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

I think if a teacher ranted about politics in class she'd meet the entire administration, from the assistant principal to the school board on her way out the door. "Right." Sure. Classroom speech is very limited (as it should be, generally) and getting more so all the time, see: DeSantis/Florida.

 

Please pray for the victims of the Uvalde school shooting and their families. Just don't be inside the school when you do so. Thanks and God bless!

 

Not really. Am I free to exercise it? Regardless, you’re getting the theocracy that you’ve been pining for. Enjoy

 

Why would you impose this view?

 

That's your narrative and it's wrong. The coach was doing it on his own without invitation to any player or coach. People have been doing this for more than decades and hard to believe how this bothers anyone.

It might mean something to you one day. Lots of atheist change their tune at some point in life. Whether it's someone they meet, a book they read or are on deaths front doorstep.

The Supreme Court is on a roll!

 

I was highlighting the fallacious positioning by the Majority that the coach "offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied". That conjures Tebow's kneeling when in actuality the coach was leading a prayer circle (per Minority opinion).

"stands on the 50, blows whistle, holds up team helmet, waits for team to kneel around him, leads prayer" does not constitute "quietly praying" unless you have an agenda.

As far as you implying I'm a hypocrite, I assure you I'd be just as upset if Meyer instigated and led a prayer on the 50.

 

Do you realize he was talking about a private company?

 

I didnt say you were a hypocrite.
Im saying Meyer had as much right to do it as anyone and he should have.

 

When you constantly make judgements on this board and tell people of faith that they are delusional believing in fairy tails that they lack reasoning skills and judge people accordingly, what would you call it?

Imagine if I called gays "delusional". Certain posters would call that bigotry would they not?

 

I’m going to call you on that one. A very few… sure. A lot. No way.

 

So you're saying that if you'd be cool with a Muslim coach compelling your child to Muslim prayer--even if implied and even if your child would have no way to know until non-compliance that they might be punished in some way? Sorry dude, I find that hard to believe. In any case, the problem is that it by its nature, it sets up the potential for harm and therefore, student's shouldn't have to be put in such a situation in the first place.

Plenty of ways one can build unity without bringing religion into it. But I think the underlying thing with Christians is an effort to hold onto waning social power and influence.

Change the religion of the coach to a non-Christian religion, and they'd be thinking it's wrong.

About tolerance...what about gays marrying in your church? Fight for it? You for gay marriage?

 

So its bigotry to call faith a bad way to make decisions? If I stated that i believed in sky picies who fart rainbows you would respect that? Our constitution is under attack by religious zealots. The supreme court is making nonsense rulings that are underminining fundamental rights. You think a coach, a high school employee, should lead prayer circles after a football game. I sit here with open eyes as the theocrats take over this great country. Those who support this nonsense are at the very least complicit in this throwing away of this country.

 

Don't you basically think that? What would you call their same sex desires?

 

Oh, I'm sure you already do that.

 

Except you people scream bloody murder over DeSantis/Florida. You cry "fascism."

 

I'm not seeing your point. Perhaps it's hidden under the inflammatory prose?

 

My point is now that the prevalent issue is to limit religious speech, you're acting like you always thought generally limiting speech for public employees is okay. We're supposed to pretend you weren't screaming bloody murder over the Parental Rights in Education Bill two seconds ago.

 

They're two separate issues, and as such should be considered differently. One size doesn't fit all. One involves the Constitution (church and state.) One involves an aspirant to the presidency creating a legislative solution to a non-problem (also, doesn't involve the Constitution.) See the difference?

 

I do. You chose to lump them all into the same category.

I don't think it's hypocritical to think the DeSantis law is just bad policy while simultaneously believing this violates the Establishment Clause because you believe the coach coerced the players into praying. I find the latter to be a stretch, but not the conjunction of the two to be hypocritical. I do find it hypocritical to call the case of DeSantis/Florida fascism, infringements on free exercise of the First Amendment, while simultaneously poo-pooing public prayer in public schools saying, well you have to sacrifice some rights to be a government employee.

People didn't just call DeSantis's law bad policy. They called it a fascist unconstitutional infringement on the 1st Amendment. This view in conjunction with the view that this prayer in public school violated the Establishment Clause just because the coach is an authority figure and chose to pray, or some weak minimal evidence that some students claimed to FEEL coerced, or there's photos of the whole team praying... is absolutely hypocritical.

 

Nah, it’s just you don’t like the facts. Cool with me, just save the sanctimony for your bubbies.

And of course I might change. It is the only logical way a functional intellect works. Try it!