PDA

View Full Version : Infringment of Coaches Rights



Bruiser
2009-03-06, 06:10
Mar 2, 3:10 PM EST


Ban on a type of prayer in school allowed to stand

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Coach Marcus Borden used to bow his head and drop to one knee when his football team prayed. But the Supreme Court on Monday ended the practice when it refused to hear the high school coach's appeal of a school district ban on employees joining a student-led prayer.

The decision on the case from New Jersey could add another restriction on prayer in schools, advocates said.

"We've become so politically correct in terms of how we deal with religion that it's being pretty severely limited in schools right now, and individuals suffer," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues.

But Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said some parents had complained about Borden leading prayers before the East Brunswick, N.J., school district ordered him to stop and banned all staff members from joining in student-led prayer.

"The bottom line is people in positions of authority, like a coach, have to be extremely careful about trying to promote their ideas, or implying that if you don't pray, you may not play," Lynn said.

The high court without comment refused to reconsider the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding the ban.

The district established the ban in 2005 after parents complained about Borden, coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, sometimes leading prayers at the Friday afternoon team pasta dinner or in the locker room before games. Borden said he wanted to show respect for the students engaged in prayer by bowing his head silently and dropping to one knee.

The district, Borden argued, was violating his free-speech rights by ordering him to stop action he called secular signs of respect. After the ban, the coach stood at attention for the remainder of the season while the students prayed.

Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the Philadelphia appeals court, said Borden's past action of leading the prayers made his head-bowing seem inappropriate. "A reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray," Fisher said.

Messages left for Borden and lawyer Ronald Riccio were not immediately returned Monday.

"With teachers and students, individual expressions are being limited. There's just a concept out there that religion doesn't belong in schools," said Whitehead, whose group acted as co-counsel for Borden. He said he does not know what Borden would do now.

School employees should avoid looking like they're endorsing religion in any way, said Lynn, whose group represented the school district.

"Coaches are not supposed to be promoting religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," Lynn said.

The Supreme Court ended school-sponsored prayer in 1962 when it said directing that a prayer be said at the beginning of each school day was a violation of the First Amendment. The justices reaffirmed the decision in 2000 by saying a Texas school district was giving the impression of prayer sponsorship by letting students use loudspeakers under the direction of a faculty member for prayers before sports events.

The case is Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick, 08-482.

Sasky Boy
2009-03-11, 22:46
This post could be fishing for controversy.

I simply and absolutely do not see how it is necessary to have to pray publicly. Jesus did not ever say "pray during a football game" so there you go. Listen to what Jesus didn't say.

Also, let's not pretend that this is the first time anyone ever said that there do have to be practical restrictions on free speech, right? I can also see how this COULD be seen as coercive. Best to leave it alone and leave the church in people's hearts where it actually makes a difference.

One last thing: rules or not, we all know that football is about physically destroying people. I don't see how that is a religiously virtuous thing.

professor x
2009-03-12, 06:58
I think he has a fair argument in saying that he should be allowed to take part in a prayer, without leading it. Dropping to one knee to take part in a prayer certainly seems pretty benign to me. This seems like one of those cases where a court is making a symbolic decision, but the actual example used is really not that bad. But oh well, the article says he still stands at attention while they pray...so he's still showing respect during the prayer...

I like the idea of prayer before football games in the sense that you pray for a good game where everyone physically destroys each other but nobody gets seriously injured :D I'd be happy with just about any religion doing it...if a football team was full of buddhists...hey go for it. I think it's possible to have one's religion to be part of sport without it being exclusionary to anyone.

la Tuque
2009-03-12, 07:04
Praying before a game is a "ritual" for most teams.

For X, it's often their only chance to win (sorry X fans - couldn't resist that one) :D;)

Sasky Boy
2009-03-17, 22:34
I'd be happy with just about any religion doing it...if a football team was full of buddhists...hey go for it. I think it's possible to have one's religion to be part of sport without it being exclusionary to anyone.

I am not tolling here, just asking for clarification ... Are you saying that SOME religions you would not be okay with?

With all the deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on September 11, I have seen enough religion to last me a while. The last thing I need is another dumb HS prayer or having to hear T.O. run his mouth about himself and about god.

I don't know about god, but I am extremely certain that it is not into sport.

professor x
2009-03-18, 03:07
I am not tolling here, just asking for clarification ... Are you saying that SOME religions you would not be okay with?


Yeah, I don't think Scientology has any place in football ;)

What I was getting at is lines need to be drawn everywhere. I guess the better way to put it I'm happy with any religion so long as they don't cross certain boundaries. One example I can think of is a debate we had previously, where a minor football league was considering allowing players to wear Patka's (or turban's) under their helmets. But it was blocked by the fact that the insurance wouldn't cover this kind of thing if an inury were to result.

I personally have no problem with the idea itself....no more of a problem than if someone was wearing a cross under their pads, or drawing a cross on their tape, or having religious imagery in their tattoo's. But it was a fair point that in this case, it would effect the function of the helmet and lead to an increased risk of injury.

The intention is right, you don't want to exclude people. At the same time...a helmet is just part of the game. If there's something that's part of your religion that you can't wear safely during a game, then you have to make a choice.

Bruiser
2009-03-18, 06:30
I simply and absolutely do not see how it is necessary to have to pray publicly.

You are obviously not a believer and have the freedom not to believe. How wonderful is that. But to those who are believers, there is necessity in prayer, not only publicly, but at almost any time throughout one's day. Why should those rights be infringed upon?

cjstora
2009-03-18, 12:03
Bruiser:

Since we're talking about an American case here, American constitutional law applies.

Read this, and you'll see where his "rights" stand: http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/school-prayer-pledge-allegiance

Sasky Boy
2009-03-18, 21:02
You are obviously not a believer and have the freedom not to believe. How wonderful is that. But to those who are believers, there is necessity in prayer, not only publicly, but at almost any time throughout one's day. Why should those rights be infringed upon?

No no no! You totally misunderstand me. I am an absolute believer. I believe in my mom and dad, in charity, in science, the value of education, the need for peace and defense, etc...

Prayer does not require a public display -- that is in the bible, I guarantee. Jesus preached to go to your inner-room, and he turned of the tables at the synagogs. To me, the new testament is often anti public/group/organized religion. The gnostic gospels support this interpretation too. Though it clearly is not a legal/constitutional right, I am not one to argue over legal distinctions. I am making more of a social-psych or secular-moral statement here.

The posts above and below yours are well stated and very agreeable to me. I do see a difference between INDIVIDUAL expressions (wearing a cross) and group mentalities. Anyway... I just have a cynical feeling that these sorts of group prayer, and christianity in general, are both examples of group think, and that actually UNDERMINES individual liberty. Group think can be well intentioned, but it leads to the worst of human behavior throughout history. Let us not forget that, and as a Southern Man, you know this Bruiser, the KKK is a christian organization. :rolleyes:

Just my thoughts. My issue is with the religion, not with the religion -- that is, the institution more so than the people who follow its commands.

Cstbrophy
2009-03-19, 22:10
does bending a knee make praying more effective?how many feet away does he have to stand before he is not a part of the prayer? should he turn away to avoid giving the impression of wrong doing?

at some point i think we have to consider that we have protected the kids as much as we can without crossing other lines.

Sasky Boy
2009-03-20, 15:00
Was the title of this thread always "Infringment of Coaches Rights"

Other than the spelling mishap, I swear this used to be titled under a more neutral name.
non?

cjstora
2009-03-20, 15:39
Nope, that was always the title.

Rids
2009-03-20, 17:36
how many feet away does he have to stand before he is not a part of the prayer?

Maybe it's like the Canadian punt return rules. A 5 yard box around the individual praying out loud.

Sasky Boy
2009-03-20, 21:20
Nope, that was always the title.

The man should call objectionable conduct for leading the audience! C'mon ref!!! "Rights?" :rolleyes::rolleyes:
;)

cjstora
2009-03-20, 21:25
That's why I pointed him to the enotes web site. It's a bit of reading, but it's a great layman's primer for understanding that it's not so much a "right".

For far too long in American culture the vaunted "freedom of religion" has been conflated to include the follow-up "to do whatever the hell it wants to". Closer inspection shows some very consistent legal limits on it.

two four
2009-03-21, 08:46
Perhaps he should coach at a Christian based school that respects believers and non- believers. Certainly those options exist in New Jersey as they do in Canada...places like St FX. There is availability of clergy from many faiths and a chapel smack dab in the middlle of campus. Nobody forces anyone to 'believe' but it's available. I think it's a question of tolerance.

cjstora
2009-03-21, 12:11
a Christian based school that respects believers and non- believers.

When you find one, let us know. There's always at least condescension or false pity. Never neutrality, and certainly never respect.

And by the way, the term "non-believers" is condescending in itself, and is a term preferred by believers. How many people do you know who define themselves by what they aren't? If you aren't racist, you don't define yourself as a non-racist, do you?

Sasky Boy
2009-03-21, 18:34
Perhaps he should coach at a Christian based school that respects believers and non- believers....forces anyone to 'believe' but it's available. I think it's a question of tolerance.

yeah, this term "believers" is a bit much. Are they saying they believe is raping children, hanging blacks, poisoning dogs in parks...whatever other insanity you can think of.

It is the same BS as in prochoice/prolife debate. Both sides have these silly broad labels that do not describe themselves or their cause. I believe in a lot of things, including people who are not religious. I am certainly a believer, but I am not sure if those folks want me in their club. ;)

When this coach is not allowed to practice his religion in his home, when his church cannot exist without government interference or being burned down, or when a man is imprisoned for his beliefs, call me. I will be on your side. I am on the side of the Burmese and Tibetans etc...

Please note however that said imprisoned for beliefs, not actions. Religious beliefs cannot justify any behavior or action. Not 9-11 (3,000 dead). Not the "crusade" (Bush's word, not mine) in Iraq (over 750,000 dead).

Rids
2009-03-21, 18:58
Perhaps he should coach at a Christian based school that respects believers and non- believers. Certainly those options exist in New Jersey as they do in Canada...places like St FX. There is availability of clergy from many faiths and a chapel smack dab in the middlle of campus. Nobody forces anyone to 'believe' but it's available. I think it's a question of tolerance.

It's not the school that is ruling against this but the school district. Also the coach does not state his own beliefs in this article here just that his actions of what he feels to be respect are being limited or banned.


banned all staff members from joining in student-led prayer

He isn't even involved in the prayer other than paying respect while one of his players prays aloud.

Sasky Boy
2009-03-22, 13:26
It's not the school that is ruling against this but the school district. Also the coach does not state his own beliefs in this article here just that his actions of what he feels to be respect are being limited or banned.



He isn't even involved in the prayer other than paying respect while one of his players prays aloud.

You make a compelling argument in favour of having some of these players and coaches join a church group and practice in peace.

two four
2009-03-23, 08:36
Well, by 'believer' I mean I believe in God and that He sent us a Saviour - His Son - named Jesus Christ, who died for all sinners including (and pardon my inference) you and me! Is that clear enough? You don't have to believe and that is your choice. I respect your right not to believe what I believe. Is that clear?

As for Bush or the Crusades, well lots of bad things have been done in the name of Christianity (Really misguided zealots IMHO)....but lots of great wonderful things have been done as well. Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II come to mind.

The coach should be able to join in the prayer with his team IMHO.

As for individual freedom under the rule of law, coupled with respect for the individual...count me in every time!

I don't remember Adolf Hitler preaching anything but hatred in a Godless society.

cjstora
2009-03-23, 09:20
Oh, two four, two four... You have a LOT of education to catch up on.

We'll start with a brief history lesson. Hitler was not an atheist, as many believers like to trot out. If anything, Hitler was Roman Catholic. He was brought up Roman Catholic, he actually received the Vatican's blessing on some of what he was doing (what pope Ratzinger just apologized for), constantly sought the church's support and even more than once described his plans of the eradication of the Jews as truly "doing God's work". He never once renounced his faith in the Roman Catholic Church.

So don't give me that Godless Hitler crap. It's a fairy tale.

As for Mother Theresa, please read the book "Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens. It's a very revealing and frank biography of the nun's later years, and her almost constant struggle she had with never really being able to accept her "faith" but by having faith thrust upon her as she was constantly used by the Vatican as a poster-child of their kind of charity on the streets of Calcutta. This was a dangerous woman. When allowed to speak her mind in a public forum, she spoke that "Today, abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace." Really? Abortion is the greatest enemy of peace? I would have thought the stockpiles of nukes, the fanatically extreme zealots, the mountains of arms being supplied to both sides of untold amounts of wars unchecked might have something more to do with it... It's not a long read, and I highly recommend it. It was a New York Times best-seller for a while. Not sure if the X library will have a copy of it, though...

two four
2009-03-23, 10:51
Mother Theresa is an honorary degree recipient from StFX...1976 I believe. Christopher Hitchens is a stated Humanist.

I watch what people do not what they say. Hitler performed Godless acts and his actions motivated the world to stand up and answer. My father and his two brothers volunteered to serve in WW II. Dad didn't have to go as his mother was widowed but he felt strongly enough about it that he put his life on the line...so we could, among other things, post freely!

Lots of people have been 'raised Catholic.' With that and a buck fifty you can get a cup of java at Tim's too.

The Jews are God's chosen people and the very foundation of the Christian churches owes its' genesis to Judaism. Unfortunately ignorance and a lack of love has caused a tremendous amount of grief in our world.

Conversely, an abundance of love has caused great things to happen...like building the school whose football team you support as one example. It's named after Jesus' mother.

As for abortion we likely won't see eye to eye either. I'll pray for you though.

To get back to the original aspect of this thread...the coach should be allowed to pray with his team if he so chooses.

Sasky Boy
2009-03-23, 11:13
Well, by 'believer' I mean I believe in God and that He sent us a Saviour - His Son - named Jesus Christ, who died for all sinners including (and pardon my inference) you and me! Is that clear enough? You don't have to believe and that is your choice. I respect your right not to believe what I believe. Is that clear?

As for Bush or the Crusades, well lots of bad things have been done in the name of Christianity (Really misguided zealots IMHO)....but lots of great wonderful things have been done as well. Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II come to mind.

I don't remember Adolf Hitler preaching anything but hatred in a Godless society.

What is unclear is your term. Why don't you call yourself a Christian then? Going with the broader, more arrogant term "believer" makes it sound like faith is this virtuous gift that you have. It is not. Everyone believes, so using that term is not only meaningless, it is insulting and it politicizes something that is more personal than political or social. Instead is "believer" you should use the term "guesser" perhaps.

The current pope set back aids prevention/reduction in Africa 10 years last week. The horrible impact of ideology is sometimes subtle ;)

Hitler used christianity to inspire and unite Germany against the Jew. If you don't "remember" that, then please feel free to visit your local library and re-remember it. As for the good mother, I think anyone who finds themselves outside the convenient bubble of the vatican sees that the bible either does not work, or that it is incomplete. CJ's point is solid and you should BELIEVE in it. Oh, and your beloved John Paul deuce oversaw the largest child raping operation west of Thailand. Woops, as per my previous post, I guess believers does refer to child raping. Oh damn...

You cannot pick and chose your members 2-4. Sorry, bin Laden is a believer just like you. Hitler was a believer too.

PS - The "I'll pray for you" line is really arrogant. Pray for victims of September 11, pray for people killed in genocide, pray for all the people hurt because god is either too lazy, too selfish, too stupid, or too non-existent to help the obviously good people against the powerful.

I know this won't mean much at this point, but I swear that I respect you. I am frustrated by your rhetoric, but I will bet you are cool. Almost all my friends are christian--many devout. I won't pray for you, but I hope you have a good day and that you do something nice for someone else tomorrow!

two four
2009-03-23, 11:18
As I said, I look at people's actions. I see if they live their beliefs. There are people who are not who/what they claim to be in the Christian/ Catholic faith or others...that is just a label for them or a way for people to simplify things in their mind. Jesus had two commandments only. - to Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbour as yourself...quite radical teachings even today.

Some of the actions you speak of do not reflect those teachings.

Also, I don't and won't pray out of arrogance....ever. I mean it! To suggest that, is, well, to not understand. I'm okay with that too. :)

as for the coach, let him pray with his team.

cjstora
2009-03-23, 12:12
Jesus had two commandments only. - to Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbour as yourself...quite radical teachings even today.

Well if THAT isn't cherry-picking the Bible, I don't know what is. He had a lot more to say than that, and you know it. You just use your own moral compass to decide what you want to beleive of what he said.

For example, on "cheating", Jesus taught us that if you so much as even look at another woman lustfully, you've sinned. He tells us that if our right eye has caused us to sin in such a way, it's best to gouge your own right eye out than be sent to hell along with the offending body part.

He says the same about your right hand. Better to chop it off...

Good thing he didn't get to the Bobbitt parts...

(Matthew 5:28-30. Check it out.)

two four
2009-03-23, 15:13
Well if THAT isn't cherry-picking the Bible, I don't know what is. He had a lot more to say than that, and you know it. You just use your own moral compass to decide what you want to beleive of what he said.

For example, on "cheating", Jesus taught us that if you so much as even look at another woman lustfully, you've sinned. He tells us that if our right eye has caused us to sin in such a way, it's best to gouge your own right eye out than be sent to hell along with the offending body part.

He says the same about your right hand. Better to chop it off...

Good thing he didn't get to the Bobbitt parts...

(Matthew 5:28-30. Check it out.)

He actually talked about fornication too! BUT, He only gave two commands. I'm not cherry picking at all. Check it out - two commands.

He hung around with lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors and non-believers and He was one cool dude!

The best thing is the He died for the sins we were/ are going to commit AND He forgives us....beforehand!!! What a guy!

I'm glad you know some of the things He did and I'm not being arrogant or whatever else....I am glad. Have a great day!


And yes, the coach should have the freedom to participate in his team's prayer if he so chooses.

cjstora
2009-03-23, 19:07
And yes, the coach should have the freedom to participate in his team's prayer if he so chooses.

Purely your opinon. It's not his right. Simple as that.

two four
2009-03-24, 09:50
Purely your opinon. It's not his right. Simple as that.

Right. We live in a free country and so do our American friends. He should have the 'freedom' to pray (or not) with his team if he so chooses, in my opinion.

Bruiser
2009-03-24, 14:57
Great to have this 'spirited' off-season discussion.

OK Sasky, I have to take issue on your opinion of public or group prayer.

You say:


Prayer does not require a public display -- that is in the bible, I guarantee. Jesus preached to go to your inner-room

I assume you are refering to Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men .... but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father"

When I read this in its context, I don't believe that Jesus is saying 'don't pray in public'. He is refering to hypocrites who put on a public display to draw attention to themselves. And since Jesus or God are the only ones who can look into a man's heart to determine this, the rest of us should not judge. No, prayer does not require a public display, but there is nothing wrong with praying in public, so long as it is heartfelt and genuine.

As far as praying in public or before a football game, Paul encourages us to pray on all occasions. "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." Ephesians 6:18

On group prayer you say:


I just have a cynical feeling that these sorts of group prayer, and christianity in general, are both examples of group think

Again, Jesus says "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Jesus is encouraging all believers to gather together in groups, large or small. Seek out and meet with other Christians often for prayer, worship, meals, ministry, and outreach. Because when there is a gathering of at least two people who call on Jesus, there is a church. The church is not a building, or a place, or an event that happens at a special time. The church is not a thing, the church is people. And God gave us the church as a gift to help us negotiate this time on earth.

Another example of group prayer is in Acts 1:14 "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." Before Jesus' rose, I can imagine that the apostles were constantly in prayer ... a very testing time.

As well, James 5:16 suggests the power of group prayer and support. "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed."

I believe every individual should seek God with all his/her heart, but it does not appear to be intended to be just an individual pursuit .... again, why God gave us the church.

It appears that the term 'believer' has everybody's panties in a bunch. I hate to tell you this Sasky, but the things you believe in:
I believe in my mom and dad, in charity, in science, the value of education, the need for peace and defense, etc...

are ultimately flawed, no matter how good the intention. They are human or human inventions and at some point they will fail you. Just as the KKK, the various popes, organized religion, Mother Theresa or the 'religious' Hitler are flawed .... it is the human condition.

I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, but just want to offer my opinion based on what I have studied and believe.

two four
2009-03-24, 16:02
Well said. Yes, it truly is the 'message' not the messenger. As humans we are imperfect, so there will always be human flaws/ jealosusy/ evil assocated with people who claim to believe but whose actions contradict their words...it's part of the human condition.

There are many cases where non-believers have come to see/ know the light as well. In fact, it happens daily!!

Sasky Boy
2009-03-24, 16:09
As I said, I look at people's actions. I see if they live their beliefs. There are people who are not who/what they claim to be in the Christian/ Catholic faith or others...that is just a label for them or a way for people to simplify things in their mind.

Jesus had two commandments only. - to Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbour as yourself...quite radical teachings even today.


Two things:
1. I like your first sentence a lot. Most christians that I know are hypocritical. So many so, that I consider that to be part of what it means to be christian. Can you please tell me if you think the following folks are "christians" (they claim to be)?
Rev. J. Wright (Obama's former minister), Bush (JR), Pope John Paul, Toby Keith, Mark David Chapman (devout christian: killed John Lennon), LDSs...

I also love your tow points. The bit about god is kinda silly, but to each their own. They are reasonable, but I have to ask one question. Why is the damn bible so thick? What size font could turn your two rules into such a big book.

PS - You missed the part about killing, enslaving, or humiliating: blacks, gays, and women. Also, I think there is a rule about not feeding your donkey in the market on a wednesday during a full moon cycle. :rolleyes: Sorry, had to throw that in.

I appreciate your POV, i just think you are picking and choosing a little. Ignoring the zits kind of.

two four
2009-03-25, 05:13
Well I'm no theologian but I have a bit of a background. Many atrocities have been committed in the 'name' of Christianity. Yeah the Bible is a thick book and a lot was written in the New Testament of Him. He performed many miracles and told lots of stories that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have recounted....but just those two simple commands from Him. The Roman Catholic Church, for one example, finds many of its' rules coming from Judaism. Others can correct me, but, the (Jewish) faith is a faith founded in rules and 'laws' if you will.

Jesus was about loving God with all of your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbour as your self. Radical teachings and not always easy to follow.

As for certain people's actions in the name of...Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) that many of you that say you know me, I do not know. It's about His message - NOT the messenger. You can count on humans having flaws - that is part of the human condition.


As for your list of people...God knows if they are Christians because he knows what is in their heart. I'll have to admit I was a big fan of John Paul II. Look at the respect that was paid him when he died...that can be one measure of a person's life. The respect and reverence people outside of his faith showed for him.

Believe me. I shake my head a lot sometimes too...you aren't alone.

cjstora
2009-03-25, 08:29
Jesus was about loving God with all of your heart, soul and mind and loving your neighbour as your self. Radical teachings and not always easy to follow.

I thought they were Commandments. Jesus had loads of teachings, not all of which are espoused by Christians, although they were certainly more "radical" than the two examples you choose to use.

This is the second time you've called this "radical". Hardly. It's an early documented instance of recycling, as it's a core concept lifted from several religions, and has since been used in many more. You'll find the same "radical" teachings in almost every established religion, even the wingy fringe ones. Hell, even atheists manage to use their own moral compass to figure that one out for themselves.

But again, this is cherry-picking from the entirety of the Bible. You must just utterly reject Deuteronomy, do you? I noticed in all your flowery protestations that you make little or no mention of the Old Testament. Many other religions include your "radical teachings" without the massive amounts of writings, preachings, pontifications, rants, raves, teachings and scripture that you otherwise have to ignore in the Bible if you have any kind of moral conscience.

Hell, Bill n' Ted managed to enunciate the "radical" concept succinctly and completely in just five simple words!


You can count on humans having flaws

Speaking of which, did you know Jesus was convinced the desert was full of djinns and other evil spirits? You'd think dad would have let him in on the secret. Tee hee. What a practical joker. Jesus was Punk'd. I like that. I think I'll put that on a t-shirt.


As for your list of people...God knows if they are Christians because he knows what is in their heart. I'll have to admit I was a big fan of John Paul II.

You even cherry-picked that list to find the one person you felt best represented Christianity and ignored the rest.

two four
2009-03-26, 05:59
The Old Testament primarily comes from Judaism. I mentioned that with rrespect to many of the Roman Catholic Church's laws and rules.

Jesus made only two commands which I mentioned.

As far as the desert, it is Lent currently. Jesus was tempted several times while fasting for 40 days.

As for the 'list' of people you mentioned. i just look at John Paul II's life and say...hey...it looks as if he walked his talk. The thing about my faith (some may say unfair) is that you can be a real prick - or worse- all of your life and on your death bed ask forgiveness and receive it.

As for the others; I addressed them too. Perhaps you didn't like my answer, but I'm not judging them or John Paul II either. I just think he walked his talk.

Sasky Boy
2009-03-27, 16:39
Right. We live in a free country and so do our American friends. He should have the 'freedom' to pray (or not) with his team if he so chooses, in my opinion.

Please read the link CJ posted earlier. Your interpretation of the term "freedom" is both inaccurate and ironically liberal. There are restrictions to individuals that favour society. The kids should be "free" to not do it, and that is the whole point. A person in a position of authority cannot advocate against the separation of church from state and the rights of minorities to not have to conform.

The coach should be free to pray at home and to attend church and to have church friends, etc...

Rids
2009-03-27, 18:17
How about this interpretation of it:

To me this situation and the core of the issue falls out like this. There are 15 employees on coffee break sitting at a table and the manager isn't allowed to join them even though he would be welcomed to the table by the employees, has the same privilege of taking a break and works for the same company.

Wouldn't that just be absurd if that happened at your workplace?

It seems so very backwards that a coach isn't allowed to participate in something so basic with his team and I would agree with you that a coach forced team prayer would most likely violate any school districts rule.

Here at my house tonight I've invited my spring league basketball team, made up of high school players, to come over and watch some NCAA Tournament. I might even have a team prayer just because.

Bruiser
2009-03-29, 08:50
Please read the link CJ posted earlier.

To CJ, thanks for the link. I read some, but admittedly did not take the time to read it all. I've also enjoyed your explainations of athiesm in the past.

But both of you should know, that just because it is law, does not mean that an individual's rights are not infringed upon. Do the courts and judges overreach - of course they do. So judges rules that he can't drop to one knee and pray. Next they will rule he can't close his eyes and pray. What if he prays on the other side of the locker room door? Its just bad law.

From the article:
"We've become so politically correct in terms of how we deal with religion that it's being pretty severely limited in schools right now, and individuals suffer," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that focuses on First Amendment and religious freedom issues.


The coach should be free to pray at home and to attend church and to have church friends, etc...

The coach should be free to pray where ever he is inspired to do so. And in reality he probably does.

Bruiser
2009-03-29, 08:59
Glad to see the AFCA take an opinion.


The American Football Coaches Association had filed an amicus in support of Borden, declaring that "when the federal courts interpret the Constitution in a way that intrudes into the locker room, invades the player-coach relationship, and undermines a coach's ability to maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect and team unity by showing deference to the prayers of this nation's youth, that concerns the AFCA."

two four
2009-03-29, 12:14
yes!

cjstora
2009-03-29, 20:21
Glad to see the AFCA take an opinion.

Say that again? That argument is saying that the American Constitution does not apply to American citizens in an American locker room.

Give your heads a shake, boys.

You say "the courts are overreaching" and "it's bad law". If that was even close to being reality, it would not be applied consistently through several different judicial makeups of the Supreme Court. Even "I walk with Jeezus" Junior couldn't stack the court well enough to get his way. You just say that "they're overreaching" and "it's bad law" only because you don't get what you want out of the Supreme Court rulings.

The separation of church and state trumps anything regarding "freedom of religion". As a school football coach, he is seen to be in a position of authority, as an agent of the state so long as he is employed by the state. The state cannot endorse religion. It really is that simple.

Tell me, what do you think the phrase "freedom of religion" means?

Rids
2009-04-01, 21:34
How is he an agent of the state? He is an employee to a specific school inside a school district. I mean teachers are licensed by the State they wish to teach in but so are Churches. So wouldn't that make that separation of Church and State pretty much hypocritical?


Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the Philadelphia appeals court, said Borden's past action of leading the prayers made his head-bowing seem inappropriate. "A reasonable observer would conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray," Fisher said.

To me the phrase in bold in itself is wrong. So because in the past he led the prayer the fact that he bowed his head while others prayed is wrong? So if he never led the prayer in the past it would've been ok?

Sasky Boy
2009-04-11, 12:22
How is he an agent of the state? He is an employee to a specific school inside a school district. I mean teachers are licensed by the State they wish to teach in but so are Churches. So wouldn't that make that separation of Church and State pretty much hypocritical?


Your logic and comprehension of "separation of church and state" are shocking. You think that the licensing applied to churches is identical to the licensing applied to schools (or medicine, gambling, and other domains requiring government approval)?

Why are they the same? Why is it hypocritical? Because both have the word "license" :confused:
I know that some folks love government deregulation, and Wall Street has shown how that works :rolleyes: ... but churches have to be licensed to ensure that they are not cults. Also, this is a way to keep Christian organizations like the KKK (or KKKK) from receiving religious immunity. This does not mean that government is controlling the day to day works of any church.

Rids
2009-04-11, 15:55
A church actually doesn't need government approval to run. They only need to have a current license to operate as a non-profit. A religious or secular cult can also apply for non-profit status by the way as long as they meet the requirements.

stefcn
2009-07-21, 00:02
agree with sasky boy points

footer
2009-07-23, 15:58
The nuts are winning!!!!Sorry,I can not get behind this one.Prayer is a perogative and if a coach wants his team to pray ,so be it.Does the world have to acquiesce to all the wishes of the lunatic fringe.Come on,we are not talking a malevolent act,or a mind bending situation.help me Rhonda!!!!

boysda
2009-07-27, 15:52
The nuts are winning!!!!Sorry,I can not get behind this one.Prayer is a perogative and if a coach wants his team to pray ,so be it.

unless, of course, it runs afoul of that pesky 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States and years of consistent jurisprudence interpreting said amendment. which, in this case, it does.


sorry, if you want your kid to be led in prayer by his coach, send him or her to a religious school. it has no place in a public school.

cjstora
2009-07-27, 17:14
I think I'm gonna like you, boysda... lol