High school suspends coach for praying at games and Satanists make an appearance

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Clearly I hate Christianity, because I disagree with your irrationality? Wow, no bias there.

Swing and a miss, what is this, four or five now for you?

Once more and you and I are done, as you're repeating the same argument that's been discredited over and over.

The Constitution requires two things of government in the US simultaneously:

1. The government will not establish a religion.
2. The government will not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The coach is a representative of government in this case. He cannot lead, direct, engage in, or otherwise cause to be (establish) any form of religion while acting in the capacity of a representative of government, on government property, while in a government-employed role of authority over American children.

The only religious hate I've seen in this whole matter is the Christians at the game trying to keep the Satanists from freely expressing their religion. Now, notably, American citizens aren't under the same restrictions the government is, they were just rude, obnoxious and uncaring. One of two of them might technically be guilty of assault.

... and that's that, Daddy. Rave on about your Christian victimization and hatred for the Constitution.

Can you show me where it defines that? or not? Other than that, calling him a representative of government is quite a stretch when he's just a football coach. I didn't know they had power to create ratifiable laws promoting and establishing Christianity, goodness.
Nice strawman by the way.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Sremmos80

Can't help but wonder if the parents interviewed would feel the same if it what was a different religions prayer.

Exactly. What would happen if the coach were a Wiccan, and prayed to the goddess at the end of games with his students? How well would that go over? But we've been conditioned that it's ok, because it's Christian. Not any more.

You guys just sound really bitter.
If the coach was a Wiccan and kids on the team were Wiccans, and they led a voluntary Wiccan prayer after games, I don't think many people would really care, provided that nobody was forced and it wasn't a loud, obnoxious ceremony with questionable practices.

Prayer is a quiet, personal ceremony. Does the sight of people huddled up in a circle, maybe making the sign of the cross, and saying a prayer together for a few minutes SERIOUSLY bother you that much? Good grief.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Can you show me where it defines that? or not? Other than that, calling him a representative of government is quite a stretch when he's just a football coach. I didn't know they had power to create ratifiable laws promoting and establishing Christianity, goodness.
Nice strawman by the way.

Fairly certain this is a waste of time, but here you go:

1. Check the OP articles (either one).

2. Who put the coach on suspension?

3. That would be who he worked for. (Hint: it's the Bremerton School district)

Here's a link to the lastest update on Coach Kennedy from the Superintendent: Source

As to the rest:

US Supreme Court Affirms Bans on Coach Prayer

A New Jersey school district’s policy on prayer remained intact when the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Mar. 2, refused to hear an appeal from a U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the East Brunswick school district’s ban on a high school football coach’s pre-game prayer ritual.

At issue in Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick was a school district policy that banned coaches or other school employees from participating in student-initiated prayers.

were on our way to a sh** storm of conflict. some are stirring the pot, instigators knowing full well what they want.

rot and assimilate-hot to annihilate.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Here's a link to the lastest update on Coach Kennedy from the Superintendent: Source

Well, that clearly spells it out.

Just have to read it.

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth

originally posted by: chuck258

It's a school event on school property. The game ending does not change that fact.

Once students joined him, he was in violation of Separation of Church and State.

He was asked to stop. He refused. Now, he is intentionally violating Separation of Church and State.

The game ending has everything to do with this case. He goes and does his prayers after the event is over and the students are no longer his 'custody'.

Not sure how students joining him in prayer on their own, of their own accord, and without any sort of fear of reprisal automatically makes him a representative of the state in an establishment of religion.

He was asked to stop, and when his lawyers requested meetings were ignored, the state pulled a fast one and just suspended him.

No fear or reprisal, hunh?
You don't think a player that refuses to pray with the team and coach aren't going to be marginalised?
I find that very hard to believe.

The burden is on you, the accuser (I know you're not pursuing the case personally, but if you are going to speak against this, you are an accuser) to prove that the students were marginalised, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they WOULD be marginalised if they didn't partake. Your assumption does not make it true and you are denying this coach due process by stating, matter of factly, that they would be.

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth

originally posted by: chuck258

It's a school event on school property. The game ending does not change that fact.

Once students joined him, he was in violation of Separation of Church and State.

He was asked to stop. He refused. Now, he is intentionally violating Separation of Church and State.

The game ending has everything to do with this case. He goes and does his prayers after the event is over and the students are no longer his 'custody'.

Not sure how students joining him in prayer on their own, of their own accord, and without any sort of fear of reprisal automatically makes him a representative of the state in an establishment of religion.

He was asked to stop, and when his lawyers requested meetings were ignored, the state pulled a fast one and just suspended him.

No fear or reprisal, hunh?
You don't think a player that refuses to pray with the team and coach aren't going to be marginalised?
I find that very hard to believe.

. . . prove that the students were marginalised, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they WOULD be marginalised if they didn't partake. Your assumption does not make it true and you are denying this coach due process by stating, matter of factly, that they would be.

From source provided by Gryphon66.

It is equally clear that District employees may not participate in even student-initiated prayer. Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402 (1995). While attending games may be voluntary for most students, students required to be present by virtue of their participation in football or cheerleading will necessarily suffer a degree of coercion to participate in religious activity when their coaches lead or endorse it.

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Sremmos80

Can't help but wonder if the parents interviewed would feel the same if it what was a different religions prayer.

Exactly. What would happen if the coach were a Wiccan, and prayed to the goddess at the end of games with his students? How well would that go over? But we've been conditioned that it's ok, because it's Christian. Not any more.

You guys just sound really bitter.
If the coach was a Wiccan and kids on the team were Wiccans, and they led a voluntary Wiccan prayer after games, I don't think many people would really care, provided that nobody was forced and it wasn't a loud, obnoxious ceremony with questionable practices.

Prayer is a quiet, personal ceremony. Does the sight of people huddled up in a circle, maybe making the sign of the cross, and saying a prayer together for a few minutes SERIOUSLY bother you that much? Good grief.

You might want to read this post. www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Can you show me where it defines that? or not? Other than that, calling him a representative of government is quite a stretch when he's just a football coach. I didn't know they had power to create ratifiable laws promoting and establishing Christianity, goodness.
Nice strawman by the way.

Fairly certain this is a waste of time, but here you go:

1. Check the OP articles (either one).

2. Who put the coach on suspension?

3. That would be who he worked for. (Hint: it's the Bremerton School district)

Here's a link to the lastest update on Coach Kennedy from the Superintendent: Source

As to the rest:

US Supreme Court Affirms Bans on Coach Prayer

A New Jersey school district’s policy on prayer remained intact when the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Mar. 2, refused to hear an appeal from a U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the East Brunswick school district’s ban on a high school football coach’s pre-game prayer ritual.

At issue in Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick was a school district policy that banned coaches or other school employees from participating in student-initiated prayers.

Dear lord, please guide us today in our quest in our game, our championship. Give us the courage and determination that we would need to come out successful. Please let us represent our families and our community well. Lastly, please guide our players and opponents so that they can come out of this game unscathed, and no one is hurt.

From your supreme court link. That's a pretty basic and relevant prayer that I think any religion could participate in, so I don't see how that establishes one religion. I also read that when ever someone told him not to do something he complied. Jo Ann Magistro, the Superintendent of the East Brunswick School District, even had guidelines given to Kennedy that allowed it to continue. Looks like a small minority getting their way because they cried loud enough, and the Superintendent not wanting to make waves. Quite the fine line for the 1st.

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: chuck258

Christianity deserves every bit of bashing it gets.
Your ridiculous religion is responsible for 2000 years of some of the most heinous violence and inhuman carnage that has ever been perpetrated on earth.
You don't get a pass from me because it was done in the past.
Your religion needs to be destroyed plain and simple, along with the rest of the abrahamic cults.

My religion? I'm not even Christian, nice ASSumption though. I'm an atheist, however, I see the Progressives attempt to erase Christianity for no other reason than being brainwashed by the Cult that is Liberalism.

It's funny, you claim Christianity is responsible for 'some of the most heinous violence and inhuman carnage blah blah blah'. I could point out that Atheists that are responsible for Tens upon tens of millions of deaths within the last 100 years alone in outright genocide (Joseph Stalin, 20 million ; Mao Zedong 20-60 million ; Pol Pot 2 million ; Kim Jong Il, unconfirmed, but more than a million, and were not even counting the suffering that continues to this day ; Napoleon 6 million European deaths)

I could also mention the fact that Islam's founding father was personally responsible for many an atrocity, and was a military commander, polygamist slave holder while compared to the founding father of Christianity who never even married, was a pacifist and was executed. Who's followers then peacefully spread Christianity in different parts of the world (as opposed to the military expansionism of Islam). I could also mention that Islam was invaded Africa and began enslaving it's population oh, I don't know, around 800 years before Europeans finally caught up.

I could mention that the initial Christian Crusades were launched in response to the Muslim takeover of the holy lland as defensive wars to ensure Christians had access. I could also mention acts of outright genocide committed by Muslims, such as the Armenian Genocide that slaughtered 1.5million Armenians in less than 2 years, alongside a half million greeks, and three quarters of a million assyrians. Or maybe your friend Saddam Hussein who massacred 200,000 Kurds, many of them with Chemical Weapons. What about Saudi Arabia, who to this day, summarily executes people without any real due process, who still practices crucifixion, public whipping and beheading as punishments to this day

So let's see, the death count for Non-Christians, Atheists and Muslims alone, in the last century and a half, and after a mere 5 minutes of googling tops out at more or less 80 million. Show me specifically Christian atrocities that are even a fraction as deadly. Show me the Christian paramilitary groups throughout the western world that are blowing themselves up in an attempt to murder minority religions, or even subdivisions of it's own religion in the way that Muslims continue to do to this day. Show me major Christian countries that force women to this day to cover themselves from head to toe, or that shove Gay men from tall buildings simply because they are gay.

I'm honestly not even sure why I graced your obviously bigoted statement with a response, but there you have it.

a reply to: chuck258

What does that have to do with Coach Kennedy's suspension, again?

You know *points upward* the topic?

Did you run out of denying the obvious facts of the matter that have been linked time and time again here and decided to go on a BS anti-atheist tear that's just as full of crap as your justification for posting that garbage? Just as one-sided?

Care to demonstrate how the US Constitution, the Washington Constitution, the policies of the Bremerton School District, several Supreme Court cases are all flawed and your interpretation is the only correct one in the face of all of that?

Thanks.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Dear lord, please guide us today in our quest in our game, our championship. Give us the courage and determination that we would need to come out successful. Please let us represent our families and our community well. Lastly, please guide our players and opponents so that they can come out of this game unscathed, and no one is hurt.

From your supreme court link. That's a pretty basic and relevant prayer that I think any religion could participate in, so I don't see how that establishes one religion. I also read that when ever someone told him not to do something he complied. Jo Ann Magistro, the Superintendent of the East Brunswick School District, even had guidelines given to Kennedy that allowed it to continue. Looks like a small minority getting their way because they cried loud enough, and the Superintendent not wanting to make waves. Quite the fine line for the 1st.

This cannot be made more clear than it has been. Who cares what you think? Read the US Constitution, any commentary on the First Amendment, the Washington State Constitution, Section 11 (linked), the Bremerton School District policies (linked), Federal and SCOTUS court cases that have been linked that SPECIFICALLY address a coach praying on the field and if you still don't get it, you're not going to.

Keep telling us what you think and we'll keep telling you you're full of it and why.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth

originally posted by: chuck258

It's a school event on school property. The game ending does not change that fact.

Once students joined him, he was in violation of Separation of Church and State.

He was asked to stop. He refused. Now, he is intentionally violating Separation of Church and State.

The game ending has everything to do with this case. He goes and does his prayers after the event is over and the students are no longer his 'custody'.

Not sure how students joining him in prayer on their own, of their own accord, and without any sort of fear of reprisal automatically makes him a representative of the state in an establishment of religion.

He was asked to stop, and when his lawyers requested meetings were ignored, the state pulled a fast one and just suspended him.

No fear or reprisal, hunh?
You don't think a player that refuses to pray with the team and coach aren't going to be marginalised?
I find that very hard to believe.

. . . prove that the students were marginalised, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they WOULD be marginalised if they didn't partake. Your assumption does not make it true and you are denying this coach due process by stating, matter of factly, that they would be.

From source provided by Gryphon66.

It is equally clear that District employees may not participate in even student-initiated prayer. Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402 (1995). While attending games may be voluntary for most students, students required to be present by virtue of their participation in football or cheerleading will necessarily suffer a degree of coercion to participate in religious activity when their coaches lead or endorse it.

So I just googled the case. The reason the suit was filed was because the girl was discriminated against. As I have said, at least one agnostic student has stated that the coach, neither directly nor indirectly implied students must participate. Also in Doe v. Duncanville, the teacher in fact initiated several different prayers at several different points DURING school events when the students were in her custody. As I have said, this football coach goes back to the football field after the game is over and students are technically released from his custody and says a short prayer to himself, and his students voluntarily join him. In Doe V. Duncanville, the teacher initiated prayers with her students, in the middle of a school event while the students were in her custody.

I personally think the cases are apples to oranges, the Doe V. Duncanville case was a much more severe case, and the victim was in fact marginalised, by the teacher and the students publicly, and I also agree with the judgement. That is way over the line, and I think it's obvious the teacher was actively promoting her religion. Again though, I think this case is different, and much less severe.



FOR THE RECORD:I also endorse the allowing of Muslim students time out of class if that is what is important to them. I know I linked the case, but it was to point out severe religious hypocrisy being displayed by the leftist christian bashing bigots. I am all for religious freedom in schools, but it should be applied equally.

a reply to: chuck258

Okay, that's what you think. That's not what the school district policies state, what the Superintendent directed in his letter to the coach, what the Washington Constitution says, etc.

I mean, earlier in the thread we were all sort of stating our opinions on the matter ... but the actual district policies that govern the Coach's job performance have been linked, the letter from the supervisor of his supervisor, the Washington Constitution (which could not be more clear) and so forth.

Why are you giving your personal interpretation of what you think these things mean to you over and over and over?

The facts are linked and documented. You have a different opinion than all the information provided.

So?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chuck258

Sorry you're against religious freedom and want to keep kids from praying as they wish.

Thanks for being honest that you're only in favor of Christians getting special treatment.

Of course the coach is a) still working for the government, b) still on government property, c) still in a position of authority over the students, d) still leading by example, and e) still knowingly breaking the law.

Accommodating religious beliefs does not include forcing others to take part in them. Establishing means establishing.

The Constitution is in effect, five minutes before school events, after school events, during school events ... all the time.

Keeping Christians like you from trampling the Constitution underfoot and using the government as your proxy for inflicting your cult on others is not bashing.

Once again, I'm not a Christian, funny all the assumptions that you 'tolerant' Liberals throw around (while simultaneously condeming Christians that do the same thing).

Accommodating religious beliefs does not include forcing others to take part in them.

Where has it been shown that this coach is forcing others to take part in his personal prayers?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chuck258

Okay, that's what you think. That's not what the school district policies state, what the Superintendent directed in his letter to the coach, what the Washington Constitution says, etc.

I mean, earlier in the thread we were all sort of stating our opinions on the matter ... but the actual district policies that govern the Coach's job performance have been linked, the letter from the supervisor of his supervisor, the Washington Constitution (which could not be more clear) and so forth.

Why are you giving your personal interpretation of what you think these things mean to you over and over and over?

The facts are linked and documented. You have a different opinion than all the information provided.

So?

I'm giving my personal opinion because this is a discussion of the topic. Is that not what this forum is for? Or is it just a place for a bunch of Christian bashers to partake in a Christian bashing circle jerk that call for the destruction, plain and simple of Christianity and 'abrahamic cults'? Is that what this is? If it is please let me know because I have been doing the wrong thing for several years.

I think it is important to know the differences between the cases linked because the end result of the previous case alone does not prove this case is also wrong, the circumstances leading up to the judgement are just as instrumental in using it as a precedent in this case. Also up for discussion is the pending case I'm assuming this Coach is going to file for violating his religious beliefs (the validity of the School policy, and interpretation of the Washington constitution, etc.)

a reply to: chuck258

Oh good gravy. You sounded like a "Christian." And a bigot. So, Mr. Teapot meet Mr. Kettle. Whatever you claim to be.

I've never claimed to be tolerant, anywhere, anytime, in any way. In fact, I'm downright intolerant of blatant stupidity.

You're trying to cite others for being a bigot, and every time you do so, you only show what a bigot you are.

Leftist, liberal, progressive BS BS BS. How are you any different with that garbage than the folks (and there have been a very few here) who have "bashed Christians"? I'm not bashing Christians, neither was Annee, neither was Klassified and several others. Yet, anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Look up the meaning of bigot.

Standing on the 50 yard line is not a personal prayer. Read any of the material linked for your answers.

What he's doing is against the law and against school policy. That fact has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone THINKS.

EDIT: My apologies for referring to you as a Christian.

a reply to: chuck258

The personal opinions you keep stating have nothing to do with facts of the matter that have been repeated over and over to you. You keep coming back with "but I think _____" and "Christian bashers _____"

Sure, you can do it, it is an open forum and you can do it ... but why would you? You're not disputing opinions you're disputing settled, direct facts recognized in Federal case law, two Constitutions and the policies of the very School District the Coach works in!

EDIT: I'm not even trying to shut you down! I just simply cannot understand where you are coming from. The law has been linked that directly addresses the matter of a Coach praying on a football field with students who wish to do so. How can it be any more clear than that?

I don't get it. It's not a matter of two different opinions ... it's a matter of settled case law and the school districts policies.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chuck258

The personal opinions you keep stating have nothing to do with facts of the matter that have been repeated over and over to you. You keep coming back with "but I think _____" and "Christian bashers _____"

Sure, you can do it, it is an open forum and you can do it ... but why would you? You're not disputing opinions you're disputing settled, direct facts recognized in Federal case law, two Constitutions and the policies of the very School District the Coach works in!

EDIT: I'm not even trying to shut you down! I just simply cannot understand where you are coming from. The law has been linked that directly addresses the matter of a Coach praying on a football field with students who wish to do so. How can it be any more clear than that?

I don't get it. It's not a matter of two different opinions ... it's a matter of settled case law and the school districts policies.

As I have stated, I really don't think the previous mentioned case should be used as a rubric for this o e, and I stated why I believed that. They are to radically different to be treated the same way.

What is at issue here is not only if the coach did wrong by the Laws and policies , but Ifthose laws and policies are right in and of themselves.

I don't like trading insults and sounding like a bigot, I only do so in response to ridiculous ones like the one I replied to earlier calling for the destruction of a 2000 year old belief system . While I'm not a lawyer, I like to discuss things legally and also logically and calmly. But on the very first page, Chriatinty as a whole was being attacked and I won't sit idly by and just let it happen.

EDIT: just to clarify, I am not a bigot. I only speak like that in response to people who have themselves made very ignorant and bigoted statements, because tolerant Liberals don't subject themselves to the same standard of tolerance as they demand of everyone else. If I made a statement like the one I linked but it was about Islam, I'm fairly confident it would be reported and likely removed by the mods. I would not speak as I did if certain others did not speak that way first. On occasion I may make offhand remarks, but I do not use them in place of real discussion. I also try to keep the balance with equivelances they conviwntly forget to mention or remember.

a reply to: chuck258

As a Christian and Armenian whose ancestors suffered through the Genocide, thank you for this post.

Too often do I see atheists with a vendetta against Christianity who would never touch Islam nor admit the "crimes" of atheism like you did (though I consider all atrocities done by atheism and religion to be an extension of the evil of humanity, using philosophy and beliefs as a vehicle for their hatred). You're a very honest and respectable person.