@fmf saidHe was clearly acting as a coach on the field of play, not as a private citizen with no connection to the sports activity about to take place. It's different if a spectator prays while seated in the grandstands: that's a private citizen not acting as a representative of the team or the arena.
I think a coach praying on a sports field is "one man's business" and does not involve exerting the "authority" of a "state religion", just as it is each teenager's business - "one man's business" in each case - if they pray along with him or don't.
Did "the state" take any action against the teenagers who did not participate in what is effectively alleged to have been the ri ...[text shortened]... the writers of the constitution or [2] acting in the best interests of the community and the nation.
@moonbus saidThe coach wasn't "establishing" a "state religion".
He was clearly acting as a coach on the field of play, not as a private citizen with no connection to the sports activity about to take place. It's different if a spectator prays while seated in the grandstands: that's a private citizen not acting as a representative of the team or the arena.
I find his sacking preposterous.
No wonder half the population in America is willing to elect demagogues, with this sort of thing going on.
You and vivify had laid the thinking out very clearly. No complaints.
@fmf saidI've noticed you deliberately change the context of an issue in order to win a point. It's been pointed out to you that this was not a case of "one's man's business" if he chooses to involve others.
I think a coach praying on a sports field is "one man's business"
This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the situation. I've always wondered why people on this forum have ire and and contempt for you and I'm starting to see why.
If would be a different matter if you simply believed the firing was excessive. That's fine. But to deliberately change the context of the situation, repeatedly, even after it's been pointed out to you that you're doing this....that's low.
1 edit
@vivify saidI've noticed that you have omitted a crucial part of my answer for your own purposes.
I've noticed you deliberately change the context of an issue in order to win a point. It's been pointed out to you that this was not a case of "one's man's business" if he chooses to involve others.
What I said was that him praying is "one man's business" and does not involve exerting the "authority" of a "state religion", just as it is each teenager's business - "one man's business" in each case - if they pray along with him or don't.
You have attempted to distort my use of the expression "one's man's business" by taking it out of the context in which it was used.
1 edit
@fmf saidOh, the irony.
I've noticed that you have omitted a crucial part of my answer for your own purposes.
What I said was that him praying is "one man's business" and does not involve exerting the "authority" of a "state religion", just as it is each teenager's business - "one man's business" in each case - if they pray along with him or don't.
You have attempted to distort my use of the expression "one's man's business" by taking it out of the context in which it was used.
@vivify said, to you:
"He wasn't "sacked for praying". He was fired for asking children to do so. That's a big difference. You keep using phrasing that inaccurately describes what happened. This isn't the first time you've done that on this thread, which makes it seem like you're ignoring the seriousness of religion in society."
Ignoring what people write is standard procedure for you.
@suzianne saidI contend that the coach WAS "sacked for praying" because that's what it probably comes down to in the everyday lives of most American Christians. To assert that he was "establishing" a "state religion" and that his prayers were unconstitutional is, to me, ridiculous.
Oh, the irony.
@vivify said, to you:
"He wasn't "sacked for praying". He was fired for asking children to do so. That's a big difference. You keep using phrasing that inaccurately describes what happened. This isn't the first time you've done that on this thread, which makes it seem like you're ignoring the seriousness of religion in society."
Ignoring what people write is standard procedure for you.
@fmf saidI'm sorry you find facts "ridiculous".
I contend that the coach WAS "sacked for praying" because that's what it probably comes down to in the everyday lives of most American Christians. To assert that he was "establishing" a "state religion" and that his prayers were unconstitutional is, to me, ridiculous.
I just heard a story about a devout Christian substitute teacher in Texas who verbally abused a Black elementary school student [using the N-word] in front of other children in class for saying "Oh my God!" [and so, allegedly, taking God's name in vain]. He was fired. Any 1st amendment / freedom of speech angles to this?
@fmf saidSCOTUS ruled in favour of the coach.
"Joseph A. Kennedy, a former high school football coach, was fired after he made a habit of going to the 50-yard line after his team’s games to thank God and to lead his players in prayer. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard his suit." ~ The Daily
Isn't feeling excluded from such moments simply character building?
Thoughts?
1 edit
@fmf saidAnother obvious example of the pro-religion stance this far-right court is endorsing.
SCOTUS ruled in favour of the coach.
They are wrong for doing so.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is wrong, too.
https://www.newsweek.com/lauren-boebert-church-founding-fathers-government-colorado-1719760
"Lauren Boebert Says the Church Is Supposed To Direct the Government"
By Gerrard Kaonga On 6/28/22 at 7:05 AM EDT
A video of Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert has gone viral as she argues against the separation of church and state.
https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1541508454740885511
In a video that has now been viewed over 770,000 times on Twitter, Boebert argued the church should be advising the government.
Boebert made these comments while speaking to a Sunday crowd of people at the Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt, according to a report by The Denver Post.
She went on to dismiss the idea that this was not what the founding fathers of America wanted.
"The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not meant to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it.
"And I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk, that's not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter and it means nothing like what they say it does."
@fmf saidI didn't realize you were so far-right in your politics.
Yes. Indeed. And I do not agree with the coach being sacked. If the court has not decided already, I'd like to see it rule in his favour.
Your position is idiotic and anti-America, just like the Court's.