• 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!

US Supreme Court to hear case of Washington football coach who led students in prayer

A good way to look at this would be to ask if this was, say, a Muslim coach, who on his own went to that location and prayed, only to be joined by others of his faith, would that be "constitutional?" (that question isn't "would it be good, nice, acceptable, or unobjectionable..."-- it's whether it is "unconstitutional.")

I am an atheist.

I think it's constitutional under the facts presented.
I don't see why it wouldn't be constitutional. So long as the coach wasn't requiring it and made it clear people didn't have to participate and there are no repercussions for not participating, it should be fine.
 
How I "deal with other people's religious expression" is totally irrelevant. This thread isn't about me. It's about a Supreme Court case. If you want to talk about me, take it to the basement.

It is absolutely relevant since how you choose to deal with other people's religious expression is to demand the governmnet silence them rather than ignoring them.
 
It is absolutely relevant since how you choose to deal with other people's religious expression is to demand the governmnet silence them rather than ignoring them.

That's a blatant lie. I didn't "demand" anything. You really love twisting other people's words, don't you.
 
Po-tay-to, Po-Tah-to. The only reason it's an issue for you is because you are offended y displays of faith.

Oh, thanks for telling me what I'm thinking, Kreskin. Really, though, the reason for keeping religious fanatics from corrupting government functions with their faith is to promote civility. We've learned from American and world history thar religious tyranny leads to sectarian violence, and we're trying to have a civil country. That, in a nutshell is why you're incredibly wrong.
 
That's a blatant lie. I didn't "demand" anything. You really love twisting other people's words, don't you.

You do demand it. You support him being fired rather than ignore it and let him alone. Your only "solution" to te problem is to push people out of your sight so you don't have to suffer the indignity of witnessing an expression of faith. You are the one who thinks "free exercise of religion" means making then pray in their car. :rolleyes:

Don't pretend you are anything other than as I described when you make nonsense arguments like that.
 
Oh, thanks for telling me what I'm thinking, Kreskin. Really, though, the reason for keeping religious fanatics from corrupting government functions with their faith is to promote civility. We've learned from American and world history thar religious tyranny leads to sectarian violence, and we're trying to have a civil country. That, in a nutshell is why you're incredibly wrong.

It doesn't take mind reading, it just takes reading what you type. But after this post maybe I gave you too much credit... you don't do it because it offends you, you do it out of wholly irrational fear. You think a guy praying on the field after a game is a "religious fanatic"? :oops:
 
It doesn't take mind reading, it just takes reading what you type. But after this post maybe I gave you too much credit... you don't do it because it offends you, you do it out of wholly irrational fear. You think a guy praying on the field after a game is a "religious fanatic"? :oops:

Yes, he is a fanatic. There is NOTHING but fanaticism and hubris that makes his religious spectacle needed.
 
how can it be a big deal when by default "we are all sinners"

you just can shake being a "sinner"
lolz

im a proud sinner and i plan on sinning tonight and next Oct 4, and 4:24pm
You must be married and on the 'schedule" that most wives use!
 
I don't see why it wouldn't be constitutional. So long as the coach wasn't requiring it and made it clear people didn't have to participate and there are no repercussions for not participating, it should be fine.
This is the correct answer.
 
Yes, he is a fanatic. There is NOTHING but fanaticism and hubris that makes his religious spectacle needed.

Your projection is noted. YOU and the fanatic who needs to control what other people do, and it is YOU that thinks that ANYONE needs to cater to keeping your bubble inflated.

Get over it.
 
I don't know the exact law on that. I think employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for religious practice during business hours. Demanding that you be allowed to showboat your religion immediately after a football game, in the middle of the field in front of hundreds of people is not a reasonable accommodation.
But that's not what you said.

You said:
No one is stopping him from praying on his own time, on his own property. He's being paid to do a job, not to play act a farce.
This should apply equally to anyone praying while on the clock. Why are you laying skid marks to backtrack for Muslims?
 
I made no mention, anywhere, at any time, of bad. I wouldn't care if he worshipped the devil as long as he didn't mar the field or need props to do so.

No one has taken a stance at all, except the school, by saying we don't want you to do that. All the kids joined of their own volition.

Maybe? If so why?

But they did and now what? Are you going to moan and complain if this gets decided in a way you don't approve of?

It will be decided whether it is.

It was clearly understood, based on 60 years of case law, that this was not activity that could be sanctioned by the school system, for constitutional reasons.

The coach involved disobeyed his supervisors, and abused his position in order to proselytize.

There is no record of anything being voluntary. This was done on school property, by a person employed by the system (but unwilling to follow the rules).

His contract was not renewed. Which is as it should be.
 
Po-tay-to, Po-Tah-to. The only reason it's an issue for you is because you are offended y displays of faith.

When you don’t have an argument, just put words in other people’s mouths!
 
When you don’t have an argument, just put words in other people’s mouths!

I don't have to put words in their mouth. They care because displays of religion offend them. He's so hyper offended by displays of faith that a silent prayer after a football game becomes the act of a religious fanaticism in his mind.
 
This should apply equally to anyone praying while on the clock. Why are you laying skid marks to backtrack for Muslims?

I agree. I don't think private employers should be required to make accommodations for religious nonsense. Am I allowed to not agree with what the law actually says?
 
The more I read about this the more complicated the case gets. What started off as private prayer evolved into something that spiraled out of control. This started with the coach praying alone after games. Then his athletes supposedly asked to join him. Then visiting athletes supposedly asked to join him.

The administration intervened after the coach for a visiting team notified the principal that this was going on. The administration told their coach that he couldn’t do that but they would give him the press box if he wanted to engage in private prayer. The coach refused and took it public. Next thing you know he’s straight up evangelizing on the field to his athletes and visiting athletes while the Church of Satan is picketing the games to demand their own time on the field. So he was fired.
Had he kept his mouth shut and head down this wouldn't be a thing.
He could have prayed in the box and been done with it
 
It was clearly understood, based on 60 years of case law, that this was not activity that could be sanctioned by the school system, for constitutional reasons.
It was not sanctioned by the school, so there goes that line of argument.
The coach involved disobeyed his supervisors, and abused his position in order to proselytize.
He prayed, and there is nothing illegal, or insubordinate about that.
There is no record of anything being voluntary. This was done on school property, by a person employed by the system (but unwilling to follow the rules).
The record, if you will, is that he started the whole thing by praying HIMSELF. LATER, others joined him.
His contract was not renewed. Which is as it should be.
Correct, the school is free to fire him for just about any reason. They may suffer some repercussions for that choice though.
 
Brown v Board of Education was very much activism. It was a ruling with no real basis and the immediate court forced de-segregation benefitted no one. It created a lot of problems that wouldn’t have existed if de-segregation was abolished legislatively over time.

It was already 100 yrs after the Civil War and their freedom...how much longer should blacks have waited? I'm serious...100 years....and still Jim Crow, discrimination, lynchings, segregation. While all the while they were supposed to be protected exactly the same as white people under the Constitution.
 
I don't see why it wouldn't be constitutional. So long as the coach wasn't requiring it and made it clear people didn't have to participate and there are no repercussions for not participating, it should be fine.

The bold is the gray area IMO...the possible pressure (real or perceived) that non-participants in the prayer might miss out on communications or even opportunities because the authority figure could be biased towards the participants.
 
Your projection is noted. YOU and the fanatic who needs to control what other people do, and it is YOU that thinks that ANYONE needs to cater to keeping your bubble inflated.

Get over it.

LOL, you dare to accuse me of projection and then write THAT defense? It wasn't the government getting in the middle of the field, showing the crowd how secular they are, it was a religious fanatic who appreciates, just as you do, that his religion is as much an advertising strategy as it is about personal faith. It is HE, the coach, and the other fanatics, that needed to inflate their bubble at the price of civility, that must be perpetually pandered to. You've got it so twisted, as usual.

The conservative chrisitans used to talk about personal responsibility. They had a great point. I wonder if Christendom feels any responsibility to the constitution? No, in many ways they show they feel above it, authorized by a higher calling. Well, that's what I call "delusions of grandeur", not personal responsibility. A person who felt responsible would be wise enough to realize that you are NOT special. Whatever your inner voice tells you, you better damn well follow the rules of man or the responsibility will be thrust upon you. We just finished thrusting responsibility on religious fanatics in Afghanistan and I admit that was also futile.

The fanatics are, by default, forgiven...for whatever they do, whether it be bombing a clinic or, in some more subtle ways, practicing their faith in, not just apathy to the reality where their delusions are applied, but hostility to it. I stand here in awe of their naked entitlement. They do disgust me.
 
Back
Top Bottom