Washington high school coach placed on leave for praying on field

[blackjack50]

Not every Christian is as 'tolerant' as you

So I should have my rights violated because of the actions of someone else? That's ok with you?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I don't see where I have a choice as long as said ritual doesn't place an undue burden on the school and doesn't violate anyone else's rights. I'm not going to defend the violating of the constitution. On a case to case basis there would probably be exceptions based on circumstance. But banning religion from a private citizen is nothing more than bigotry and wrong.

Well, praying to the devil most definitely may be against someone else's rights. Watching someone praying to the devil may be against their very own religion....see where I'm going with this....

 

[blackjack50]

In government and government services, we are.

Sure. But where is the government granted the power to prevent us from praying? Does it allow that? The government isn't allowed to establish a religion and they can't compell anyone else to participate. We aren't talking about a government official though. We are talking about the rights of citizens.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Don't worry about ad homing me when you can't win.

I do not do ad hominem posting...although you remark here indicates you do.

 

[blackjack50]

Well, praying to the devil most definitely may be against someone else's rights. Watching someone praying to the devil may be against their very own religion....see where I'm going with this....

You aren't granted the freedom FROM other religions. And our government is secular. They can't protect one religion over the other.

 

[ecofarm]

Sure. But where is the government granted the power to prevent us from praying? Does it allow that? The government isn't allowed to establish a religion and they can't compell anyone else to participate. We aren't talking about a government official though. We are talking about the rights of citizens.

Well, if it's not on the government dime, do what you want.

 

[blackjack50]

Well, if it's not on the government dime, do what you want.

Which could be an argument to be made, but even private employers must respect people's rights "on their dime" as long as they are not placed under any undue burden financially or they don't have a "compelling interest." There is no consistency the way the people in this thread want it.

The government can't be exempt from the same employment law requirements it places on others.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You aren't granted the freedom FROM other religions. And our government is secular. They can't protect one religion over the other.

...however, I'm a public employee. I don't have the right to present my religious beliefs in front of students on school time no matter if I practice a Christian religion, Wicca, Islamic, Satanism, Voodoo, Hinduism etc...etc...

Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 3 ] Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

 

[ecofarm]

Which could be an argument to be made, but even private employers must respect people's rights "on their dime" as long as they are not placed under any undue burden financially or they don't have a "compelling interest." There is no consistency the way the people in this thread want it.

The government can't be exempt from the same employment law requirements it places on others.

Employers are not required to facilitate or accommodate your religious beliefs. They are merely expected to not fire you for those beliefs as long as they do not interfere with your work.

 

[matchlight]

I agree with Justice Thomas' argument in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, the 2004 case that involved an Establishment Clause challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, that it was a misinterpretation of the Constitution ever to apply that clause to the states. He argues in a concurring opinion that the clause was a federalism provision some states insisted on in 1791 to protect their right to make religious establishments against interference by the federal government. If so, incorporating the Establishment Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment so that it prohibits state religious establishments, as the Court first did in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, was irrational, because it brought about the very thing the states intended to prevent.

I don't think this kind of activity in public schools violates the Establishment Clause, and I would like to see the Supreme Court allow them. Its decisions involving that clause are a mess--maybe more of an incoherent jumble than its decisions involving any other part of the Constitution

 

[matchlight]

Employers are not required to facilitate or accommodate your religious beliefs. They are merely expected to not fire you for those beliefs as long as they do not interfere with your work.

That is not accurate. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make accommodations for the religious practices of their employees, provided the accommodations are reasonable and would not cause the employer an undue hardship.

 

[ecofarm]

That is not accurate. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make accommodations for the religious practices of their employees, provided the accommodations are reasonable and would not cause the employer an undue hardship.

No it doesn't. It requires that the employer not discriminate based on religion.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The word accommodate does not appear therein.

 

[blackjack50]

...however, I'm a public employee. I don't have the right to present my religious beliefs in front of students on school time no matter if I practice a Christian religion, Wicca, Islamic, Satanism, Voodoo, Hinduism etc...etc...

Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." [ 3 ] Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Let me ask a clarified. By "present" do you mean open it up for discussion with the students?

 

[blackjack50]

Employers are not required to facilitate or accommodate your religious beliefs. They are merely expected to not fire you for those beliefs as long as they do not interfere with your work.

That would be the same thing. They must accommodate them as long as they do not interfere with work. I had to do a seminar on this stuff. It pertained mainly to Florida law and private schools though. But here is a source,m (not that it is needed) but basically a no hats policy would by null and void if someone had a religious hat. If said hat interfered with work...that would then no longer apply.

Basically if it placed an undue burden on the employer then yes...fire them.

Religion in the Workplace - FindLaw

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Let me ask a clarified. By "present" do you mean open it up for discussion with the students?

Present can mean that, or it can mean to have them watch me indulge in my religious rituals and beliefs while they are waiting patiently for an education. My job is to educate them with the core subjects of reading, writing, math, science and history and not waste their time by indulging in my private affairs during public time.

 

[blackjack50]

I do not do ad hominem posting...although you remark here indicates you do.

And this was a clever little play on words?

Since Matthew has been mentioned, I think it is time we all look at Matthew 7:6. The admonition not to cast pearls before swine seems to be in play here. You can reason with some people...but it makes no sense when dealing with those with closed minds...or those who stonewall.

:eye roll:

 

[ecofarm]

That would be the same thing. They must accommodate them as long as they do not interfere with work. I had to do a seminar on this stuff. It pertained mainly to Florida law and private schools though. But here is a source,m (not that it is needed) but basically a no hats policy would by null and void if someone had a religious hat. If said hat interfered with work...that would then no longer apply.

Basically if it placed an undue burden on the employer then yes...fire them.

Religion in the Workplace - FindLaw

The things to be allowed there are very minor. It doesn't include worship at work.

 

[blackjack50]

Maintaining a refusal to understand does not continue a conversation.

How is prohibiting public prayer by a teacher in a class room or on a playing field advancing the practice of atheism? Are you saying that children only learn about the world while they are under the supervision of a teacher or a coach? That children are forbidden from attending the place of worship that their parents attend? Got some pretty weak faith there, Dude.

Atheism is allowed everywhere, but you can only be a Christian in the closet out of sight of the easily offended atheists. Only Christians can violate the rights of atheists, but not the other way around.

 

[blackjack50]

The things to be allowed there are very minor. It doesn't include worship at work.

So you are saying an employee bowing their head for a prayer places an undue burden on the employer? The employer would be under obligation to prove that they lost profit due to the worship conducted by the employee. Like that voodoo chicken sacrifice guy that did it in front of customers...that would be one thing.

 

[ecofarm]

So you are saying an employee bowing their head for a prayer places an undue burden on the employer? The employer would be under obligation to prove that they lost profit due to the worship conducted by the employee. Like that voodoo chicken sacrifice guy that did it in front of customers...that would be one thing.

If the person wishes to include others that lack the ability to opt out, he's imposing on others. Bowing one's head alone and silent is fine.

 

[Frank Apisa]

So you are saying an employee bowing their head for a prayer places an undue burden on the employer? The employer would be under obligation to prove that they lost profit due to the worship conducted by the employee. Like that voodoo chicken sacrifice guy that did it in front of customers...that would be one thing.

"The employer" warned the individual not to do what he was doing while on duty...and they defined "when on duty."

The employee decided not to comply.

The suspension was appropriate.

If the employee feels the rule of conduct was inappropriate, he has a means of recourse.

The suspension was appropriate.

 

[blackjack50]

If the person wishes to include others that lack the ability to opt out, he's imposing on others. Bowing one's head alone and silent is fine.

Exactly. In this particular case they had the opportunity to "opt out" and nobody was required to participate.

 

[ecofarm]

Exactly. In this particular case they had the opportunity to "opt out" and nobody was required to participate.

When a person in a position of authority sets up a group meeting, there's not really an opt out. He should have bowed his head alone and silently.

 

[blackjack50]

"The employer" warned the individual not to do what he was doing while on duty...and they defined "when on duty."

The employee decided not to comply.

The suspension was appropriate.

If the employee feels the rule of conduct was inappropriate, he has a means of recourse.

The suspension was appropriate.

And their order for him to not practice his faith was unconstitutional. He violated nobodies rights and they violated him. But I know what is desired here...Christians can only pray in the closet. Right? You can't stop someone from practicing their faith because you don't like it.

 

[CMPancake]

When a person in a position of authority sets up a group meeting, there's not really an opt out. He should have bowed his head alone and silently.

The coach in question didn't set up a group meeting. It's explained in the article that the coach doesn't use any official capacity to require others to join him, nor does he invite the players. The players who do join in prayer joined on their own accord.