Supreme Court rules for coach whose prayers on football field raised questions about church-state se

Except it isnt that at all. Its a public space we are talking about. Private space is not up for debate here. Your "anywhere they want" claim is simply false. Had this been at a Muslim school and a Christian done this, he would deserve whatever the school chose to do about it.

This wasnt a classroom. This was not a requirement. This was grass paid for by taxpayers on public property.

 

I absolutely go on rants. But your recent posts in this thread indicate that you're either not familiar with the record in this case or you're choosing to ignore the things that are inconvenient to your belief that this coach should be able to do what he did.

And I spelled "ridiculous" correctly, TYVM.

 

He was a government employee coercing students to join in Christian prayer while on the job. Our Constitution is supposed to protect those kids.

 

The usual persecution complex has twisted this case almost as much as the majority had to to arrive at the predetermined conclusion.

This dude has been at it since at least 2016. Once he morphed it into the Public Spectacle that some now want to declare as their right to impose upon everyone, that’s when it became a problem.

Then he went on a media blitz to ratchet up the hype.

“Sincerely held religious belief”?? He sincerely believes that the only way to stay in the J Club level seats is to belt out prayers at the 50 immediately after child competitions with as many people and cameras as possible.

Where are the TH closet Q nuts to explain “crisis actors” to us?

 

Of course private space is not up for debate, you already get to lord over private space when you control it, now Christians are coming for the little remaining public space (and the bodily autonomy of women) in this country because that's not enough for them.

 

It absolutely is a requirement for the children on the team, cheerleaders, band, other coaches, etc. And he’s straight on the clock, they pay him to do that. The only difference between that field and a classroom is that other people are free to pay to be there. And if even those people want to participate in the lives of their respective children, then they also have no alternative. There isn’t a non-church game at a different location.

 

He was hired to coach, not preach.

I would like to know the content and length of his speechifying. Quick little thanks be that no player was injured, or thanks for the win? Or long rambles on matters outside the scope of the game? I couldn't find any info on what was actually said in the media.

 

Did they ever. Would have been interesting had it involved the woman’s volleyball coach in a burka.

 

I agree in part, but that coach was so brazen about it.

 

Spoken like a true Christian. The way some Christians select which of Christ’s teaching they want to follow or ignore never ceases to amaze me. I’ve often said, and will say again: if Christ were to suddenly appear, most right wing Christians would stone Him.

 

Coerced - to pressure or force someone into to doing something.

Feeling coerced is not the same as being coerced into doing actions you do not want to participate in.

As far as I'm concerned no one was coerced and no one was threatened with punishment for not participating.

Does peer pressure have ab effect? In some instances yes. Even adults are subject to peer pressure. Go along to get along if you will for the sake of not being abandoned and lonely. The sign of an adult mind is thinking for themselves and refusing to submit to feelings (emotional responses) of peer pressure and coercion.

 

Bless your little heart.

No

 

Confusing long (girl) hair, in a dress, suspiciously slim (vegetarian??), a bunch of anti-hate WokeTalk, clear socialist, unemployed, etc.

This cat wouldn’t survive a day of Tucker scrutiny.

 

You are missing the plot. We are talking about neither a Christian school nor a Muslim school. We are talking about a public school.

Hypothetically: what if it were a Muslim soccer coach at a public school who asked all his players make a big show about kneeling at midfield and praying towards Mecca? Let’s say he refused to stop asking his players and the school district fired him. Would you back his “religious freedom” then in this completely equivalent case? I’m pretty confident the answer is… no… no you wouldn’t. Nor would this Supreme Court most likely, which is why the court is losing credibility as far as delivering impartial justice.

The issue is NOT the coaches own free exercise, it’s his expectation that his public school players be active participants (going for 100% participation?). Normally we look the other way if coaches join in and of course players can do what they want individually it, but if a big hubbub is made or the head coach in a position of authority is actively demanding his team to do it, it’s pretty obviously violating the religious freedom of the students who don’t actually share his views. You are just blinded to it in this case because these are your views.

 

Um, the coerced here were not adults.

Although the primary adult in this story was pressured by his feelings to continue The Show.

 

That's a whole heap of assumptions.

 

I don't think anyone here has said people should not be able to express their faith publicly. That to me isn't the issue at all, not even with that coach. Leading school children in prayer where they feel pressured to join in is not a cornerstone of democracy. It is a violation of the establishment clause, not to mention, but really bad practice for an educator who has no biz pushing his religion on vulnerable children.

Let's face it, most of the people here who aren't religious are no longer religious--meaning they probably grew up with some religion in their background and it was likely Christian, or a few Jewish. And more to it, have plenty of experience in and around Christians in their families and among their friends, to this day. That's how it is in my fam and among my friends. Point is, the problems with religion are well known and historical and not always about religious-vs-non religous but between religious groups look historically at how LDS have been treated. IMO, the criticisms are often well-earned, especially since "religion" is a human enterprise and has all the markings of human flaws, to which I know you also have criticisms.

 

Amazing how some folks pick and choose scripture.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 6:5-6 - New International Version

 

Well duh, it’s called a hypothetical. I presented the assumptions to ponder. I have no doubt Tilly’s opinion, and most people screaming “religious freedom” would flip flop based on the religion in question. No doubt whatsoever.

To adhere to the constitution and “law and order” necessarily means all religions get the same treatment in the eyes of the law.