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

I have to ask. Have you noticed that you are making noteworthy effort to give this coach the benefit of the doubt regarding his actions, while second guessing all other parties involved as to their feelings or motivations?

Coach: "I just wanted to express my Constitutional right to have a very public prayer where I huddle up all my football players and invite the public to join in, in direct defiance of what my employer asked me to do."
Tilly: "That seems reasonable and straightforward to me."

One of the players: "I felt pressure from my coach to take part in these prayers or face ostracism."
Tilly: "Did he really feel that way, or did his parents or someone put him up to it? And even if he did feel that way, is it really coercion just because he felt coerced? We need to investigate the root of that word and the specific legal implications and qualifiers associated with coercion."

You're stretching really hard on this one, man, and it's pretty obvious why.

 

That's what scary, they are no longer following the constitution. What is the remedy?

 

How would one prove he was playing one of his zealots instead of a better player?? Be real, you couldn't

 

Again, how so. I dont preach to anyone. That isnt how I roll. People know I am a Christian. Thats pretty much it. I then show it by how I live. Im not a fan of public spectacles, but support the legal right of those different than I.

 

I am saying I dont like the show per se. I dont do it myself, but I defend the constitutional right. I hate our gun culture and have never owned a firearm, but support 2A.

Its not that hard to understand

 

The players would know.
The parents that watch practice and grew up in that community would know. Its not like practice is held in the cloak of darkness.

You ok with feelings being enough? Thats a slippery slope for all sides.

 

And why would I believe that when you tell me this coach isn't 'preaching' to anyone either?

 

Indeed, that's why people should not lead prayers at schools, it will only foster an environment of acrimony and division as people sus out motivations and agendas. The establishment clause is supposed to protect us from that. Instead its being read like a "I get to do my thing" clause.

 

1. You added to my words, even using quotation marks to do so. Thats..um... unfortunate.
2. I have clearly said that even if he did truly feel that way that isnt enough.

Feelings alone could ground any right.

I feel like guns make me feel unsafe.
I feel like marriage is a certain definition.
I feel a boy should not wear a dress.

My feelings lose to the constitution on these matters.

Feelings arent enough to silence 1A rights. And in this case all we have is how someone felt.

 

If he is out there preaching rather than holding a voluntary prayer, those are different in my opinion.

 

Lets leave the democratic platform out of this.

 

Honest question. How are preaching and audibly praying to (or in front of) a group of people different?

 

Uh huh, and the Christians who would invite me to a 'voluntary' game of basketball at the church weren't 'preaching' either

 

This is why I cant believe the people who say they don't preach, they don't think this stuff is preaching!

 

One is speaking to ones God one is trying to convince others to do it

 

Depends on what they said to you.
Preaching is more than just a conversation or an explanation of ones faith. Its much more involved in my opinion.

 

My friend at work said come play pickup basketball at my church, we've got a nice court. We played basketball, then they stopped the games and preached to people and asked if anyone wanted to be saved. One guy did, and they rushed him into some backroom like some kind of cult. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw. At that point I knew any "fun" activity at my friend's church meant a sermon and people asking me if I died on my way home what would happen.

 

Dude, you've spent 2 days and countless posts critiquing the details of the case against this coach while giving him every benefit of the doubt. I think you're a really good guy, no doubt in part because of your faith. But your positive feelings and association with your faith are providing you with a biased lens for this case leading to your creating a much higher burden of proof for one side of this argument, while giving every grace and consideration for the "pro-Christian" side. It's painfully obvious to an outside observer.

 

Ok...So that is preaching. Not sure how that equates to this.

I am not a fan of such tactics at all.

Just dont go back if it bothered you and good for the guy that wanted to know more.

It's really pretty simple

 

I am 100% approaching this from that perspective. It's who I am.

But if you are being honest, I have also said that Muslims and gays deserve the same rights and voice so lets not act like I am being as myopic as you claim.

I have defended Kaepernick based on the exact same reasoning (understanding that a private business does have the right to shut him down).

I have defended BLM for the same reasoning.

I pretty much side with free speech in any thread that discusses it. THIS one is about a football coach that is having his rights challenged.

Funny that some probably agreed with me in those threads but disagree in this case.

I wonder why that is.