The Supreme Court punts on religious liberty

Flash said:
Agreed, although students were not required to participate. The 1st Amendment does not require balance, it requires neutrality. That is why the district told him to stop.
Click to expand...

If the coach was to go Father Mulcahy route, then maybe they wouldn't have any problem. He does all faiths.
 
Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
He wasn't praying "privately" -- he was having a very public prayer huddle in the middle of the field with his team around him. On school property. Nothing would have been said if he'd done his praying out of the public eye. The school even offered him a place to do so, but he wanted to make a public spectacle of it.
Click to expand...

and yet, according to the facts of the case, none of that is true.....
 
BidenPresident said:
I really don't know what your point is here.

It is obvious this Christian coach is trying to impose his religion on others. My question is, why does he need to do this. He is violating the teaching of Jesus. So, what's his agenda?
Click to expand...

I don't think he was trying to impose his religion on anybody but rather have those who wanted to join him. A person who feared he was trying to force his religion on anyone didn't have to attend. A person's religious views are anything they want them to be, so he can interpret the teachings of Jesus however he wants. Freedom of religion does not require belief in specific denominational teachings. His agenda is irrelevant to the 1st amendment. His religious beliefs might include a requirement to teach to the multitudes.

My point is that there is no violation of church and state (establishment clause) since no governmental entity promoted religion. His actions were opposed by the governmental body with authority and they did not rehire him.

Freedom of religion allows a person to try to persuade others (not "force") to follow his religious beliefs. It does not allow "agents" of the government to do so which is why he was told to stop his activities. This was not an establishment clause case but a freedom of speech/religion case.

Since he left his job the issue became moot and I wasn't sure the Supreme Court would issue a decision because there was no more dispute.

People who oppose abortion are not trying to impost their religious beliefs on anyone but want government to prohibit abortion which is a political decision, not religious.
 
AProudLefty said:
If the coach was to go Father Mulcahy route, then maybe they wouldn't have any problem. He does all faiths.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment does not allow government to promote (or hinder) any religion or all religions. Allowing a prayer for each religion is just as unconstitutional as allowing a prayer for one religion. There is no "secular purpose" for allowing (or prohibiting) a religious activity. That includes reciting a prayer in school mandated by the school, putting a copy of the Ten Commandments on display..
 
Flash said:
The 1st Amendment does not allow government to promote (or hinder) any religion or all religions. Allowing a prayer for each religion is just as unconstitutional as allowing a prayer for one religion. There is no "secular purpose" for allowing (or prohibiting) a religious activity. That includes reciting a prayer in school mandated by the school, putting a copy of the Ten Commandments on display..
Click to expand...

Exactly. The coach is a government employee. If he was off duty and they have a prayer meeting, there would be no problem at all.
 
AProudLefty said:
Exactly. The coach is a government employee. If he was off duty and they have a prayer meeting, there would be no problem at all.
Click to expand...

If it was not on public property (unless any outside group could use the facilities).

Agreed, that was the position of the school district and why they told him to cease his prayers. They were following the law to avoid constitutional problems. He left his job. Issue settled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top