High school football coach scores big win at Supreme Court over post-game prayer

Did you just compare taking a knee to pray during a football game to a terrorist? Do you realize how this reflects on you and not the person you're responding to?

 

It's misleading because that's not what this case was about...

I assumed it was intentional, but if it was just ignorance, I apologize...

 

They are NOT and never will be recognized as 'government officials', nor will they be recognized as 'government school children'. A perfect example of this is when Garland sicced the FBI on parents. If the government actually had this authority, it wouldn't have made the news. It made the news because the government *does not* have this authority. I still want Garland impeached over abuse of power.

The taxes on ordinances, does not grant the government direct access to schools. Even in places like Florida, they are not 'setting the curriculum' as much as they are limiting the curriculum. Anything inside of that curriculum, or even outside of that curriculum that isn't mentioned by it is not only fair game, but is generally within a teacher's authority.

It's so within the teacher's authority that do you know who their direct supervisor is? Wait for it: The principal. But if the liberal interpretation were true(and as we're seeing it's laughably false), you'd think the direct supervisor would be big brother. But it's not. It's the principal first and foremost, the teachers meetings consists of meetings with....other teachers.

Let's be even more thorough with this absurdity: @Stuart Wolfe can attest to this: It is TEACHERS who carry the heavy burden of providing for their classes. I'll profess I don't know how much if anything changed when I graduated in 2010, but while the teacher's salary pays well, the overall financing of the school generally does not. Depending on the classroom, there's raw material shortages and teachers have to pay for the pencils/sometimes pens if they use those/erasers/ lesson planning books, etc.

For an organization supposedly ran by the government, they do quite a shitty job of it. That's of course, because it is not ran by the government and the government's disinterest is rather obvious, save for tax benefits. Our model is the 180 degree opposite of Europe which invests in its education, our federal government could give a rat's ass.

What, elected dog catcher? As I elaborated earlier, the school boards are literally created to oversee the schools and no, they're not ran by the city or local governments either or they wouldn't be elected to those positions in the school board The city public LITERALLY elects them.

https://www.philasd.org/schoolboard/about/what-we-do/

(Also, as you could see, no teacher actually serves on the board because of the obvious conflict of interest that would present.)

If you want me to, I could go even further and argue for the abolishment of the Establishment Clause as effectively useless, because the church does not have the political power it enjoyed during the Renaissance period and before. Today's clergy is big time finance and corporations, it's not the preacher anymore. But there's no need to abolish the Clause, there's only need to interpret it correctly and that's what the conservative justices did today. The only thing we need is for Liberals/modern Americans to understand what the Clause was for.

Excellent, now read above to find out what that history was and how it doesn't apply. Another TLDR: The governments of Europe consolidated their political power behind preachers as a means of controlling the citizens. Effectively, citizens were a third rank behind the clergy and the government. As early as Continental America, the clause had prevented this from happening, but like I said the clause had nothing to do with public displays of faith or of schools professing open faith/religious activities. This is a modern day flawed interpretation(not even an interpretation, it's SO far removed from what the framers intended it might as well be an addendum) that being the case, the modern interpretation had the same problem as Roe: There's no constitutional basis for the removal of religion from public grounds and publicly known figures(Kavanaugh wrote the opinion regarding this fact in his section)

So since it's like Roe, the solution is obvious: If this flawed interpretation of a clause which was designed to prevent a power structure that effectively doesn't exist anymore is so important to Americans: Run on it, write legislation to codify it. But interestingly, I think it'll run into the same lack of interest as the abortion code does. So sad, I guess it means we'll have to interpret the Establishment Clause as it actually is and what it originally was meant for.

That finally brings us technically to the case at hand and the absurdity of it. Has any player actually been disciplined on the basis of the judge's religious prayer activity? None to which I heard, nor to which could the dissent raise either. So what people propose here is that something that didn't happen, could happen. What we know did happen, amounted to religious persecution of the coach and his program. Such that the student-athletes were actually advocating for the coach, not against him. And in the dissent, they want to punish the person being persecuted, for offending their willies so much that they had to persecute him.(modern society 101, not taking accountability for anything.)

The conservative justices too, rejected this farce. And this chain of logic is why it was overwhelmingly 6-3. The dissent comes from a place of incoherent logic, a historical lack of understanding and inability to interpret the clause.

 

You hate America anyway. Why would you be sad? For you it's just another day and, frankly, since it gives you another reason to hate America this should make you happy!

 

But what if the practice of xyz religion interferes with the rights of non-xyz religion, or interferes with their religious practices or beliefs?

 

Take your side not to the PF religous Forum where it belongs.

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/theocracy

So no, a theocracy could not be a normal state government because the nominal governing body would defer its authority over to the religious figure Remember when the anti-Trumpers called the Trump movement a cult? It was this traditional understanding of theocracy to which those terms were being used to describe the 'trumpers'

There is no theocratic government(save for the 2 mentioned in the britannica) and there's less than a 0.1% chance of a theocracy being created in the US/West.

So believe it or not in all irony, by defending public faith and statues, I am actually arguing in favor for secularism. Arguing in favor for the modern day status of Jerusalem where people of different faiths can converge. The wrongful 'interpretation' of the Clause led to a restrictive and actually prohibition of religious expression as to be discriminatory towards people of faith.

 

Whose rights are interfered by someone praying? You don't have the right to never be exposed to religion.

 

No, that is not necessary. Any form of political system can be theocracy.

Cults do not have to be religious, and I dont recall anyone calling it a religious cult. Cult=a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.

 

could happen, some on the right want a fascist theocracy

 

I don’t — this isn’t democracy.

 

cause he was pushing his religion on the children is what was said

 

I see you have a continual desire to discuss posters and not the topic — seems to be a trend when people don’t have anything to add to a topic. Take care

 

You didn’t quote me verbatim as I did not identify him in that portion — I specifically said the religious right.

 

No thanks

 

You questioning the judgement of the supreme court, and me reminding you of their credentials compared to yours, is completely on topic. Unless you have some sort of hidden expertise that the rest of us are unaware of. If this offends you, grow some thicker skin and be prepared to explain how your opinion is correct over that of our supreme court (which I frankly find offensive).

 

I am so sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities for the illegitimate court

You have my most deep and sincere apologies!

How pathetic. The responses make sense now though.

 

Of course it is. This is how our govermental system is set up. This is "our democracy" y'all are always going on about.

 

Um... no.

WTF are you talking about?

 

Why do you hate Christians?

 

The founders could be used as generators they're spinning so fast these days.

 

Your post comparing a judicial decision about a man praying during a football game to the Taliban. Forget already?

 

Glad to provide clarity.

 

I don't. Real christians don't do that kinda thing.

 

Only God can judge who are real Christians.