The funniest thing about all of this is God doesn't give a hoot about your sportsball team/game

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you have separation of Church and state when Democrats themselves also vote for Democratic candidates that practice religion? Maybe that's why there is such a weak response against religion infiltrating govt? Anyone, GOP or Dem, who practices religion will have an internal conflict of interest. It's like voting for a Dem candidate who is a card carrying member of the NRA while the country desperately needs sensible gun control laws, yet when people vote for Dems who practice religion they are shocked later on and wondering why secularism is in trouble.

SMH.

No one is against free practice of religion by anyone. It is a government coercing a captive audience to observe the religious practice of someone who has authority over them that is the issue.

This had no one coerced to join him in prayer. You really make yourself look silly when you say that!

Coaches also schedule “voluntary” off-season weight training and running sessions that every player knows are not voluntary but the coach has to say they are voluntary because he can’t require them officially. Voluntary does not mean voluntary when coaches say it.

Even if you do think the prayer is voluntary, players are forced to be there observing his public spectacle of prayer whether they participate or not. He is abusing his government authority in a government place to coerce his captive team. Even if some don’t pray, it is still coercive because declining is as much an unnecessary public spectacle as participating. It is basically making a religious declaration a condition of being on a public school sports team.

You are now spouting your opinion and crap that didn't happen.
Did you read the arguments of this case? Do you know anything about it?
It is clear you don't.
I don't think you know anything about the decision either. Other than you don't like it.

You are delusional. The coach is a government employee with authority over kids. Everything he does while on the field with his team is not private behavior. This ruling is about the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. This is about whether the 1st Amendment allows a government employee to use his public position to perform a public prayer spectacle to a captive audience over whom he has power.

I am old enough that my public high school graduation included a prayer by a local minister. No, it wasn’t the end of the world to have to sit and listen for a few minutes. But it was a little uncomfortable, because I am not Christian and hearing a Christian prayer in that situation felt like an official stamp of my outsider status. (They called it “nondenominational,” but nondenominational meant “not from one or another Christian group.” It was definitely a Christian prayer — in Jesus’ name, etc.) I was happy to hear about the Supreme Court’s later decision because that seemed like the right result in a country that believes in separation of church and state.

The situation in this week’s case seems so much worse. At my graduation, we were never going to see any of the school employees again. And the person offering the prayer wasn’t an employee; they just invited him. To have someone in authority offering prayers during a school activity is so much worse.

Nutters have to fight for it or they will go to hell. HELL I say!!!

Anonymous wrote:When the court purposely mischaracterizes witness testimony, omits facts and makes up others. I think we can all agree at illegitimate

Yes, this is shocking. Especially since they are supposed to accept the facts as found by the lower court.

Anonymous wrote:How many Muslim clerics are football coaches? My gosh you people always go to the extreme!

Our coach is Muslim.

Anonymous wrote:See here’s the thing with religious extremists. They need a big big BIG audience to prove their sanctimonious piety. I mean hypocrisy. Go pray and believe in whatever you choose with humility. Because it’s between you and God. We don’t give a flying crap. Pray hard though because we’re never going to acquiesce.

+1 The team and the people in the stands weren’t a large enough audience, so this blowhard had to whine on social media and get even more followers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you have separation of Church and state when Democrats themselves also vote for Democratic candidates that practice religion? Maybe that's why there is such a weak response against religion infiltrating govt? Anyone, GOP or Dem, who practices religion will have an internal conflict of interest. It's like voting for a Dem candidate who is a card carrying member of the NRA while the country desperately needs sensible gun control laws, yet when people vote for Dems who practice religion they are shocked later on and wondering why secularism is in trouble.

SMH.

No one is against free practice of religion by anyone. It is a government coercing a captive audience to observe the religious practice of someone who has authority over them that is the issue.

This had no one coerced to join him in prayer. You really make yourself look silly when you say that!

+1
Who was coerced? No one. What a looney thing to say.

The district court judge, appointed by George Bush, said it after gathering evidence on the matter. I’d imagine the fact that several students said in a deposition under oath that they felt coerced factored in there. But sure, you must know better.

PP’s lying like Gorsuch.

See here’s the thing with religious extremists. They need a big big BIG audience to prove their sanctimonious piety. I mean hypocrisy. Go pray and believe in whatever you choose with humility. Because it’s between you and God. We don’t give a flying crap. Pray hard though because we’re never going to acquiesce.

When the court purposely mischaracterizes witness testimony, omits facts and makes up others. I think we can all agree at illegitimate

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you have separation of Church and state when Democrats themselves also vote for Democratic candidates that practice religion? Maybe that's why there is such a weak response against religion infiltrating govt? Anyone, GOP or Dem, who practices religion will have an internal conflict of interest. It's like voting for a Dem candidate who is a card carrying member of the NRA while the country desperately needs sensible gun control laws, yet when people vote for Dems who practice religion they are shocked later on and wondering why secularism is in trouble.

SMH.

No one is against free practice of religion by anyone. It is a government coercing a captive audience to observe the religious practice of someone who has authority over them that is the issue.

This had no one coerced to join him in prayer. You really make yourself look silly when you say that!

+1
Who was coerced? No one. What a looney thing to say.

The district court judge, appointed by George Bush, said it after gathering evidence on the matter. I’d imagine the fact that several students said in a deposition under oath that they felt coerced factored in there. But sure, you must know better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much passion about saying a prayer. Mostly from folks with zero skin in the game. Out with prayer because the kids have so many other things now to influence them - so many things to desensitize their reactions to violence and hate. Much better way to go.

Prayer doesn’t belong at public school functions. Religion is garbage and I don’t want my kids exposed to it. My kids don’t need to be raised with moral superiority, profound ignorance, and bigotry, which seem to be the main tenets of religion.

You are absolutely right. Your children are being raised by social media and everything else on the internet - and it is free and easily accessible with little to no real restrictions on access. Hopefully, the focus will turn back to securing public school campuses and bettering education for all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you have separation of Church and state when Democrats themselves also vote for Democratic candidates that practice religion? Maybe that's why there is such a weak response against religion infiltrating govt? Anyone, GOP or Dem, who practices religion will have an internal conflict of interest. It's like voting for a Dem candidate who is a card carrying member of the NRA while the country desperately needs sensible gun control laws, yet when people vote for Dems who practice religion they are shocked later on and wondering why secularism is in trouble.

SMH.

No one is against free practice of religion by anyone. It is a government coercing a captive audience to observe the religious practice of someone who has authority over them that is the issue.

This had no one coerced to join him in prayer. You really make yourself look silly when you say that!

Coaches also schedule “voluntary” off-season weight training and running sessions that every player knows are not voluntary but the coach has to say they are voluntary because he can’t require them officially. Voluntary does not mean voluntary when coaches say it.

Even if you do think the prayer is voluntary, players are forced to be there observing his public spectacle of prayer whether they participate or not. He is abusing his government authority in a government place to coerce his captive team. Even if some don’t pray, it is still coercive because declining is as much an unnecessary public spectacle as participating. It is basically making a religious declaration a condition of being on a public school sports team.

You are now spouting your opinion and crap that didn't happen.
Did you read the arguments of this case? Do you know anything about it?
It is clear you don't.
I don't think you know anything about the decision either. Other than you don't like it.

You are delusional. The coach is a government employee with authority over kids. Everything he does while on the field with his team is not private behavior. This ruling is about the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. This is about whether the 1st Amendment allows a government employee to use his public position to perform a public prayer spectacle to a captive audience over whom he has power.

Read the oral arguments.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/21-418_3e04.pdf

Read the evidence in the case from the District Court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you have separation of Church and state when Democrats themselves also vote for Democratic candidates that practice religion? Maybe that's why there is such a weak response against religion infiltrating govt? Anyone, GOP or Dem, who practices religion will have an internal conflict of interest. It's like voting for a Dem candidate who is a card carrying member of the NRA while the country desperately needs sensible gun control laws, yet when people vote for Dems who practice religion they are shocked later on and wondering why secularism is in trouble.

SMH.

No one is against free practice of religion by anyone. It is a government coercing a captive audience to observe the religious practice of someone who has authority over them that is the issue.

This had no one coerced to join him in prayer. You really make yourself look silly when you say that!

You prove us to that you never played a sport when you claim there was no coercion.

DP. I have played a sport. So have my children.

There was no coercion.

In fact, you are ignoring the fact that players that expressed discomfort in praying were made co-captains because of their willingness to speak their minds.

There were others who felt uncomfortable and didn’t speak up, so they were not singled out like that.

The fact they they even have organized football at school with what we know about concussions shows we should just outlaw football and use that money for education.