

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
2.4.4  Revillug  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.3    one month ago

You left out Gorsuch who was raised catholic but now worships as an Episcopal.

Who sees the bad name?  Who stigmatizes catholics based on this bunch

It does look a bit like the catholics are not only way overrepresented on the court but are imposing their religious values on their rulings.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.4.5  Sparty On  replied to  Revillug @2.4.4    one month ago

Yeah, I remember when we elected our first Catholic president.    A lot of people freaked out then as well.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
2.4.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @2.4.5    one month ago

I remember too. My dad freaked.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.4.7  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.4.6    one month ago

One of the few times I saw my parents cry, when JFK was assasinated.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
2.4.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @2.4.7    one month ago

Ditto

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    one month ago

Oh, gee, how much whining will be done over this?

Will some of our more liberal friends be able to survive this week's rulings?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
3.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3    one month ago
Will some of our more liberal friends be able to survive this week's rulings?

At best puppy sales are going up and more safe spaces are filling up again.  Pussy hat sales are also going up.  Bars are filling up so they can drown their sorrows and straw sales are increasing because many of them are drinking with their masks on.

Hopefully that is as bad as it gets and suicide hotlines don't have to add more operators.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    one month ago
he would return to Bremerton and seek to regain his job as a part-time football coach

Good luck with that....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4    one month ago

The teachers' union may help him out!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5  Drinker of the Wry    one month ago

It would have been Ok if he had just copped a knee and prayed during the National Anthem.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5    one month ago

Lol ..... great minds .....

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5.2  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5    one month ago
It would have been Ok if he had just copped a knee and prayed during the National Anthem.  

Unless the school & school board asked him not to, based on decades of similar cases being found in favor of the schools, many times by SCOTUS.

The school board was acting prudently based on "settled law".

Coach was asked multiple times to stop and instead he literally made a federal case out of it. 

No wonder they did not offer him another contract.

Now he's free to apply again after 6 years?  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    one month ago

One take a knee (Kaepernick) good.

This take a knee bad ..... /S

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7  Ender    one month ago

So he quits and then sues....I want to know who bankrolled all of this.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
7.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @7    one month ago

I assume not George Soros, his money is tied up other places.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Ender  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.1    one month ago

So no clue aye?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @7.1.1    one month ago
So no clue aye?

He doesn't seem to be the only one.....

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
7.1.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ender @7.1.1    one month ago

No clue and I don't care.  I have a feeling they will get paid back and schools will be more careful with their actions in the future.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.1    one month ago

George Soros funding crazy leftist narratives ...... good

Anyone funding a fight for religious freedoms .... bad.

Got it?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
7.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.4    one month ago

I think so.  It is so confusing trying to keep up with their rules (not to mention keep count of how many genders there are on any given day)

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @7    one month ago

The opposite people that bankroll BLM and Antifa?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8  Hallux    one month ago

One is left to wonder how this would have played out if Joseph Kennedy rolled out a prayer rug and kneeled facing Mecca.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8    one month ago
if Joseph Kennedy rolled out a prayer rug

Very doubtful. He was too busy with bootlegging, stock manipulation and bagging the 1960 election.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    one month ago

How 'fortunate' for you there are "several" people/squirrels named Joseph Kennedy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.1    one month ago

Where there any good ones?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
8.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    one month ago

You tell me, your seeded article is about one of them. I assume you read it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @8.1.3    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @8.1.3    one month ago

I just thought I'd make sure both got a little kick.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.4    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
8.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Hallux @8    one month ago
One is left to wonder how this would have played out if Joseph Kennedy rolled out a prayer rug and kneeled facing Mecca.

One has to wonder if the school would have had a problem with that to begin with.  Or if the school would have told anyone that complained there was nothing they could do.  Interesting thought but only conjecture at this point.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
8.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Hallux @8    one month ago
One is left to wonder how this would have played out if Joseph Kennedy rolled out a prayer rug and kneeled facing Mecca.

It's an excellent question.  It's also one we'll be dealing with in this country before long.  

If one group is free to pray (and I think it's clear they should be), then other groups must be equally free.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
8.3.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3    one month ago

Sounds good to me.  Maybe there will be signs for each religion so different groups can join in at the end of a game, and I will have to deal with less traffic getting out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3    one month ago
If one group is free to pray (and I think it's clear they should be), then other groups must be equally free.

Basic 1st amendment freedom.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9  Sean Treacy    one month ago

A win for tolerance and free speech.

no surprise the intolerant are most triggered.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    one month ago

Haters gotta hate ...... they just gotta!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
9.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Sparty On @9.1    one month ago
Haters gotta hate ...... they just gotta!

And if they don't have a legitimate reason they will just make one up.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
9.2  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    one month ago

 This was not an issue of tolerance and free speech. It was an issue of separation of church and state because the coach is a state actor/employee. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago
Kennedy walked to midfield for the customary handshake with the opposing team.  As instructed by the September 17 letter, he waited until the students began engaging in other conduct “physically separate” from him—namely, walking toward the stands to sing the post-game fight song.  He then knelt at the 50-yard line, closed his eyes, and prayed a brief, quiet prayer. While he was kneeling with his eyes closed, coaches and players from the opposing team, along with members of the public, decided to join him on the field and to kneel beside him. Kennedy did not ask anyone to join him, and he did not know that anyone would do so. Various media documented the gathering, as “media attention” regarding the district’s efforts to stop Kennedy’s prayer had by then “gained steam.” (emphasis mine)

So somebody got bent out of shape because the players decided, on their own, to join their coach mid-field.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    one month ago
He then knelt at the 50-yard line, closed his eyes, and prayed a brief, quiet prayer.

Kneeling on the "50 yard line" is inherently ostentatious, designed to call attention to himself. No honest person could argue otherwise. The question is whether or not it is "constitutional" to call attention to himself praying at a public high school football game. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one month ago
Kneeling on the "50 yard line" is inherently ostentatious, designed to call attention to himself.

Yup

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
10.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one month ago

Exactly, like kneeling on the sidelines during the National Anthem, it screams, look at me, I’m special.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one month ago

Here.  

You might learn something.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.2    one month ago

Good thing Kaepernick still has a job with the NFL. /s  Otherwise his "rights" would have been violated. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.2    one month ago

Your sarcasm fails here.   If a professional football player (clearly distinguished from the crowd and very public) does something different than the other players (like kneeling during the National Anthem) that most definitely is calling attention to that player.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
10.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one month ago
Kneeling on the "50 yard line" is inherently ostentatious, designed to call attention to himself.

How about the 25 yard line?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
10.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.4    one month ago

Apples and dump trucks. Who says this guy will ever work again for one thing. For another, CK was going downhill prior to his NOT getting another job.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.4    one month ago
Good thing Kaepernick still has a job with the NFL. /s  Otherwise his "rights" would have been violated. 

Oh, that's right, he had a right to kneel on the sidelines as the National Anthem was played. I guess the 1st Amendment only extends to white hating, America hating third string quarterbacks.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
10.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.7    one month ago
CK was going downhill prior to his NOT getting another job.

Other teams defenses figured him out and a way to defense him.  He had a terrible last year and no one wanted him (and his baggage).

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @10.1.9    one month ago

I think your point about his talent is irrelevant, but I will answer it anyway. For most of the years, if not all of them, since he was let go , he has remained equally or more talented than many of the quarterbacks who have second or third string jobs in the NFL. He said almost immediately that he would accept not being a starter. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.10    one month ago

The supposition that some NFL team, would not hire him if could help the team, is absolutely ridiculous.    

The point is to win games after all.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
10.1.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.10    one month ago
he has remained equally or more talented than many of the quarterbacks who have second or third string jobs in the NFL.

Obviously not an opinion shared by any NFL teams which are not known for making decisions that can hurt them make money or get a Lombardi trophy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one month ago
The question is whether or not it is "constitutional" to call attention to himself praying at a public high school football game. 

Not any more it isn't!

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
10.1.14  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @10.1.2    one month ago

A "professional" protesting the American Flag or Anthem in an arena

vs a public employee praying publicly at a taxpayer built and owned high school facility?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
10.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.4    one month ago
Good thing Kaepernick still has a job with the NFL. /s  Otherwise his "rights" would have been violated. 

If he was a good quarterback, he would have a job.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
10.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @10.1.14    one month ago
A "professional" protesting the American Flag or Anthem in an arena vs a public employee praying publicly at a taxpayer built and owned high school facility?

Both are completely within their rights.  Just like Tim Tebow praying in the end zone.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
10.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.10    one month ago
I think your point about his talent is irrelevant,

Riiiiiiight.   Who needs talent in the NFL??  

For most of the years, if not all of them, since he was let go , he has remained equally or more talented than many of the quarterbacks who have second or third string jobs in the NFL. He said almost immediately that he would accept not being a starter. 

Do you understand how the salary cap works?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  JohnRussell    one month ago

The idea that the constitution has spoken on this issue, now or before, is just silly.  The constitution says nothing about a governmental employee praying in public at a government facility. One can easily argue it violates state and church separation, and one can also argue it is a private act. 

The SC decision is a political decision based on a far right majority on the Court. That is all it is. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago
The constitution says nothing about a governmental employee praying in public at a government facility.

The CotUS is vague on almost every issue.    What the CotUS 'says' on an issue is what the SCotUS states that it 'says'.    And now that the SCotUS is ultra-conservative, the CotUS has magically become ultra-conservative too.

I doubt there would have been any issue if the coach had simply prayed in the bleachers.   Going out into the middle of the field and inviting reporters to witness is likely what brought this into question.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    one month ago

Yep. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago
The constitution says nothing about a governmental employee praying in public at a government facility.

It's called the 1st Amendment.

Both the free speech and free exercise of religion provisions came into play on this one.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2    one month ago

I believe at some point Jesus said it was preferable that prayer be more private . 

Why did this coach feel the need to proselytize at a football game?  Open, ostentatious prayer does equate to proselytizing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago
I believe at some point Jesus said it was preferable that prayer be more private . 

That's funny, I thought he was all about TOLERANCE!!!!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2    one month ago

We also have separation of Chuch and State and somehow you seem to forget it.

There is a reason for that and this court seems to forget that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.3    one month ago
We also have separation of Chuch and State and somehow you seem to forget it.

With all due respect, it is separation from, not the exclusion of religion. That means the US government cannot endorse a single religion. The 1st Amendment provides for the free exercise of religion.

There is a reason for that and this court seems to forget that.

The left will not be able to use this Court. From now on they'll have to win elections.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago
Why did this coach feel the need to proselytize at a football game? 

Lol he wasn’t trying to convert anyone.    He was taking a moment to pray for himself.    You blow this way out of proportion.

Way out

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.3    one month ago

When the state endorses and pushes only one religion I’ll agree with you.    Until that day happens ...... nope.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.4    one month ago
The left will not be able to use this Court. From now on they'll have to win elections.

This is not a matter of left, Vic. It is a matter of using one's position to push their own personal agenda. As a coach (and a teacher), his public prayer is an endorsement of a specific faith. I personally am not comfortable with that and his students may feel the same way.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.6    one month ago

He is a leader in his community (the school). Public schools do not allow for that and there is a reason. Try being a minority faith and not feeling uncomfortable with that. If his intent was to just pray, he didn't need to make it a public presentation. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.7    one month ago

What about the 1st Amendment?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.8    one month ago
Try being a minority faith and not feeling uncomfortable with that.

A little tolerance for others might be a unifying gesture.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.9    one month ago

It's not absolute Vic. If it were then teachers could talk about their own beliefs in class like CRT, right? As teachers, we have restrictions on what we can and can not do. He can pray, but privately.  Self-initiated student prayer in schools has been upheld in the courts, but not by educators.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.10    one month ago

So you totally ignored my point about being a minority faith. Walk a mile in my shoes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.11    one month ago
If it were then teachers could talk about their own beliefs in class like CRT, right?

You mean they're not?

Aren't we going a little off course?  He didn't pray in school, did he?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.14  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.7    one month ago
As a coach (and a teacher), his public prayer is an endorsement of a specific faith.   I personally am not comfortable with that and his students may feel the same way.

Like many folks I don’t.   His religious liberties shouldn’t be restricted simply because he is a coach or a teacher.    His actions did nothing to push his faith on anyone else.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.12    one month ago

I didn't ignore it. I've been thinking about that since prayer was taken out of the schools. To this day I don't know how I feel about that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.16  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.12    one month ago

Walk a mile in my shoes.    That knife cuts both ways.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.13    one month ago

He did if it is on the school's field. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.2.18  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.4    one month ago

“The left will not be able to use this Court. From now on they'll have to win elections.”

The most dangerous thing one can say, much less support…doing so is in direct opposition to the intent of our founding principles. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.16    one month ago

No it doesn't. It is a public school and therefore, there is separation of church and state. If I wanted that for my children I would send them to a religious school, where he is free to pray in his faith.

I just can't wait till a Muslim coach does this. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.20  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.8    one month ago
If his intent was to just pray, he didn't need to make it a public presentation. 

Your opinion and only your opinion.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.15    one month ago

Prayer has no business in a public school. If you want prayer, send them to a religious school.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.20    one month ago

No, it wasn't my opinion and only mine. It was the courts until this batch got in.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.17    one month ago

Apparently Chuck Schumer allowed the Senate Chaplin to open this session with a prayer from inside the Senate Chamber and Nancy Pelosi allowed Rep. Cleaver to do the same in the House.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.24  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.19    one month ago
No it doesn't.

Yes it does and the fact that you think it doesn’t is the end of this conversation.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.24    one month ago

Huh? I wrote down why it doesn't.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.26  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.22    one month ago

Yes and ruled strictly based on the constitution.

Yep, it’s going to get sporty in this country if this keeps going.     Whatever it takes, I support the original intent of the constitution.

Too bad you don’t

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.17    one month ago
He did if it is on the school's field. 

What he did was to express "a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by" the First Amendment," according to Justice Gorsuch.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.2.23    one month ago

You know, I am not an expert on what goes on in Congress, but I am pretty well versed in public schools.

So please try to stop playing "gotchya" with me. This is limited to public schools.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
11.2.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.8    one month ago
Try being a minority faith and not feeling uncomfortable with that.

I didn't see anywhere where it said WHAT faith he is. Perhaps he is a minority faith like the person in your shoes or..........maybe that Muslim coach you mentioned.......................

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.30  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.27    one month ago

He didn't have to do a public display and that is what is at issue, not if he had the right to pray privately.

The 1st has its limitations, you know.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.31  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.25    one month ago

And I explained why it does in this seed.    Sorry you are apparently confused by an opinion that doesn’t align perfectly with yours.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.21    one month ago
Prayer has no business in a public school.

I'm not advocating for that. I'm still undecided about that. The concept of minority rule is still on my mind.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.33  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.2.29    one month ago

Oh, come on Jim. He isn't Muslim and he isn't Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist. Give me a break. And btw, I wouldn't support them either for doing this because it is a public school and we have a separation of church and state which makes us very different from any other country in this world.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.30    one month ago
The 1st has its limitations, you know.

Such as?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.35  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.34    one month ago

As prayer in school.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.36  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.31    one month ago

First of all, if you are going to be snarky with me, I might respond in kind. It has not been my personal opinion till now. It has been the courts and this is a reversal.

As I said, I can't wait for the first Muslim coach to do this.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.37  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.35    one month ago

Right now, nobody disputes that. A brief prayer on the field is something else.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.38  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.32    one month ago

It would be a lot more on your mind if the coach was Muslim.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.39  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.37    one month ago

A brief prayer before walking out on the field and making it a public display would be something else.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.31    one month ago

Lets keep it civil. The line is getting close.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.41  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.27    one month ago

And that is Justice Gorsuch's opinion. He did it very publicly. That breaks from all other decisions on this prior to this court.

And how would you feel if it was a Muslim coach? He is then protected, right?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.42  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.38    one month ago
It would be a lot more on your mind if the couch was Muslim.

You know what...I don't think the school would have complained.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.43  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.41    one month ago
And that is Justice Gorsuch's opinion.

His opinion counts.


And how would you feel if it was a Muslim coach? He is then protected, right?

Right. And I don't think the school would of had a problem, but we'll never know, unless it happens.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.44  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.26    one month ago

Excuse me, but frankly, I think you live by whatever suits what you want. I live by what has been precident until we got a strictly conservative court, who are doing what they want.

The intent of our founders was that we were supposed to not have a separation of church and state. It is clearly stated in our constitution. 

Now you better stop with the insults, or I will flag you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.45  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.36    one month ago

First of all ...... I’m not the one being snarky here.    First of all?    Really?   First of all?    Preach much?

Not your personal opinion until now?

I can’t count the times I prayed on the field as a player, with others players/coaches/parents/fans and yet no one complained.    We are about the same age, I’m sure you witnessed the same thing many times.    Or maybe NY is different from Michigan.

I call BS this just starting to be your opinion after this decision was rendered.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.46  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.28    one month ago
So please try to stop playing "gotchya" with me. This is limited to public schools.

The case involved a public school but the legal issue was the separation of church and state.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.47  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.43    one month ago

Vic, you still didn't answered my question. How would you feel if it was a Muslim coach?

This is a slippery slope.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.48  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.44    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.49  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.47    one month ago
How would you feel if it was a Muslim coach?

I wouldn't like it


This is a slippery slope.

It could very well be. The only question must be: Is it Constitutional?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.50  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.40    one month ago

Another knife that cuts both ways ....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.51  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.45    one month ago

I have not been snarky to you Sparty, other than posting, and nothing personal to you until then. 

I can’t count the times I prayed on the field as a player, with others players/coaches/parents/fans and yet no one complained.

I'm calling BS on that. I have never seen that as a parent or as a teacher. That was because, until this ruling, it was not allowed. If you saw it, it was against previous rulings.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.1    one month ago
Why did this coach feel the need to proselytize at a football game?  Open, ostentatious prayer does equate to proselytizing. 

Who cares why he did it?

What difference would that make?

Not proselytizing.

What religion was he trying to convert anyone to, and is your claim that the mere act of praying is proselytizing?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
11.2.53  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.47    one month ago
How would you feel if it was a Muslim coach? This is a slippery slope.

AS far as I'm concerned, throw that prayer rug right over the opposing teams emblem in the middle of the field...

It won't slide anywhere...

Muslim coach has as much right as a Christian one to his individual religious practices...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.54  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.49    one month ago

Vic it hasn't been in previous cases in the past:

In the Supreme Court decision   Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992), a slim majority broadly interpreted the First Amendment’s establishment clause, limiting the role religion plays in public schools by   prohibiting prayer at school-sponsored activities .

In 1989 Principal Robert E. Lee invited Rabbi Leslie Gutterman to deliver a nonsectarian invocation and benediction at a middle school graduation ceremony in Providence, Rhode Island.

Weisman argues school prayer constituted government endorsement of religion

Deborah Weisman was among the graduates. Her father, Daniel, unsuccessfully sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the rabbi from speaking, and the Weismans attended the ceremony. In the benediction, Rabbi Gutterman said, “O God, we are grateful to You for having endowed us with the capacity for learning. . . . We give thanks to You, Lord, for keeping us alive, sustaining us, and allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion.”

Weisman then filed for a permanent injunction preventing local school officials from inviting clergy to recite prayers at school ceremonies.

He argued the practice constituted governmental   endorsement of religion   and thus violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The school district responded that the prayers did not demonstrate a state endorsement of religion because they were nonsectarian, participation in the prayer itself was voluntary, and the practice was deeply rooted in American history.

Buzz_SCOTUS_Lee_v_Wiesman_e1395329538673_0_0.jpg The Weisman family talks to reporters outside of the Supreme Court in 1991. In their case, Lee v. Weisman, Justice Anthony Kennedy introduced the coercion test, saying that public school students were coerced to participate in state-sponsored religious events when public schools invited clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at events such as graduation. Third from left is Baptist Joint Committee General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas who filed a brief in the case. (Photo reprinted with permission of the  Baptist Joint Committee .)

Kennedy says state is forbidden from requiring 'religious conformity from a student'

After the lower courts ruled for Weisman, the district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was joined by the George H. W. Bush administration as   amicus curiae.  There, both the district and the administration urged the Court to use the case to overrule the   three-pronged   Lemon  test , which had controlled the establishment clause cases since   Lemon v. Kurtzman  (1971).

Writing for the Court,   Justice Anthony M. Kennedy   stated that “it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried out by the government, and that is what the school officials attempted to do.”

Noting the possibility of   psychological coercion , Kennedy stated, “The Constitution forbids the State to exact religious conformity from a student at the price of attending her own high school graduation.” Moreover, the Court declined the invitation to revisit   Lemon,  concluding that previous school prayer cases provided ample precedent for the case.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.55  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.52    one month ago
proselytizing

I never said it was. I said that it violates the separation of church and state.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.56  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @11.2.53    one month ago
Muslim coach has as much right as a Christian one to his individual religious practices...

Yes he does, but not in a public school.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.57  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.50    one month ago

I'm not sure if it's Confucius or was it Mr Moto who said "Do unto others as you have others do unto you."

She has been civil.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.58  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.51    one month ago

Then you haven’t been paying attention.    Happened most every Friday night here, still did until this little fiasco.

Happened a lot after some college games as well.    Sometimes entire teams, sometimes both teams together, for those who wanted to participate.

I’m shocked you’ve never seen it so I guess NY is different from Michigan and/or you don’t regularly go to sporting events

And you keep bringing up Muslim coaches/players.     I’ve got no problem with anyone else exercising their religious freedom as they see fit.    As long it doesn’t infringe on anyone else.

A coach simply praying privately on the field infringes on no one.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.59  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.57    one month ago

[removed]

[.]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.60  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.58    one month ago
A coach simply praying privately on the field infringes on no one.

The use of the word 'privately' here is demonstrably false.     Praying in the middle of the field and inviting reporters to observe is public.   Praying privately would be like going to his office and praying by himself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.61  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.54    one month ago

I'm aware of the Weisman case. I understand the ruling. You see, I can abide by the ruling if it was correctly decided even if I don't like it. I think we should all feel that way,

PS

This does not involve school prayer

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.62  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.60    one month ago

Opinions do vary.

No one was forced to observe him.    Privately

How do you know he was praying?    Perhaps he was just collecting his thoughts.   Whatever ....

Not really interested in getting into another debate with you about the definition of words so I’ll just say that my opinion differs from yours and cede that all important last word to you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.63  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.59    one month ago

I can't get my hand to ticket Marines.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.64  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.58    one month ago

I have been going to games for years and never once seen that. 

This is not about infringement. It is about separation of church and state, and as you have seen from my post here: 11.2.54 , even in conservative courts this has been upheld.

Btw... the whole Muslim question happened in your state and it was not tolerated. There was a whole issue about it on the TV show "All American Muslim" and for the record, it showed other public schools on the field and no one was publicly praying, not even the religious school the public school was playing since it was on public school property.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.65  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.61    one month ago
This does not involve school prayer

Of course, it was. They brought prayer to a public school function. The fact that there is a separation of church and state in public schools.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.2.67  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.10    one month ago
"A little tolerance for others might be a unifying gesture."
jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.68  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.55    one month ago
I never said it was. I said that it violates the separation of church and state.

Yes, I am quite aware of what you have stated.

But the comment was not to you, it was to someone claiming the coach was proselytizing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
11.2.69  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.11    one month ago
If it were then teachers could talk about their own beliefs in class like CRT, right?

Let's don't pretend there isn't a massive difference between an optional prayer at an optional extra curricular activity and an inescapable lecture in a mandatory classroom setting.

It's not like the playbook is religious.  Now, if the QB gets in the huddle and calls "Jesus Saves - on one - on one - readyyyyy...... break", then yeah, that's a problem.

As teachers, we have restrictions on what we can and can not do.  He can pray, but privately.

Based on that logic, we'll need to outlaw all public displays of religion for public educators.  What about the volleyball coach who wears a hijab?  Or the basketball coach in a yamaka? 

And what constitutes "privately"?  If he prays in the locker room...is that private?  If he's in his car in the parking lot and people see him praying as they walk into the stadium...is that private?   Or does he have to shut himself in the janitor's closet?

Self-initiated student prayer in schools has been upheld in the courts, but not by educators.

And now educators have the same rights as everybody else.  Congratulations.

Try being a minority faith and not feeling uncomfortable with that. 

Your comfort level is your decision.  You don't get to limit the rights of others because you're "uncomfortable".

I just can't wait till a Muslim coach does this.

Absolutely.  It'll be great. 

And here's the thing.... if this were a Muslim coach leading a bunch of Muslim players with their foreheads on the ground for sunset prayers, nobody would have an issue with it.

In an ideal world, we'll have several sets of kids and coaches saying their own prayers in their own way for all the world to see.  Because that's what America is supposed to be about.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
11.2.70  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.37    one month ago

Brief?

After games, Kennedy would also walk out to the 50-yard line, where he would kneel and pray in front of students and spectators. Initially, he did so alone, but after a few games students started to join him — eventually, a majority of his players did so. One parent complained to the school district that his son “felt compelled to participate,” despite being an atheist, because the student feared “ he wouldn’t get to play as much if he didn’t participate .”

I went to a Catholic HS and played football and it did not take long to figure out

to go along with Coach or ride the bench, run longer and do more reps at practice.

When the Bremerton school district learned of Kennedy’s behavior, it told him to knock it off — though it did offer to accommodate Kennedy if he wanted to pray when he wasn’t surrounded by students and spectators. And Kennedy did end some of his most extravagant behavior, such as the prayer sessions where he held up the helmets while surrounded by kneeling students.

But Kennedy also went on a media tour , presenting himself as a coach who “ made a commitment with God ” to outlets ranging from local newspapers to Good Morning America . And Kennedy’s lawyer informed the school district that the coach would resume praying at the 50-yard line immediately after games.

At the next game following this tour, coaches, players, and members of the public mobbed the field when Kennedy knelt to pray. A federal appeals court described this mob as a “ stampede, ” and the school principal said that he “saw people fall” and that, due to the crush of people, the district was unable “to keep kids safe.” Members of the school’s marching band were knocked over by the crowds.

And, contrary to Gorsuch’s repeated claims that Kennedy only wanted to offer a “short, private, personal prayer,” Kennedy was surrounded by players, reporters, and members of the public when he conducted his prayer session after that game. We know this because Justice Sonia Sotomayor includes a picture of the scene in her dissenting opinion.

Gorsuch dismisses this photographic evidence by claiming that “not a single Bremerton student joined Mr. Kennedy’s quiet prayers” after this game — he claims that the players depicted in this photograph are “from the opposing team.”

Whether those players are from the Bremerton school district or not, that doesn’t change the fact that Kennedy engaged in very public prayer sessions, and did so while acting as an official representative of a public school. Nor does it change the fact that, after he was ordered to cease this activity, Kennedy went on a media tour that seemed designed to turn his supposedly “quiet prayers” into a public political spectacle, a spectacle that both players and spectators eagerly participated in.

The Supreme Court hands the religious right a big victory by lying about the facts of a case (msn.com)

Compared to the post game Kennedy show,

School prayer in Catholic schools is brief.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.71  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.62    one month ago
No one was forced to observe him.    Privately

So if someone does something in public and nobody is forced to observe it, the act per your redefinition of the words 'public' and 'private' is 'private'?

It is amusing watching someone stoop to redefining basic words in a futile attempt to be correct.

Nobody is forced to watch the PotUS give a speech in public so in your bizarro world a public speech is actually given in private.   

How do you know he was praying?    Perhaps he was just collecting his thoughts.   Whatever ....

And now you double down on feeble / ridiculous rebuttals.

Not really interested in getting into another debate with you about the definition of words ...

Yeah, when you try to redefine common words such as public and private I can see why you would flee from a debate.    After all, I have the English language backed up by every dictionary on my side and you have absurdity on yours.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.72  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.69    one month ago
And what constitutes "privately"?  If he prays in the locker room...is that private?  If he's in his car in the parking lot and people see him praying as they walk into the stadium...is that private?   Or does he have to shut himself in the janitor's closet?

If he prays while alone then that is private.   If he prays in his office then that is private (unless he invited an audience to witness the event).   If he is alone in his car then that is private.   If he is praying while walking and not addressing anyone else, that is private.

Public means that he is praying in front of an audience.    The coach in the middle of the field right after a game kneeling and praying on the 50 yard line is doing so in public.   Now if he were to return a few hours later when the crowd no longer was there and prayed alone on the field, that would be private.

All IMO.

There are areas of gray of course, but this is not one of them.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
11.2.73  Jack_TX  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.70    one month ago
I went to a Catholic HS and played football and it did not take long to figure out to go along with Coach or ride the bench, run longer and do more reps at practice.

Is there any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr. Kennedy penalized athletes in any way for not praying with him?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.74  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.72    one month ago
Public means that he is praying in front of an audience.

From a WPost article:

For years, Kennedy took a knee and bowed after games, and nothing came of it . From the stands, it might hav e looked like nothing more than someone tying a shoe . But then some of the Knights decided they would pray, as well. And they invited players from opposing teams. There were prayers in the locker room and photos of what looked like Kennedy praying while holding helmets of both teams.

The school district decided it had a problem in the 2015 season, when an opposing coach told Bremerton’s principal that he “ ‘thought it was pretty cool how [the District] would allow’ Kennedy’s religious activity,” the district said in its court brief.

The homecoming game was the culmination. Kennedy was joined in his postgame prayer by members of the public, a state legislator and the media. “Spectators jumped over the fence to reach the field and people tripped over cables and fell,” the district said in its brief. “School band members were knocked over.”

The next week, a group of Satanists demanded equal access to the field.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.75  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.69    one month ago
As teachers, we have restrictions on what we can and can not do.  He can pray, but privately.

Based on that logic, we'll need to outlaw all public displays of religion for public educators.  What about the volleyball coach who wears a hijab?  Or the basketball coach in a yamaka? 

And what constitutes "privately"?  If he prays in the locker room...is that private?  If he's in his car in the parking lot and people see him praying as they walk into the stadium...is that private?   Or does he have to shut himself in the janitor's closet?

Jack, I have to say, that I wasn't going to answer you since this is just sarcasm with some theoretical questions, but I will since they bear answering.

Prayer is something we do actively. It is not a garment we wear, and for the record, even that was cleared up by the courts and clothing can not be determined by a school.

I am not going to answer the rubbish about privately. But we all know that you can say grace in school. You just don't say it in the middle of football field in front of a crowd.

And here's the thing.... if this were a Muslim coach leading a bunch of Muslim players with their foreheads on the ground for sunset prayers, nobody would have an issue with it.

Because that has happened, not. And what about if there were a few people who were not Muslim there. Is that OK?

In an ideal world, we would not have to do public displays of one's personal beliefs in a public school... but then suddenly..... this court.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.76  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.2.74    one month ago

Are you seriously trying to argue that the coach, on the 50 yard line, immediately after a game, when the public are still there, in plain public view, in a position that is indicative of prayer, was actually praying in private?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.77  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.76    one month ago

he was probably praying that he was a high school football coach in texas on a winning team.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
11.2.78  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.75    one month ago
this is just sarcasm

I assure you it's not.

with some theoretical questions,

They're not theoretical at all. We currently have students playing sports in hijabs.  Do you think none of them will become coaches?

Prayer is something we do actively. It is not a garment we wear, and for the record, even that was cleared up by the courts and clothing can not be determined by a school.

Wearing a specifically religious garment is an active public statement of faith. 

Also, the courts have also cleared up that prayer cannot be stopped by the school.   The only distinction here is between students praying and an employee praying.

I am not going to answer the rubbish about privately.

It's the whole basis of your argument, so your refusal to address it is disappointing.

But we all know that you can say grace in school. You just don't say it in the middle of football field in front of a crowd.

So where is this line, exactly?  Can he pray in the end zone?  How about in the locker room?  He can say grace...but can he say it in the student cafeteria with 20 football players?   Where...precisely...does "public" stop and "private" start?

And here's the thing.... if this were a Muslim coach leading a bunch of Muslim players with their foreheads on the ground for sunset prayers, nobody would have an issue with it.
Because that has happened, not. 

Well... you know... we should never ever plan for something to happen that hasn't happened before.  Much better to bury our heads in the sand.  (There's your sarcasm.)  

And what about if there were a few people who were not Muslim there. Is that OK?

Hell yes.  Of course.  Why wouldn't it be?

In an ideal world, we would not have to do public displays of one's personal beliefs in a public school... but then suddenly..... this court.

So people should not make public displays of their faith....why...exactly?   Because it makes you "uncomfortable"?   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2.79  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @11.2.77    one month ago
he was probably praying that he was a high school football coach in texas on a winning team.

Maybe he prayed for tolerance.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
11.2.80  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.79    one month ago
Maybe he prayed for tolerance.

Or simply the safety of the players.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
11.2.81  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Texan1211 @11.2.79    one month ago
Maybe he prayed for tolerance.

It worked.  smile

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
11.2.82  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.76    one month ago
Are you seriously trying to argue that the coach, on the 50 yard line, immediately after a game, when the public are still there, in plain public view, in a position that is indicative of prayer, was actually praying in private?

Are you seriously arguing that, it's not possible for that to occur ?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.83  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @11.2.77    one month ago

Since he left Wash St to retire in Florida, his prayers were never answered.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.84  TᵢG  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @11.2.82    one month ago

Which of the facts I listed are in question?    Walk me through your reasoning.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.85  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.76    one month ago
Are you seriously trying to argue that the coach

I didn't argue anything, serious or not.  I simply pasted what a WPost reporter wrote and provided the link.  Do you think that the reporter was trying to argue that nonsense?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
11.2.86  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.84    one month ago
Which of the facts I listed are in question?    Walk me through your reasoning.

You need me to "Walk you" through your own comment ?

Seriously ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.87  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.2.85    one month ago

You posted it thus the normal expectation is that you support what you posted.   If not, then what is your position?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.88  TᵢG  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @11.2.86    one month ago

As I figured, you have nothing to offer.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
11.2.89  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.88    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.90  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.87    one month ago
You posted it thus the normal expectation is that you support what you posted.

I didn't take the W Post report as taking a position

If not, then what is your position?

I don't have one as I haven't read the SCOTUS opinion yet.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.2.91  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.70    one month ago
Whether those players are from the Bremerton school district or not, that doesn’t change the fact that Kennedy engaged in very public prayer sessions, and did so while acting as an official representative of a public school. Nor does it change the fact that, after he was ordered to cease this activity, Kennedy went on a media tour that seemed designed to turn his supposedly “quiet prayers” into a public political spectacle, a spectacle that both players and spectators eagerly participated in.

Game set match.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.2.92  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.91    one month ago
Game set match.

Exactly, the final point between Kennedy and Bremerton has been played and Kennedy won.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
11.2.93  Thomas  replied to  JohnRussell @11.2.91    one month ago

Maybe if he wasn't ostentatious about it 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.2.95  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @11.2.78    one month ago
Wearing a specifically religious garment is an active public statement of faith. 

But you are allowed to wear any garment you like in a school, even a teacher can. This was tested in the 70's when kids were going to school in clothing that schools deemed inappropriate and ended up in the courts.

I am not going to answer the rubbish about privately. It's the whole basis of your argument, so your refusal to address it is disappointing.

OK, privately is not this:

512

btw, it seems that the players feel obligated to join in with the coach. Do you think that every single one of them believe the way that this guy does? Do you think that there may be some social pressure involved? This is why teachers are not allowed to do this.

And what about if there were a few people who were not Muslim there. Is that OK? Hell yes.  Of course.  Why wouldn't it be?

Well, we'll find out when the first non-Muslim kid bows his head to the ground and says "Allah Akbar" (god is great) and his folks have an issue with it. Btw... to Muslims, god is not Jesus.

So people should not make public displays of their faith....why...exactly?   Because it makes you "uncomfortable"?   

No, because it can make a student uncomfortable not to participate, or have you not heard of peer pressure? I'm an adult, and have long gotten past that, but I do remember it well as a kid growing up. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.96  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.95    one month ago
tested in the 70's when kids were going to school in clothing that schools deemed inappropriate

1967. influx of new students from NY/NJ in our small town halfway thru the school year. strict dress and hair codes for males enforced by the gym teachers. new student "rocky" gets his head shaved in my gym class. his dad is a corporate lawyer. oops. less than a week later, no more hair and dress codes in the school district and the school has 3 new gym teachers. the former 3 were immediately drafted and 2 never made it back from vietnam alive. karma doesn't care.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11.2.97  Revillug  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.56    one month ago
Yes he does, but not in a public school.

At some point people are going to have to grapple with the fact  that school vouchers will be used for madrasas and yeshivas as easily as parochial schools and some HS coach is going to lay down a prayer carpet pointing towards Mecca at the 50 yard line.

And then they will be beating a path to the refs again.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.98  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.2.64    one month ago
I have been going to games for years and never once seen that. 

Not in Michigan you haven’t.     I can’t explain it any more clearly.    I have participated in and/or witnessed it happening probably hundreds of times over the years on public fields all over the state.

This is not about infringement. It is about separation of church and state, and as you have seen from my post here: 11.2.54 , even in conservative courts this has been upheld.

It appears the highest court in the land disagrees with that.    

The intent of the founders on separation of church and state was clear.    Having just separated from a country with a “state” religion, they wanted no part of that and declared their new “state” would have no single government mandated religion.    No union of church and state. All were welcome.

It had nothing to do with a coach choosing to pray on a 50 yard line.

Nothing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.99  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.63    one month ago

You think I deserve a ticket, you better give it Vic.    Don’t fall into the same trap as some of our friends on the left.

No special treatment asked for or expected here ....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.100  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.99    one month ago
You think I deserve a ticket, you better give it Vic.

I never said that. I was simply trying to keep things within boundaries. It was a suggestion.


Don’t fall into the same trap as some of our friends on the left.

Never put me with them.


No special treatment asked for or expected here ...

I am well aware of your manly policy.

th?id=OIP.YOmhc-SrmRaPnjuu2xxIKQAAAA&pid=Api&rs=1&c=1&qlt=95&w=214&h=83

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.2.101  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.40    one month ago
Lets keep it civil. The line is getting close.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.2.102  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.84    one month ago
"Which of the facts I listed are in question?    Walk me through your reasoning."

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.2.103  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.100    one month ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.104  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @11.2.70    one month ago
I went to a Catholic HS and played football and it did not take long to figure out to go along with Coach or ride the bench, run longer and do more reps at practice.

That's a very revealing statement.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.105  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.2    one month ago

It's obvious you never read Mathew 6:5

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.106  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.42    one month ago
You know what...I don't think the school would have complained.

They wouldn;t have to...they would have hundreds of angry Christian parents to do the complaining

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.2.107  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2    one month ago

 Why do you willfully ignore the establishment clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state which was the core issue of the coach(a state employee) praying on the job and coercing students to take part? Who told you that it was anything else but the separation of church and state?

 Some really smart asshole named Tommy Jefferson wrote this.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

It will be amazing when public school employees of other faiths do the same thing and coerce students to take part while on the job. Satanists, Pagans, Hindus, Muslims, and every other one but their own, and then we will see how conservatives really feel about religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11.2.108  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @11.2.107    one month ago
Why do you willfully ignore the establishment clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state which was the core issue of the coach(a state employee) praying on the job and coercing students to take part?

That's quite a word salad. The US has never endorsed any religion. BTW that is what separation of Church and state actually means.

Back to you...

Why are you demanding that prayers only take place inside a Church?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.2.109  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.58    one month ago

If he was praying privately he would not have been on the field for all to see. Those players are to be teams players and his action is a coercion. He needs to keep his religion to himself while he is a public school coach while on duty.  This was not about his religious rights to pray but an action of the separation of church and state. Our religious rights as protected in the Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment are far from unlimited. There are also other religious limitations when your job is being employed by the state(a state actor).

 

Even Jesus said not to pray in public, Matthew 6:6-7. Would obeying  the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of Matthew be a violation of his christian faith?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.2.110  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.2.108    one month ago

He is a coach so his praying is a school endorsement of the christian faith when his in full views of the fans as well as the players who are coerced to take part because they are to follow the actions of the coach. He works for a public school and not a christian school, so prayer is not part of his duties.  His job is not in any way religious, so he is required to be secualr in his job performance. If her wants to pray then he can do it privately in his office or on the sidelines in his head.

 The separation of church and state means that the actions of the government as well as the employees while on duty are to be absiolutly secualr , so as top protect the equal religious and secular rights of all, including those of us who are not believers. You might want to read Jefferson, Madison and Adams on this issue because they never once said what you are claiming. Civil servants jobs duties are absolutely secualr and they must reamin that way while they are at work.   If that is a problem then working for the government and being paid with tax dollars might not be a good fit for you.

 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.2.111  epistte  replied to  Tessylo @11.2.101    one month ago

F him and the crucifix that he rode in on.

That's a direct quote.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
11.2.112  Snuffy  replied to  epistte @11.2.110    one month ago

May I suggest reading the syllabus from Cornell University (link also includes the other documents) as it explains why SCOTUS disagreed that this was an issue with the Establishment clause.  I think this does a good job of explaining the reasoning as to why the decision was given.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.2.113  epistte  replied to  Snuffy @11.2.112    one month ago

 I have a minor in political philosophy and taught Poli-sci 100 at my alma mater for a semester. I am well versed in the separation of church and state.  This was a political decision that is not based on precedent. The court should have followed the Engel v. Vitale precedent.

This is the problem,

Kennedy urged the Supreme Court to find that he was acting on his own behalf, expressing his own religious views, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the school. But the school district said the students on the football team looked up to their coach and felt coerced into doing as he did.

I absolutely agree with the dissent,

In a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court "consistently has recognized that school officials leading prayer is constitutionally impermissible" and said the ruling did a "disservice" to schools, students and "the nation's longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state.”
 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.114  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @11.2.109    one month ago
If he was praying privately he would not have been on the field for all to see.

Not true.

Those players are to be teams players and his action is a coercion. He needs to keep his religion to himself while he is a public school coach while on duty.

Only to a weak mind.    If a coach smokes or chew tobacco in front of a player does that mean the player will smoke or chew?    I only ask because I had several coaches do that in front of me and I picked up neither during my school days.

  This was not about his religious rights to pray but an action of the separation of church and state. Our religious rights as protected in the Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment are far from unlimited. There are also other religious limitations when your job is being employed by the state(a state actor).

As ruled by SCOTUS, the state can not infringe on a person freedom of religion.    Not sure why that seems to piss so many people off but they should go for an amendment to the constitution if it really bothers them that much.    NO chance of that ever passing in this country.

No chance.

  Even Jesus said not to pray in public, Matthew 6:6-7. Would obeying  the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospel of Matthew be a violation of his christian faith?

Lol .... I love it when the non religious, who regularly scoff at the concept of religion, try to use religion to to make a point.   They don’t believe in it until it seems to support some pet narrative or another.    Crazy, just crazy.

If you really knew what you were talking about you would know there are several places in the bible that say just the opposite.    1 Timothy 2:8 and 1 Thessolnians 5:16-18 for example.

That Matthew passage has less to do with where one is praying and more with why they are praying.    Praying to simply to garner others attention misses the mark on several levels.    Unless you were in his head you have no idea what his intentions were.    He seems like he was a well liked guy by his players and students.    I give him the benefit of the doubt on that and 20 years of military service alone.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
11.2.115  Snuffy  replied to  epistte @11.2.113    one month ago

As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not a constitutional scholar.  My education and the majority of my working life has been in IT.  

Kennedy urged the Supreme Court to find that he was acting on his own behalf, expressing his own religious views, not speaking as a mouthpiece for the school. But the school district said the students on the football team looked up to their coach and felt coerced into doing as he did.

The ruling also stated (not the dissent) that Kennedy was praying like he had done for many years, during a minute after the game when coaches are free to handle personal issues and players are doing other things.  Some players came up asking if they could join and Kennedy said it's a free country and they can do what they like.  It's reported that some players joined in as they felt not doing so might limit their playing time.  I don't know if that's true or not.

The decision may have been in part political, but I'm more a libertarian than anything else and believe in individual freedoms.  And having played high school sports (oh so many years ago now) I always felt that my decisions were my own.  I have no real problem with the ruling and would not have had any issue if the ruling had gone the other way.  But there are times when I feel that too many people just have to look for something to object to.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.2.116  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.114    one month ago

His freedom of religion as a public school coach is not part of his job duties because of the separation of church and state. Our freedom of religious is far from absolute, anywhere. How many times dopes this need to be explain to you? Religion is not part of being a coach and those students cannot be expected to follow their coach and take part ion prayer that is not part of football or their own religious beliefs.

If he wants to be a coach and pray on the job then a religious school would be a better fit.

 Jesus said that followers were not to pray in public. This coach was praying in a very public place in view of more than 5000 people, despite that very explicit teaching, so he was even being a good christian. If you are a christian then the teachings of Jesus are to take precedent over the words of others, but instead you are looking for loophole to ignore the teachings of the man who you claim to be the son of god and your savior. Do I also need top explain the word HYPOCRITE to you?

 I may be a godless Humanist now but I was raised a very conservative christian, so the teachings of the bible are far from new to me.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.117  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @11.2.116    one month ago

Well in my opinion you are wrong and right now the SCOTUS agrees with me.    Dems are spooling up to create quite a constitutional crisis.    I doubt they are going to like the results that will come from that.

I may be a godless Humanist now but I was raised a very conservative christian, so the teachings of the bible are far from new to me.

Then one can only surmise your use of that Matthew passage was disingenuous and intended to misinform.    Otherwise you would not have used it in the manner you did.

And save your sanctimony for someone else.    It’s wasted when it comes at me like that.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
11.2.118  Sunshine  replied to  Sparty On @11.2.117    one month ago
Then one can only surmise your use of that Matthew passage was disingenuous and intended to misinform.  

She has been told this in the past many times but she still tries to use it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
11.2.119  Sunshine  replied to  epistte @11.2.116    one month ago
If he wants to be a coach and pray on the job then a religious school would be a better fit.

Hogwash... students and Muslim teachers are allowed to use public school areas for prayer.  Do you suggest they attend religious schools also?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.2.120  Sparty On  replied to  Sunshine @11.2.118    one month ago

Understood but it bears repeating again.    

She’s entitled to her opinion and so are we.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.2.121  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @11.2.116    one month ago
ach is not part of his job duties because of the separation of church and state

Who claimed it was part of his job duties?

Unless the State (school) is only letting certain religions pray or mandating/punishing   students that  participate/don't participate  in the coach's prayer, they are violating his Constitutional right to freely exercise his religion.

That's what the Constitution says. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
11.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago
The SC decision is a political decision based on a far right majority on the Court.

How about the decision of the lower federal courts that sided against him?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @11    one month ago

I can’t believe that they allow government officials to say “So help me God” when taking their oath of office and President’s using a Bible at their swearing in ceremony - outrageous.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.4.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4    one month ago

“…when taking their oath of office and President’s using a Bible at their swearing in ceremony…”

An antiquated ritual whose time has passed.

That is, if one believes that accepting the responsibility of holding public office requires representing citizens of all faiths or no faith at all. Swear to that and let it be. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @11.4.1    one month ago

Exactly, I was shocked that Joe Biden chose to use one.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.4.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4.2    one month ago

“Exactly, I was shocked that Joe Biden chose to use one.”

As was I when his predecessor held one upside down and another time cited those two Corinthians.

Biden, for all his faults, is at the very least faithful to his religion. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.4.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @11.4.3    one month ago
As was I when his predecessor held one upside down and another time cited those two Corinthians.

There was no surprise here, Trump knows nothing about Christianity.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.4.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4.4    one month ago

“Trump knows nothing about Christianity.”

Agreed.

Hence the mind boggling and inexplicable sway he holds on the evangelical fringe of the party. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
11.4.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @11.4.5    one month ago
mind boggling and inexplicable sway

Pew polling last year indicated:

  • Trump character was less of a factor in the 2020 voting decisions of evangelicals even though nearly 2/3 of white evangelicals said that they disliked Trump’s conduct
  • They trusted him more on the economy
  • Trump targeted outreach to them on abortion and religious freedom

Once he achieved a critical mass of evangelicals, it became harder for any not to publicly support Trump.  Their church community is very important to them, anti-Trumpers are going to risk their long-time relationships with pro-Trumpers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.4.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4.6    one month ago

Anyone who is a pro-Trumper at this stage is, IMO, irrational when it comes to Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.7    one month ago

"Anyone who is a pro-Trumper at this stage is, IMO, irrational when it comes to Trump."

Irrational?  How about batshit crazy?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.4.9  Tessylo  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4.6    one month ago
"Their church community is very important to them, anti-Trumpers are going to risk their long-time relationships with pro-Trumpers."

I'm good with that.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
11.4.10  MonsterMash  replied to  afrayedknot @11.4.3    one month ago
Biden, for all his faults, is at the very least faithful to his religion. 

Biden supports abortion and same sex marriage that isn't being faithful to his religion.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.4.11  devangelical  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.10    one month ago

his religion is what he says it is. the 1st amendment gives every american that right.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
11.4.12  MonsterMash  replied to  devangelical @11.4.11    one month ago
his religion is what he says it is. the 1st amendment gives every american that right.

Biden can claim he's a Catholic, but he doesn't adhere to the RCC teachings. 

If an atheist said they think there's a God, would you believe they are an atheist?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.4.13  devangelical  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.12    one month ago
doesn't adhere to the RCC teachings

neither did any of the catholic girls I dated in high school... [deleted]

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
11.4.14  MonsterMash  replied to  devangelical @11.4.13    one month ago

I dated a Jewish girl while in HS, [removed]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.4.15  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.12    one month ago
Biden can claim he's a Catholic, but he doesn't adhere to the RCC teachings. 

You do not know much about Catholics if you think all (or even most) are absolutely devout and do whatever the RCC tells them to do.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
11.4.16  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.15    one month ago
You do not know much about Catholics if you think all (or even most) are absolutely devout and do whatever the RCC tells them to do.

I didn't say most Catholics are totally devout, I know better than that. I responded to afrayedknot saying "Biden, for all his faults, is at the very least faithful to his religion" That isn't true, if it was Biden wouldn't support abortion and gay marriage.

I grew up in a Catholic home, my parents were far from being devout Catholics, but they said they were because they thought attending Mass every week made them devout Catholics.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.4.17  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.16    one month ago
I didn't say most Catholics are totally devout, I know better than that.

You did not have to say that, you stated that Biden does not adhere to RCC teachings which implies 'good Catholics' all do so.   They do not.   So as you have affirmed, it is not at all unusual that a perfectly normal Catholic does not adhere to all RCC teachings.

Remember what you wrote ... I quoted the operative part to be clear:

MM@11.4.12 ☞ Biden can claim he's a Catholic, but he doesn't adhere to the RCC teachings. 

My response to the above is:  so what?   Sounds like a normal Catholic to me.   And thumbs up to the normal Catholics for daring to think for themselves.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
11.4.18  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @11.4.17    one month ago
you stated that Biden does not adhere to RCC teachings which implies 'good Catholics' all do so.
That's silly, saying that Biden does not adhere to RCC teachings in no way implies all good Catholics do.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.4.19  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.18    one month ago

Then your mention of Biden's faith has no significance.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11.4.20  Revillug  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4    one month ago
outrageous

It is!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.4.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.10    one month ago

You don't know anything about the Catholic faith. First and foremost a Catholic Christian is required to follow his or her conscience. From I've heard from Uncle Joe's own lips is that he follows his conscience when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion. He does not allow his faith to dictate to all people what they should believe or do

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.4.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  MonsterMash @11.4.18    one month ago
saying that Biden does not adhere to RCC teachings in no way implies all good Catholics do.

 Catholics are not required to follow their conscience.  I can't imagine any organized religion, certainly no Christian one I'm aware of ,  has ever told it's followers their own conscience determines what is acceptable behavior. For starters, such a doctrine would make them the equivalent of God, able to define sin.  It's simply incompatible with any form of Christianity and would be considered by heresy by any religion I'm familiar with.  Catholics are obliged to follow God's laws. To go against them is a sin, even if you think it shouldn't be.  And to advocate that others should sin is, of course, a much greater sin.

Biden can call himself what he wants. I But to be a "good Catholic" means adhering to God's law as interpreted by the Catholic Church. Someone who picks and chooses which  rules are convenient to follow is not a good Catholic. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
11.4.23  Revillug  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.4.22    one month ago
But to be a good Catholic means adhering to God's law,  not picking and choosing which are convenient or comply with your own personal sense of right and wrong. 

Considering how the Catholic Church used to torture people to death and has done very little to stop its culture of pedophilia, I can't blame people for walking away from it.

Maybe trying to have it both ways and remain a member while disavowing this or that problematic aspect of the church is not an effective approach.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Principal
11.4.24  epistte  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @11.4.2    one month ago

Did you forget that Joe Biden is an observant catholic? That means that he goes to church regularly and not just for the partisan photo op. .

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12  Nowhere Man    one month ago

You know, this coach was doing this for a year and a half before it became an issue... How did it become an issue?

Parents complaining that the coach "MIGHT" be pushing his beliefs onto the children, OR, "MAY" be using his belief to limit their child's playing time while on the team, OR, "MIGHT" be judging his players based upon their participation in the entirely voluntary prayer...

No actual proof of any of that being shown and the players were almost entirely supportive of the coach... They reported that they were NEVER pushed or required to participate in anything religious...

The Parents complained to the School, the school offered alternatives to prevent what the parents were accusing, which the coach refused...

The School District fired him... 

This was a political firing based upon religious prejudice...

The Supreme Court was absolutely right to overturn it... The Individual free exercise of religion shall NOT be infringed is what is written in the constitution...

The whole wall of separation between church and state argument comes from a commentary on that religious right and the intent of the founders... The intent of the founders was that the government CANNOT stop an INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN from acting on his religious beliefs at any time he so chooses... It is expressly prevented by the First Amendment... The open invitation he gave to anyone to participate if they so choose to, is an invitation to individual action...

IF he was representing a church or specific religious organization then they were absolutely right to fire him...

But to fire him cause he was expressing his individual right, and inviting others to do the same? absolutely WRONG!!!!

Seems like we have a Supreme Court that understands the Constitution and the founders intent better than any court we have had in the last 80 years...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @12    one month ago

If he did it privately it would have been fine, and this has been upheld by other courts, including conservative courts. Maybe it's this court who has it wrong.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1    one month ago
Maybe it's this court who has it wrong.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion...

But I'm very happy with this courts fundamental belief in the Constitution and what was intended by the founders...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.1.1    one month ago
But I'm very happy with this courts fundamental belief in the Constitution and what was intended by the founders...

Everyone speaks for the founders as if they knew them. No one knows how or what the founders would have wanted. All we know is that they valued a separation of church and state since that is what our Constitution actually says. Everything else is guesswork.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.2    one month ago

There is a massive problem with basing everything on what the Founders wanted. The Founders all died 200 years ago or more. Their beliefs are by definition conservative (conservatism means conserving past practices and traditions and laws) . If we only followed the Founders in a strict "originalist" way every law and every court decision would be conservative. 

This is not the way to organize the modern world. The constitution should be a guideline.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.2    one month ago

There are libraries full of what they wrote where they expressed their intents many times over.. The actual debates of the constitutional convention were recorded by numerous scribes and condensed for record by James Madison...

Their intent in what they did is recorded in their own plain language wording if anyone actually cared to find out...

It's actually available to read online as well ....

It's only guesswork for those that don't care or know enough to care...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.3    one month ago
This is not the way to organize the modern world. The constitution should be a guideline.

would it surprise you to know that they also wrote about exactly the belief you seem to hold dear?

They strongly counseled against those that would use the constitution as simply a "Guidline" and would be desirous of changing it as the whims of society or times desired... It's why they very deliberately made it VERY DIFFICULT to change

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
12.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.2    one month ago
All we know is that they valued a separation of church and state since that is what our Constitution actually says

We also now that public school praying didn't become illegal until the early 1960's and clergy were prohibited from leading a prayer in public schools until 1992.  Until then, you could have the separation and the prayer. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.1.4    one month ago

I have read what they wrote and nothing addressed public schools or separation of church and state to this extent, since public schools were fairly new then.

As for his feelings on the separation of church and state, he was ardently against the state being involved in any way with religion:

.

And implying that I am either ignorant of what he said, or I don't care what he said, is really beneath you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.2    one month ago
All we know is that they valued a separation of church and state since that is what our Constitution actually says. Everything else is guesswork.

It doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state.

The Constitution says, most importantly for this case, the government can't prevent the  free exercise of religion.  That's all that matters about what the "founders wanted," the text of the Constitution.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.1.5    one month ago

If you want to live in the world of two or three hundred years ago invent a time machine. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.8    one month ago

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.10    one month ago

Exactly , nothing about "separation of church and state".  That's an excerpt from a letter of a founder. 

The school clearly violated the coach's right to exercise his religion.  And the actions of a man praying by himself clearly don't establish a state religion. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.9    one month ago
f you want to live in the world of two or three hundred years ago invent a time machine. 

So you would argue that a State can establish a religion, because what the Constitution says doesn't matter since the first amendment is old and  and if the people want a state religion, it's their right to create one.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1.13  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.7    one month ago
As for his feelings on the separation of church and state, he was ardently against the state being involved in any way with religion:

.

And implying that I am either ignorant of what he said, or I don't care what he said, is really beneath you.

Nice paywall, can't read it cause of the paywall.. And who is the "HE" you are referring to? there were 40+ founders, they all had input...

And I implied nothing but what you choose to believe is on the wrong side of the issue... Which is an entirely permissible opinion on what you have written here... If your feeling offended by it, sorry...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1.14  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.10    one month ago
.....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

So why did the school, a government entity, prohibit his free exercise thereof?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.12    one month ago

Uh, no. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.16  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.10    one month ago

simple solution. get some gas, put it in a sprayer, and kill the grass in the shape of a pentagram in the center of the 50 yard line. let the copy cat thumpers kneel in the middle of that and pray.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.15    one month ago

I know John. You believe the Constitution means something when it aligns with your preferences. But when it doesn't you claim it's meaningless and outdated. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.12    one month ago

All you do is try to have it both ways. Either support only the original text or dont. You cant have it both ways. Lets follow the original text and restrict gun ownership to those in a well regulated militia. 

We cannot survive as a nation with the presumption that every Supreme Court decision must be conservative. It is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
12.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @12.1.16    one month ago
shape of a pentagram in the center of the 50 yard line

Then the school would be guilty of breaking the separation clause promoting an older version of Christianity.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
12.1.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @12.1.18    one month ago
restrict gun ownership to those in a well regulated militia

The prefatory clause provides the rational for the operative clause, it doesn't limit or expand the scope of the second part. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.1.21  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.19    one month ago

having one on my condo front door kept most of the door to door thumper vermin away.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
12.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @12.1.21    one month ago

I like messing with the thumpers.  I got an idea from a BBC show called Ms. Brown's Boys

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.11    one month ago

Sean, that clause is the very foundation of separation of church and state, as Madison himself talked about it.

The school clearly violated the coach's right to exercise his religion.

No it didn't. He could have prayed in anywhere privately but he did so on the field. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.1.13    one month ago
Nice paywall, can't read it cause of the paywall.. And who is the "HE" you are referring to? there were 40+ founders, they all had input...

There was no paywall. Try again.

And I implied nothing but what you choose to believe is on the wrong side of the issue...

Well, I think you are on the wrong side of the issue, given 80 years and several conservative courts. 

And yes it is offensive when you write:

It's only guesswork for those that don't care or know enough to care.

Which one am I? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.23    one month ago
at clause is the very foundation of separation of church and state, 

That clause is not in the Constitution. What's being litigated are the clauses in the Constitution. 

No it didn't.

It literally fired him for exercising his religion. That's not debatable.  Certainly the dissent didn't claim that.  The argument is whether a football coach praying in public constitutes the establishment of a state religion. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.1.26  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.24    one month ago
There was no paywall. Try again.

original

Well, I think you are on the wrong side of the issue, given 80 years and several conservative courts. 

And which conservative courts would those be? The Supreme Court has been in existence for 233 years... The Supreme Court has been decidedly liberal since the 40's, (Roosevelt appointments) and became actively liberal in the mid 50's to stridently liberal in the mid 60's and maintained such, (wavering levels of liberality but still liberal) until two years ago... 

And what about the other 153 years of courts? They don't count? (if they don't, it's a political belief tell)

Which one am I? 

Not a clue girl, only you can answer that...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
12.1.27  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.23    one month ago
He could have prayed in anywhere privately but he did so on the field. 

Was he loud about it ?

Did he call people over to join ?

Did he demand the team join in or else ?

Did he demand the School Sanction what he did ?

If I kneel and pray quietly on Federal Lands by myself in front of everyone, am I in Violation of seperation of Church and State ?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
12.1.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.1.26    one month ago

800

No paywall so I have no idea why you are having problems.

The case that I presented here: 11.2.54   was an overwhelmingly conservative court. That was the case they heard and that was their decision.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
12.1.29  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.1.28    one month ago
That was the case they heard and that was their decision.

as We've just seen, Things change. Thus the protests going on lately!

Change is "Good" !