• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Talk about making children fell bad about themselves!!

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A coach goes to the middle of the field and prays and soon some of his players begin to join him. Nothing wrong here say religious conservatives, but what about he children who have different beliefs but feel forced by peer pressure to join the praying. Do not try and tell me that the peer pressure isn't there and that those who do not join in are not "left out" and thus feel bad about themselves. This is exactly why previous courts have ruled against such demonstrations of a person's religion. This is especially true when it is a person in authority and one who is in the hire of a government agency. Soon we will be back to having Christian prayers at the beginning of classes and those who not join in will be ostracized by the other students.
 
The possible (potential for?) coercion argument (which is obviously not limited to speech of a religious nature) could be applied to a public school employee expressing any opinion or encouraging any extraneous behavior - even expecting folks to sing a school ‘fight song’ or participate in a team yell or cheer. I still don’t see how the courts could decide that this violates the 1A in terms of establishing a particular (state?) religion.
 
The possible (potential for?) coercion argument (which is obviously not limited to speech of a religious nature) could be applied to a public school employee expressing any opinion or encouraging any extraneous behavior - even expecting folks to sing a school ‘fight song’ or participate in a team yell or cheer. I still don’t see how the courts could decide that this violates the 1A in terms of establishing a particular (state?) religion.
Preferential treatment of one religion over another is a violation.
 
A coach goes to the middle of the field and prays and soon some of his players begin to join him. Nothing wrong here say religious conservatives, but what about he children who have different beliefs but feel forced by peer pressure to join the praying. Do not try and tell me that the peer pressure isn't there and that those who do not join in are not "left out" and thus feel bad about themselves. This is exactly why previous courts have ruled against such demonstrations of a person's religion. This is especially true when it is a person in authority and one who is in the hire of a government agency. Soon we will be back to having Christian prayers at the beginning of classes and those who not join in will be ostracized by the other students.
Right. We need more laws regarding the right of people to feel good about themselves. It's a damned shame that in this cruel, hate filled world we can't throw people in jail, or at least fine them huge amounts of money, when what they do pisses us off and makes us feel that they believe they are superior in some way or another. Skinny people should be allowed to sue fat people, poor people should be allowed to sue rich people. dumb people should be allowed to sue smart people and, most importantly, woke people should be allowed to sue anyone and everyone that offends them. It's the only way we can ever have freedom in America and restore ourselves as the beacon of all that is good in the world...and then get sued by every nation that isn't us.
 
Preferential treatment of one religion over another is a violation.

OK, then explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is an acceptable federal holiday (holy day?).

It appears that 12 states celebrate Good Friday as a holiday.

 
OK, then explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is an acceptable federal holiday (holy day?).

It appears that 12 states celebrate Good Friday as a holiday.

It is OK as long as it is a paid, free, day off .... gotta love those hypocrites!
 
OK, then explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is an acceptable federal holiday (holy day?).

It appears that 12 states celebrate Good Friday as a holiday.


Good argument, my son's school had Easter off, is that a violation? Or Easter eggs ect.

Or good Ole Saint Nick?
 
A coach goes to the middle of the field and prays and soon some of his players begin to join him. Nothing wrong here say religious conservatives, but what about he children who have different beliefs but feel forced by peer pressure to join the praying. Do not try and tell me that the peer pressure isn't there and that those who do not join in are not "left out" and thus feel bad about themselves. This is exactly why previous courts have ruled against such demonstrations of a person's religion. This is especially true when it is a person in authority and one who is in the hire of a government agency. Soon we will be back to having Christian prayers at the beginning of classes and those who not join in will be ostracized by the other students.

How would the same coercion not exist if the coach kneeled for the anthem to protest in favor or BLM?
 
OK, then explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is an acceptable federal holiday (holy day?).

It appears that 12 states celebrate Good Friday as a holiday.


Politics. Don't mess with Christmas or the market it was created to support.
 
Good argument, my son's school had Easter off, is that a violation? Or Easter eggs ect.

Or good Ole Saint Nick?

You sure that wasn't part of "Spring Break?" It is in my neck of the woods.
 
How would the same coercion not exist if the coach kneeled for the anthem to protest in favor or BLM?

Exactly. Not participating in any extraneous school activity could be seen as possible coercion to join in with the coach/teacher or team/class.

Mary wore a sweater like the teacher does and got an A on the test, maybe I should do that too. ;)
 
Exactly. Not participating in any extraneous school activity could be seen as possible coercion to join in with the coach/teacher or team/class.

Mary wore a sweater like the teacher does and got an A on the test, maybe I should do that too. ;)
I had a Mary in my school and if I was a teacher I'd have damned sure given her an A for that sweater!
 
The possible (potential for?) coercion argument (which is obviously not limited to speech of a religious nature) could be applied to a public school employee expressing any opinion or encouraging any extraneous behavior - even expecting folks to sing a school ‘fight song’ or participate in a team yell or cheer. I still don’t see how the courts could decide that this violates the 1A in terms of establishing a particular (state?) religio
Exactly, not participating in any extraneous school activity could be seen as possible coercion to join in with the coach/teacher or team/class.

Mary wore a sweater like the teacher does and got an A on the test, maybe I should do that too. ;)
Sorry but these arguments are complete failures because the constitution does not protect against "extraneous activities." The constitution protects freedom of AND freedom from religion. School led prayer has been deemed to violate the first amendment protection under the establishment clause. Same is true if a teacher said: I'm going to recite a christian prayer, you kids can participate if you want to, but you don't have to.

Don't conflate the issue with something completely inapplicable.
 
Sorry but these arguments are complete failures because the constitution does not protect against "extraneous activities." The constitution protects freedom of AND freedom from religion. School led prayer has been deemed to violate the first amendment protection under the establishment clause. Same is true if a teacher said: I'm going to recite a christian prayer, you kids can participate if you want to, but you don't have to.

Don't conflate the issue with something completely inapplicable.

Again, explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is a valid federal holiday (holy day?) and does not promote or establish Christianity as a (the?) national religion. BTW, the school is not leading or requiring the post-game prayer.
 
Again, explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is a valid federal holiday (holy day?) and does not promote or establish Christianity as a (the?) national religion. BTW, the school is not leading or requiring the post-game prayer.
Um, the coach of the football team, who is part of the school staff is absolutely leading the post game prayer. Are you back to the "he's off the clock despite being in his coaching duds, moments after the game ended, with all his kids still in uniform, at midfield of the school property?"

As we have covered ad nauseum, it all boils down to whether the kids feel this is really voluntary, with no coercion to participate. You seem convinced it is. I am not so sure.

Of one thing I am certain, few if any christians arguing in favor of things like this spend anytime thinking "what if my kid was the one in the minority religion, and the coach makes a big deal out of a post game prayer in his religion and all of my team mates like to participate because they are of the same religion."
 
I just don't understand this issue. Religious belief is a good thing unless taken to an extreme. However it is, or should be, an incredibly personal thing that is best left outside of the public school system and government agencies. Both freedom of religion and separation of church and state can coexist with no problem. I swear you people just want to find issues to fight with each other. I can't even begin to imagine the wonder you could be if you just chilled on who is right and who is wrong.
 
OK, then explain how Christmas (Christ’s mass?) is an acceptable federal holiday (holy day?).

It appears that 12 states celebrate Good Friday as a holiday.

Holidays are not preferential treatment. It's a day off for everyone. If only christians got the day off, you'd have a point.
 
Holidays are not preferential treatment. It's a day off for everyone. If only christians got the day off, you'd have a point.

It’s the end of the football game for everyone too - they are free to either stay or leave.
 
Back
Top Bottom