Why can't the coach pray on the field?

@fmf said
I think a coach praying on a sports field is "one man's business" and does not involve exerting the "authority" of a "state religion", just as it is each teenager's business - "one man's business" in each case - if they pray along with him or don't.

Did "the state" take any action against the teenagers who did not participate in what is effectively alleged to have been the ri ...[text shortened]... the writers of the constitution or [2] acting in the best interests of the community and the nation.

He was clearly acting as a coach on the field of play, not as a private citizen with no connection to the sports activity about to take place. It's different if a spectator prays while seated in the grandstands: that's a private citizen not acting as a representative of the team or the arena.

@moonbus said
He was clearly acting as a coach on the field of play, not as a private citizen with no connection to the sports activity about to take place. It's different if a spectator prays while seated in the grandstands: that's a private citizen not acting as a representative of the team or the arena.

The coach wasn't "establishing" a "state religion".

I find his sacking preposterous.

No wonder half the population in America is willing to elect demagogues, with this sort of thing going on.

You and vivify had laid the thinking out very clearly. No complaints.

@fmf said
I think a coach praying on a sports field is "one man's business"

I've noticed you deliberately change the context of an issue in order to win a point. It's been pointed out to you that this was not a case of "one's man's business" if he chooses to involve others.

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the situation. I've always wondered why people on this forum have ire and and contempt for you and I'm starting to see why.

If would be a different matter if you simply believed the firing was excessive. That's fine. But to deliberately change the context of the situation, repeatedly, even after it's been pointed out to you that you're doing this....that's low.

@vivify said
This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the situation. I've always wondered why people on this forum have ire and contempt for you and I'm starting to see why.

Thank you for your observation.

@vivify said
I've noticed you deliberately change the context of an issue in order to win a point. It's been pointed out to you that this was not a case of "one's man's business" if he chooses to involve others.

I've noticed that you have omitted a crucial part of my answer for your own purposes.

What I said was that him praying is "one man's business" and does not involve exerting the "authority" of a "state religion", just as it is each teenager's business - "one man's business" in each case - if they pray along with him or don't.

You have attempted to distort my use of the expression "one's man's business" by taking it out of the context in which it was used.

@fmf said
I've noticed that you have omitted a crucial part of my answer for your own purposes.

What I said was that him praying is "one man's business" and does not involve exerting the "authority" of a "state religion", just as it is each teenager's business - "one man's business" in each case - if they pray along with him or don't.

You have attempted to distort my use of the expression "one's man's business" by taking it out of the context in which it was used.

Oh, the irony.

@vivify said, to you:
"He wasn't "sacked for praying". He was fired for asking children to do so. That's a big difference. You keep using phrasing that inaccurately describes what happened. This isn't the first time you've done that on this thread, which makes it seem like you're ignoring the seriousness of religion in society."

Ignoring what people write is standard procedure for you.

@suzianne said
Oh, the irony.

@vivify said, to you:
"He wasn't "sacked for praying". He was fired for asking children to do so. That's a big difference. You keep using phrasing that inaccurately describes what happened. This isn't the first time you've done that on this thread, which makes it seem like you're ignoring the seriousness of religion in society."

Ignoring what people write is standard procedure for you.

I contend that the coach WAS "sacked for praying" because that's what it probably comes down to in the everyday lives of most American Christians. To assert that he was "establishing" a "state religion" and that his prayers were unconstitutional is, to me, ridiculous.

@fmf said
I contend that the coach WAS "sacked for praying" because that's what it probably comes down to in the everyday lives of most American Christians. To assert that he was "establishing" a "state religion" and that his prayers were unconstitutional is, to me, ridiculous.

I'm sorry you find facts "ridiculous".

@suzianne said
I'm sorry you find facts "ridiculous".

I don't think that it is a fact that the coach was "establishing a state religion". It is merely an interpretation of a few words in a legal document.

@fmf said
I don't think that it is a fact that the coach was "establishing a state religion". It is merely an interpretation of a few words in a legal document.

What else are court decisions but interpretations?

@suzianne said
What else are court decisions but interpretations?

Yes. Indeed. And I do not agree with the coach being sacked. If the court has not decided already, I'd like to see it rule in his favour.

I just heard a story about a devout Christian substitute teacher in Texas who verbally abused a Black elementary school student [using the N-word] in front of other children in class for saying "Oh my God!" [and so, allegedly, taking God's name in vain]. He was fired. Any 1st amendment / freedom of speech angles to this?

@fmf said
"Joseph A. Kennedy, a former high school football coach, was fired after he made a habit of going to the 50-yard line after his team’s games to thank God and to lead his players in prayer. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard his suit." ~ The Daily

Isn't feeling excluded from such moments simply character building?

Thoughts?

SCOTUS ruled in favour of the coach.

@fmf said
SCOTUS ruled in favour of the coach.

Another obvious example of the pro-religion stance this far-right court is endorsing.

They are wrong for doing so.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is wrong, too.



https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boebert-church-founding-fathers-government-colorado-1719760

"Lauren Boebert Says the Church Is Supposed To Direct the Government"
By Gerrard Kaonga On 6/28/22 at 7:05 AM EDT

A video of Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert has gone viral as she argues against the separation of church and state.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1541508454740885511

In a video that has now been viewed over 770,000 times on Twitter, Boebert argued the church should be advising the government.

Boebert made these comments while speaking to a Sunday crowd of people at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, according to a report by The Denver Post.

She went on to dismiss the idea that this was not what the founding fathers of America wanted.

"The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not meant to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it.

"And I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk, that's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does."

@fmf said
Yes. Indeed. And I do not agree with the coach being sacked. If the court has not decided already, I'd like to see it rule in his favour.

I didn't realize you were so far-right in your politics.

Your position is idiotic and anti-America, just like the Court's.