High school suspends coach for praying at games and Satanists make an appearance

a reply to: Gryphon66

Really? Because the COTUS does not apply to them? They don't pay taxes? They don't vote? They have never fought for this country? But thier tax dollars can pay for "timmy Has two Daddies" text books? LOL! I get it.

originally posted by: Annee
Tedious.

We know this coach is Christian. He is now suing. DONE

So you have no answer other than hatred and bias. I think we are indeed done.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Yes, I heard what you said; you're mistaken.

I'm aware of your theories.

There is no evidence for your theories that stands up to even the barest of reason.

You are welcome to your theories, and welcome to express them. And no, I'm not giving you permission, so don't thank me.

I'm acknowledging that those unique theories are yours and that you have a right to them.

At the same time, they are ridiculous and hold no force of truth.

Read Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc. and get back to me on the separation of church and state.

The matter was very clear to them.

a reply to: murphy22

Of course the Constitution applies to them, the Constitution that promises EVERYONE that government will stay out of the religion business.

You're just throwing more garbage logic against the wall.

Paying taxes, voting, fighting for the US ... have nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State. IN FACT, the Separation of Church and State along with the other Constitutional precepts is EXACTLY what promoting and protecting the American way of life is and was all about.

I'm sorry you're so irritated with and obsessed by gays. Are you certain you're not projecting your issues onto us?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The COTUS, BOR, with freedoms applies to them? But they aren't free to be public about their freedom? And I'm throwing out more garbage logic? At least you admitted there is logic with the garbage. Which sounds like double speak. And I don't make sense? You libs are a wonder.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Gryphon66

The COTUS, BOR, with freedoms applies to them? But they aren't free to be public about their freedom? And I'm throwing out more garbage logic? At least you admitted there is logic with the garbage. Which sounds like double speak. And I don't make sense? You libs are a wonder.

... and "you cons are a consternation." Feel free do discuss the topic instead of me or what you think about me.

This is not difficult to understand. The Constitution does two things in regard to the government and religion: it forbids the government from establishing a religion; it forbids the government from preventing the free exercise of religion.

A school is a function of a county or city government. The same Constitutional restrictions are in place because the Constitution is "the highest law of the land"

A high school football coach is a representative of government.

A high school football coach as a representative of government cannot publicly lead a prayer on government property before after or during a government sponsored function.

Are your attempts to misrepresent what I've said and what the Constitution says part of your religious freedom to lie as well?

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6:16-19.

Notice your Book mentions lying twice in a row ... must be important.

(I'm sure that "libs" should't quote the Bible either, right Murph? LOL.)

originally posted by: CB328
He seems like a nice guy, but he admitted that he doesn't know anything about the constitution, and it is clearly unconstitutional for school employees to lead prayers on school property during school events.

Yeah so let's just throw away all of our traditions and any notion of an American culture to satisfy a misguided minority of politically correct zombies.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I suggest you read your own comment for my answer. .."Preventing the free exercise thereof". So because the "coach" is a "government agent" he can not "exercise" his freedom of belief? In which case, all and any, inidividual belief and moral compass must be laid aside when one is working in an "official" office? Which is the ideal form of freedom. That's what you're saying right? How about a "Christian" voting for the best morally sound candidate for Pres? Or is that "unconstitutional" also? There should be a law of "separation of church and state " at the polls? After all, the "voter" is acting in an "official" capacity. Your arguement and reasoning is nonsense.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is no evidence for your theories that stands up to even the barest of reason.

You are welcome to your theories, and welcome to express them. And no, I'm not giving you permission, so don't thank me.

I'm acknowledging that those unique theories are yours and that you have a right to them.

At the same time, they are ridiculous and hold no force of truth.

Read Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc. and get back to me on the separation of church and state.

The matter was very clear to them.

On the contrary, there is a massive amount of evidence...

Much of it comes from highly reliable sources as well.

IF I we're mistaken (and I'm not BTW) YOU would have provided more than just an opinion.

Your opinion amounts to nothing when you cannot back it up.

ATS is FULL of opinions but rarely do posters give a source to back up an argument.

I'm aware of your theories as well.

I'm also aware that there is no evidence for them which is WHY your opinion is all you can provide to back them up.

I'm ALSO acknowledging that your theories are yours and that you have a right to them.

Ridiculous? no...

Ridiculous is denying the obvious when it stares you right in the face.

a reply to: Bone75

You mean our tradition of not being a christian nation?

I agree, we should stick to it.

Plenty of culture outside of that.

a reply to: murphy22

No one has said the coach has to set aside his belief.

No one has said that individual belief and moral compass must be laid aside.

I am saying precisely what I have said. The Constitution is clear.

Your other examples have nothing to do with what I have said or the issue at hand.

I have repeated the Constitution.

I have quoted what two of the people most directly related to the Constitutional restriction regarding Church and State said at the time.

You're bringing absolutely irrational examples into the discussion, or you're trying to. You're failing.

My argument and reasoning is only nonsense if you don't believe in the Constitution as you profess to.

a reply to: Murgatroid

A massive amount of evidence for what? The delusion that all powerful members of government are secret Satanists or Baal worshippers? LOL.

I quoted the Constitution. I quoted James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. What other backup do you require?

You posted a picture with a meme, and a lot of statements of your own. You equated Baal with Satan.

Neither of which have anything to do with a government-employed football coach holding a Christian prayer meeting on the government-owned football field.

My theories? That the Constitution says what it says? That Jefferson and Madison say what they said?

Denying the obvious? You mean like the US Constitution, Jefferson and Madison?

You know, you're right. It's ridiculous for you to deny the truth by spouting irrelevant nonsense.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I think the Satanists showing up was a bit petty of them.

Petty? Why? Too much fight fire with fire? I'd say it's about damn time.

The kids can meet voluntarily for prayer.

No faculty member can participate showing preference of one religion over another.

It creates an atmosphere of division and preference of one group of kids over others.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Separation of church and state is not found in any official document and is rooted in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church.


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."* -Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists
Thomas Jefferson
January 1, 1802

As you can see, he was trying to keep the government out of religion, not the other way around.

a reply to: Annee

The difference is that the Satanists would have never even shown up if they didn't know about the prayers, they showed up with the sole intention of ruffling some feathers. That's petty in my opinion. If they want to pray to Satan go for it, just as long as it's genuine and not out of spite. They can do what they want either way, I'm just saying the way they went about it wasn't really genuine.

I'm all for separation of church and state and am not a fan of religion, but I am for a person's right to practice their religion on their own time and by their own volition.

If it's about a statue on government grounds then I'd say Satanists are being fair by protesting it, but this is different in my opinion.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Keep the government out of religion? Yes, that's what many of us are saying.

Keep a state-employed school official from leading a religious prayer on state-owned property after a state-sponsored event.

a reply to: Klassified

Except he doesn't pray with his team. He prays on his own after the game. Sometimes kids pray with him.

He's like the players who spend time on their knees in the end zone after the team runs out before the game starts, only he's a coach.

Are we going to tell those players they can't spend that time too now? After all, if some kids pray, then others might feel pressured to do it, and as representatives of the school, it might constitute some kind of endorsement.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Keep the government out of religion? Yes, that's what many of us are saying.

Keep a state-employed school official from leading a religious prayer on state-owned property after a state-sponsored event.

Except he's leading nothing. He's praying on his own. No one has to join him, and if they do, they are likewise praying on their own. No one has to join him.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Keep the government out of religion? Yes, that's what many of us are saying.

Keep a state-employed school official from leading a religious prayer on state-owned property after a state-sponsored event.

Except he's leading nothing. He's praying on his own. No one has to join him, and if they do, they are likewise praying on their own. No one has to join him.

Of course he was leading the prayer. He's an authority figure employed by the government, representing the student body at the game, demonstrating that a Christian prayer is the proper response after a sporting event.

His presence compels others to follow suit as do his actions. That is specifically what the First Amendment prevents.

Praying in the stands, on his own time, as a private citizen? Pray away.

Take a job as the local youth pastor at one of the churches if you want to lead prayers with school-children. Do it at church, private fields, Christian football camp, etc.

I find it ironic how Christians attempt to misrepresent the facts blatantly to justify their own illegal actions.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well that kind of puts it in a different light now that you've put it that way, I guess I could see it as sort of an issue. It's a gray area for sure, I could see it going either way honestly, but I still think the Satanists approached the issue the wrong way by trying to start a Satanic ritual on the field just in spite of the coach. They could have handled it differently in my opinion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, he's not. It's like saying that if you are employed in any capacity by the government, then you give up any right to express your religion, and that is not what the text of the 1st amendment is saying at all.

If this coach were a Muslim or a Sikh, would you endorse a position that he must shave off his beard and not wear his turban because that also constitutes an endorsement of a religion by a government employed official? Would a teacher no longer be allowed to wear her headscarf or be compelled to eat during the Ramadan fast just to show the students that the school does not endorse Ramadan? Somehow, I don't think so.

Because now you're basically saying that if anyone does anything that even looks religious ... then it constitutes them endorsing religion whether they are compelling others to go along with it or not.

So I say that if you scrub all religion out of government, the government is endorsing atheism, and that constitutes an endorsement of a spiritual position of life. Government shouldn't be endorsing that either.