How the Right Is Bringing Christian Prayer Back Into Public Schools

[Jimmy Higgins]

I imagine SCOTUS will be fine with this level of prayer. The premise of the prayer seems disconnected with the event, in the wrong place, and has the appearance of civil endorsement of a religion, but what the religion isn't stated if it is to himself... even if the coach inserts his prayer at centerstage.

On the other hand, a football field isn't typically considered a place of worship. Nor is the school acting against the man's faith... just his passive aggressive public "private" display of it. Does he need to be so public about his personal prayer? Assuredly, the school doesn't give a darn what he believes (and statistically, it is likely they all believe the same sky fairy exists), but they are a bit sensitive to lawyers, because... well lawyers.

The guy could be praying the entire game on the sideline, and the school wouldn't have much to say about it. It is when he makes a predictable and definitely public display of it, I can see an issue. The role of a high school football coach shouldn't be considered that big of a role, but in a lot of America, the high school football coach is a pretty big deal, in some states, the local Pope.

In my four years in High School sports, never saw a prayer. Even going to a Christian college, the basketball coach (no football team) didn't go Center Court to pray after games.

Well, presumably, an agenda of preventing that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There'd probably be some larger agenda that that's a subagenda of. Do you have some reason to feel exploring that larger agenda ought to be off-limits? I'm trying to cross-examine a witness. Is there something you're afraid a cross-examination might uncover?

Wow, that's some straight up scientology level "what are your crimes" bull...

Hey man, you're the one who barged uninvited into an exchange between two other people and tried to interfere with an attempt to elicit an explanation. If you don't like me asking what your crimes are, feel free to leave your nose out of other people's business.

An exchange? You mean your opinion police interrogation, where you don't actually put forth a position other than finding issue with other posters' opinions?

 

[LoAmmo]

Why on earth would you believe that? Are you under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started?

SLD can certainly answer for SLD.

But I am most definitely under the impression that indoctrination of students by atheist teachers has not yet started.
If I'm wrong about that, I'd certainly like to know, though. What do you have?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that this guy's an atheist...

Antifa teacher who wanted to indoctrinate students to reportedly be fired

Gabriel Gipe is reportedly set to be fired after being seen on video praising Antifa and discussing his effort to “turn [students] into revolutionaries.”

nypost.com

I think you mean, "It's my wild-ass guess that this guy's an atheist." Because not ONE WORD of your own link had a fucking thing to do with atheism or pushing an anti-Christian (or anti-any religion) platform. Or you mean, "I need for this one guy to be an atheist, in hopes of buttressing my argument, ( hint: it doesn't ) so I'm inventing that."

So, to sum up, you don't have shit to support your insinuation; you're just saying stuff. Which is intellectually lazy, among other problems.

Furthermore, just for discussion's sake, let's just theoretically say that THAT teacher, who got fired, is an atheist. We're granting that, for purposes of this topic.

How in the holy fuck would that equate to your insinuation that "the indoctrination of students by atheist teachers" HAS in fact started--ie, it's not an isolated, one-off outlier type of incident, it's a pervasive, widespread movement, something that is spreading, etc.

Short answer is, it doesn't. And you're just making stuff up, and when you're challenged on it, you have nothing of substance in response, and rather than admit you over-spoke, you dig up one fucking guy (who sounds like a loon, frankly) and whisk your hands together like, "well, hah. I proved the indoctrination by atheist teachers after speculating that one teacher in Cali might possibly be one, despite no statement to that effect being present in my own link."

That's pretty weak shit you got there.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?

What is the reason you are personalizing this subject?

Which subject? The subject you asked me about, whether I'm a mind-reader? I personalized that because what you personally said to me bore directly on whether Politesse's "Except" reply was a valid counterargument to my post.

If you mean the subject of the thread, what is the subject of the thread? You posted a link without comment so it's not clear what issue it is you mean for thread participants to discuss.

Now you're just being purposely obtuse.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

That's what happens when you publicly act contrary to scripture.
Mathew 6:5
“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 others."

No theocracy should tolerate such behavior in a public employee.

First, that statement is very Christian-centric. Does every faith tradition have a proscription on public prayer or worship?

Second, the US isn't a theocracy so it shouldn't be prescribing how public employees pray.

As difficult as it is for a Theocracy to conform to the strictures of one religion, can one imagine how it might be possible to conform to all religions at the same time?

Do we know if the coach knelt on one knee, or both. We do have precedents of people being fired for kneeling on one knee, but that's always been before the game.

 

[marc]

As difficult as it is for a Theocracy to conform to the strictures of one religion, can one imagine how it might be possible to conform to all religions at the same time?

That can be difficult.

Spoiler: Only example I’ve seen

 

[Metaphor]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

That's what happens when you publicly act contrary to scripture.
Mathew 6:5
“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 others."

No theocracy should tolerate such behavior in a public employee.

First, that statement is very Christian-centric. Does every faith tradition have a proscription on public prayer or worship?

Second, the US isn't a theocracy so it shouldn't be prescribing how public employees pray.

As difficult as it is for a Theocracy to conform to the strictures of one religion, can one imagine how it might be possible to conform to all religions at the same time?

Do we know if the coach knelt on one knee, or both. We do have precedents of people being fired for kneeling on one knee, but that's always been before the game.

What people in particular?

 

[Copernicus]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

You have actually distorted the issue that got Kennedy in trouble. He conducted prayer sessions with the players, which would have put social pressure on all players to attend. The Slate article referenced a more detailed account of the history that was published in Vox:

The Supreme Court’s “praying coach” case, explained​

Kennedy also engaged in other overt performances of his religion while he was coaching public school students. After each game, while players and spectators were still present, Kennedy would walk out to the 50-yard line, kneel, and pray. Initially, he did this alone, but after a few games students started to join him — until eventually a majority of his players joined him as well.

The school initially tried to work with Kennedy to find ways to accommodate his religious convictions, but eventually placed him on leave after he stopped cooperating — and after one of his prayer sessions inspired a crowd of people to rush the field, knocking over members of the marching band and potentially endangering students.

The Supreme Court will use this case to rule on the broader question of whether prayers can be imposed on students in a government school. If they rule like the conservative religious dogmatists that the Court majority appear to be, then the ruling will have a much broader impact. Parents who don't want their children being proselytized or singled out for non-compliance would be discriminated against in favor of the right of parents to have their children engage in group prayer activities. Teachers who don't want to be involved in religious sessions could be disciplined. There might even be disputes over the content of prayers that students are being led to recite. The whole point of the first amendment was to take the government out of such religious disputes.

 

[Metaphor]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

You have actually distorted the issue that got Kennedy in trouble. He conducted prayer sessions with the players, which would have put social pressure on all players to attend. The Slate article referenced a more detailed account of the history that was published in Vox:

The Supreme Court’s “praying coach” case, explained​

Kennedy also engaged in other overt performances of his religion while he was coaching public school students. After each game, while players and spectators were still present, Kennedy would walk out to the 50-yard line, kneel, and pray. Initially, he did this alone, but after a few games students started to join him — until eventually a majority of his players joined him as well.

The school initially tried to work with Kennedy to find ways to accommodate his religious convictions, but eventually placed him on leave after he stopped cooperating — and after one of his prayer sessions inspired a crowd of people to rush the field, knocking over members of the marching band and potentially endangering students.

The Supreme Court will use this case to rule on the broader question of whether prayers can be imposed on students in a government school. If they rule like the conservative religious dogmatists that the Court majority appear to be, then the ruling will have a much broader impact. Parents who don't want their children being proselytized or singled out for non-compliance would be discriminated against in favor of the right of parents to have their children engage in group prayer activities. Teachers who don't want to be involved in religious sessions could be disciplined. There might even be disputes over the content of prayers that students are being led to recite. The whole point of the first amendment was to take the government out of such religious disputes.

Prayers ought not be imposed on students, but it is hardly clear from the facts that they were imposed. If students joined him voluntarily, and it wasn't on 'school time' (after the game), on whom is that imposing?

 

[Copernicus]

...Prayers ought not be imposed on students, but it is hardly clear from the facts that they were imposed. If students joined him voluntarily, and it wasn't on 'school time' (after the game), on whom is that imposing?

You have not said anything about my criticism that you distorted the facts when you quoted a snippet from Kennedy's petition to justify branding the Slate "reporting" (which you put in scare quotes to imply that there was something phony about it) as "dishonest" (your word). The Slate article gave details which contradicted the petition, and there is ample evidence from the reporting to conclude that the petition itself was dishonest.

Football games are school activities, and being on a school football team is an official activity funded by public taxes. They are not private activities sponsored by churches. If the coach is conducting prayer meetings at the end of a game that become a team participation event--which these meetings did--then one can assume that those who failed to join in would be noticed and that the event would be seen as a team endorsement of the activity. That is apparently what happened, and the school did not fire him for that. Instead, they tried to work with the coach to accommodate his activities in a way that did not make it look like an official team activity. Apparently, the coach was the one who decided to stop cooperating with his employer, and he was fired for that reason, not because he was just a Christian and just saying a prayer by himself on the sideline after a game. He knew the effect his prayers were having on the team, and he wanted it to continue.

The Supreme Court is now in a position to make a broad ruling on the question of school prayer in public schools that can very well lead to social pressure on students in government schools to engage in religious activities that might restrict their rights to be free from government pressure to do so and run counter to the rights of parents not to have their children subjected to religious proselytizing in schools during the day, not just at the end of a football game.

 

[Metaphor]

...Prayers ought not be imposed on students, but it is hardly clear from the facts that they were imposed. If students joined him voluntarily, and it wasn't on 'school time' (after the game), on whom is that imposing?

You have not said anything about my criticism that you distorted the facts when you quoted a snippet from Kennedy's petition to justify branding the Slate "reporting" (which you put in scare quotes to imply that there was something phony about it) as "dishonest" (your word). The Slate article gave details which contradicted the petition, and there is ample evidence from the reporting to conclude that the petition itself was dishonest.

But how is it that you know I've distorted the facts or the Kennedy case has distorted the facts or Slate has distorted them?

As I said: it is hardly clear that prayers were imposed, even from what you quoted from Slate.

Football games are school activities, and being on a school football team is an official activity funded by public taxes. They are not private activities sponsored by churches. If the coach is conducting prayer meetings at the end of a game that become a team participation event--which these meetings did--then one can assume that those who failed to join in would be noticed and that the event would be seen as a team endorsement of the activity. That is apparently what happened, and the school did not fire him for that. Instead, they tried to work with the coach to accommodate his activities in a way that did not make it look like an official team activity. Apparently, the coach was the one who decided to stop cooperating with his employer, and he was fired for that reason, not because he was just a Christian and just saying a prayer by himself on the sideline after a game. He knew the effect his prayers were having on the team, and he wanted it to continue.

Whether they tried to work with the coach to present reasonable accommodations for him is surely one of the facts in contention?

The Supreme Court is now in a position to make a broad ruling on the question of school prayer in public schools that can very well lead to social pressure on students in government schools to engage in religious activities that might restrict their rights to be free from government pressure to do so and run counter to the rights of parents not to have their children subjected to religious proselytizing in schools during the day, not just at the end of a football game.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court makes a broad ruling to prevent teachers exerting social pressure to coerce public school students to engage in activities that they do not feel like engaging in - including the secular religions that appear to have sprung up in North American schools.

 

[Worldtraveller]

That's why courts employ judges and juries instead of polygraphs to decide which witnesses are reliable.

Except that judges and juries are notoriously unreliable.

And? It's not as though ZiprHead asked whether I was a 100% accurate mind reader. Do you disagree with anything I wrote?

What is the reason you are personalizing this subject?

Which subject? The subject you asked me about, whether I'm a mind-reader? I personalized that because what you personally said to me bore directly on whether Politesse's "Except" reply was a valid counterargument to my post.

If you mean the subject of the thread, what is the subject of the thread? You posted a link without comment so it's not clear what issue it is you mean for thread participants to discuss.

Now you're just being purposely obtuse.

This assumes a self awareness not in evidence.

 

[SLD]

...Prayers ought not be imposed on students, but it is hardly clear from the facts that they were imposed. If students joined him voluntarily, and it wasn't on 'school time' (after the game), on whom is that imposing?

You have not said anything about my criticism that you distorted the facts when you quoted a snippet from Kennedy's petition to justify branding the Slate "reporting" (which you put in scare quotes to imply that there was something phony about it) as "dishonest" (your word). The Slate article gave details which contradicted the petition, and there is ample evidence from the reporting to conclude that the petition itself was dishonest.

But how is it that you know I've distorted the facts or the Kennedy case has distorted the facts or Slate has distorted them?

As I said: it is hardly clear that prayers were imposed, even from what you quoted from Slate.

Football games are school activities, and being on a school football team is an official activity funded by public taxes. They are not private activities sponsored by churches. If the coach is conducting prayer meetings at the end of a game that become a team participation event--which these meetings did--then one can assume that those who failed to join in would be noticed and that the event would be seen as a team endorsement of the activity. That is apparently what happened, and the school did not fire him for that. Instead, they tried to work with the coach to accommodate his activities in a way that did not make it look like an official team activity. Apparently, the coach was the one who decided to stop cooperating with his employer, and he was fired for that reason, not because he was just a Christian and just saying a prayer by himself on the sideline after a game. He knew the effect his prayers were having on the team, and he wanted it to continue.

Whether they tried to work with the coach to present reasonable accommodations for him is surely one of the facts in contention?

The Supreme Court is now in a position to make a broad ruling on the question of school prayer in public schools that can very well lead to social pressure on students in government schools to engage in religious activities that might restrict their rights to be free from government pressure to do so and run counter to the rights of parents not to have their children subjected to religious proselytizing in schools during the day, not just at the end of a football game.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court makes a broad ruling to prevent teachers exerting social pressure to coerce public school students to engage in activities that they do not feel like engaging in - including the secular religions that appear to have sprung up in North American schools.

They should. But they won’t. The replacement of Ginsburg with Barrett will likely mean that the Court will focus on the “rights” of the poor pitiful teacher to force students to pray. The problem this will create is what happens when another teacher starts to lead prayers to Cthulhu, the FSM, or Mohammed? What happens when a student objects to the prayers, and then let’s say he misses a down that he wanted to play in? Can they sue? You betcha!

The one consistency amongst Supreme Court opinions has been that other religions cannot be suppressed. Even Alito agrees with that basic concept. Thus schools may find themselves sued from both ends, minority religions as well as majority ones.

Such fights may put a stop to this nonsense. But I suspect that the Supreme Court will Pooh-Pooh such concerns for now, hoping that we can return society will return to the 50’s where non Christians could be openly discriminated against and we atheists will have to go back in our closets. Women and other minorities too.

 

[Copernicus]

...Prayers ought not be imposed on students, but it is hardly clear from the facts that they were imposed. If students joined him voluntarily, and it wasn't on 'school time' (after the game), on whom is that imposing?

You have not said anything about my criticism that you distorted the facts when you quoted a snippet from Kennedy's petition to justify branding the Slate "reporting" (which you put in scare quotes to imply that there was something phony about it) as "dishonest" (your word). The Slate article gave details which contradicted the petition, and there is ample evidence from the reporting to conclude that the petition itself was dishonest.

But how is it that you know I've distorted the facts or the Kennedy case has distorted the facts or Slate has distorted them?

I have not claimed any special knowledge of the facts. My comments are based on the news accounts I've read, including the one in Vox, which you seem not to have read. The snippet you presented did not mention anything about players joining in the prayers.

As I said: it is hardly clear that prayers were imposed, even from what you quoted from Slate.

Straw man. Nobody has said that the players who participated were forced to participate, although some may have felt pressured to do so. The issue has never been about prayers being imposed, but on prayers being sponsored by a government-run school. US law requires the government to neither promote nor hinder religion, so conducting prayers as part of a school team activity is legally prohibited. The school apparently felt that the coach was compromising their policy of religious neutrality by establishing a prayer activity as a team tradition, especially after it began to involve other students and game attendees.

Football games are school activities, and being on a school football team is an official activity funded by public taxes. They are not private activities sponsored by churches. If the coach is conducting prayer meetings at the end of a game that become a team participation event--which these meetings did--then one can assume that those who failed to join in would be noticed and that the event would be seen as a team endorsement of the activity. That is apparently what happened, and the school did not fire him for that. Instead, they tried to work with the coach to accommodate his activities in a way that did not make it look like an official team activity. Apparently, the coach was the one who decided to stop cooperating with his employer, and he was fired for that reason, not because he was just a Christian and just saying a prayer by himself on the sideline after a game. He knew the effect his prayers were having on the team, and he wanted it to continue.

Whether they tried to work with the coach to present reasonable accommodations for him is surely one of the facts in contention?

The facts are not being disputed by the coach, to my knowledge. The school claimed that he stopped cooperating with their effort to accommodate him, possibly because he felt that the school policy was wrong. Sometimes Christians feel that their religious beliefs override their civic responsibilities.

The Supreme Court is now in a position to make a broad ruling on the question of school prayer in public schools that can very well lead to social pressure on students in government schools to engage in religious activities that might restrict their rights to be free from government pressure to do so and run counter to the rights of parents not to have their children subjected to religious proselytizing in schools during the day, not just at the end of a football game.

I sincerely hope the Supreme Court makes a broad ruling to prevent teachers exerting social pressure to coerce public school students to engage in activities that they do not feel like engaging in - including the secular religions that appear to have sprung up in North American schools.

That is already the law in the United States. The Supreme Court could be ruling to break that precedent in this particular case, since it could rule that government-supported schools can conduct religious ceremonies against the wishes of parents and students. I don't know what you mean when you refer to "secular religions", but it comes off as an oxymoron. Schools are not allowed to promote atheism or rejection of religious doctrines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's difficult to believe how much more dishonest Slate's "reporting" on this could be.

Kennedy's petition says:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a
football coach at a public high school because he knelt
and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the
game ended.

You have actually distorted the issue that got Kennedy in trouble. He conducted prayer sessions with the players, which would have put social pressure on all players to attend. The Slate article referenced a more detailed account of the history that was published in Vox:

The Supreme Court’s “praying coach” case, explained​

Kennedy also engaged in other overt performances of his religion while he was coaching public school students. After each game, while players and spectators were still present, Kennedy would walk out to the 50-yard line, kneel, and pray. Initially, he did this alone, but after a few games students started to join him — until eventually a majority of his players joined him as well.

The school initially tried to work with Kennedy to find ways to accommodate his religious convictions, but eventually placed him on leave after he stopped cooperating — and after one of his prayer sessions inspired a crowd of people to rush the field, knocking over members of the marching band and potentially endangering students.

The Supreme Court will use this case to rule on the broader question of whether prayers can be imposed on students in a government school. If they rule like the conservative religious dogmatists that the Court majority appear to be, then the ruling will have a much broader impact. Parents who don't want their children being proselytized or singled out for non-compliance would be discriminated against in favor of the right of parents to have their children engage in group prayer activities. Teachers who don't want to be involved in religious sessions could be disciplined. There might even be disputes over the content of prayers that students are being led to recite. The whole point of the first amendment was to take the government out of such religious disputes.

Yeah, that's leading prayer, not private prayer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prayers ought not be imposed on students, but it is hardly clear from the facts that they were imposed. If students joined him voluntarily, and it wasn't on 'school time' (after the game), on whom is that imposing?

In a leading-prayer situation like this it's impossible to avoid coercion.

 

[Metaphor]

I have not claimed any special knowledge of the facts. My comments are based on the news accounts I've read, including the one in Vox, which you seem not to have read. The snippet you presented did not mention anything about players joining in the prayers.

Well, you said I distorted the facts, but how would you know unless you are claiming you have the facts?

No, the snippet didn't mention the players joining in, but players joining in does not seem to me to change the situation.

Straw man. Nobody has said that the players who participated were forced to participate, although some may have felt pressured to do so. The issue has never been about prayers being imposed, but on prayers being sponsored by a government-run school. US law requires the government to neither promote nor hinder religion, so conducting prayers as part of a school team activity is legally prohibited.

Saying he 'conducted' prayers is begging the question. Was he in fact, 'conducting' prayers?

That is already the law in the United States. The Supreme Court could be ruling to break that precedent in this particular case, since it could rule that government-supported schools can conduct religious ceremonies against the wishes of parents and students. I don't know what you mean when you refer to "secular religions", but it comes off as an oxymoron. Schools are not allowed to promote atheism or rejection of religious doctrines.

Secular religions are belief systems that include most or all of the trappings of religion but no particular belief in a deity.

An example is the prayer (Acknowledgment of Country) given to indigenous people in Australian workplaces before large/significant meetings or with meetings with external participants.

 

[Copernicus]

I have not claimed any special knowledge of the facts. My comments are based on the news accounts I've read, including the one in Vox, which you seem not to have read. The snippet you presented did not mention anything about players joining in the prayers.

Well, you said I distorted the facts, but how would you know unless you are claiming you have the facts?

No, the snippet didn't mention the players joining in, but players joining in does not seem to me to change the situation.

That's right--because your snippet made it sound like he was fired for praying by himself on the sideline after the games ended. That was only how he started out, and nobody cared about that. The issue started when he started leading team members in prayer at the end of the game and it became a public spectacle. The distortion was leaving out the relevant details at issue, which I suppose was how the coach's lawyer was trying to frame the lawsuit. You should have picked up on that, because it was quite clear from Slate's reporting, which you labelled "dishonest". I'm done repeating this to you, but I wanted to make clear what my criticism was.

Straw man. Nobody has said that the players who participated were forced to participate, although some may have felt pressured to do so. The issue has never been about prayers being imposed, but on prayers being sponsored by a government-run school. US law requires the government to neither promote nor hinder religion, so conducting prayers as part of a school team activity is legally prohibited.

Saying he 'conducted' prayers is begging the question. Was he in fact, 'conducting' prayers?

Yes. That's why he was fired. Because he wouldn't stop. That is why this case is being steered up to the level of the Supreme Court. So that they can try to frame the issue of school prayer as being an infringement on the First Amendment right of the coach to pray on the sidelines, forgetting that the public is entitled to a public school system in which students are not pressured by a school official to engage in prayer as part of an official school activity. You really need to have this spoon fed to you, don't you?

That is already the law in the United States. The Supreme Court could be ruling to break that precedent in this particular case, since it could rule that government-supported schools can conduct religious ceremonies against the wishes of parents and students. I don't know what you mean when you refer to "secular religions", but it comes off as an oxymoron. Schools are not allowed to promote atheism or rejection of religious doctrines.

Secular religions are belief systems that include most or all of the trappings of religion but no particular belief in a deity.

An example is the prayer (Acknowledgment of Country) given to indigenous people in Australian workplaces before large/significant meetings or with meetings with external participants.

That's in Australia and may not even involve public-funded facilities. It isn't relevant to the law in the US, which would not be allowing your concept of "secular religion" in US public schools. Don't confuse this story with what goes on in Australia or in private businesses.

 

[Metaphor]

I have not claimed any special knowledge of the facts. My comments are based on the news accounts I've read, including the one in Vox, which you seem not to have read. The snippet you presented did not mention anything about players joining in the prayers.

Well, you said I distorted the facts, but how would you know unless you are claiming you have the facts?

No, the snippet didn't mention the players joining in, but players joining in does not seem to me to change the situation.

That's right--because your snippet made it sound like he was fired for praying by himself on the sideline after the games ended. That was only how he started out, and nobody cared about that. The issue started when he started leading team members in prayer at the end of the game and it became a public spectacle. The distortion was leaving out the relevant details at issue, which I suppose was how the coach's lawyer was trying to frame the lawsuit. You should have picked up on that, because it was quite clear from Slate's reporting, which you labelled "dishonest". I'm done repeating this to you, but I wanted to make clear what my criticism was.

Yes, you've made it clear you believe Slate's version of events, where the coach was 'leading' or 'conducting' prayer.

Straw man. Nobody has said that the players who participated were forced to participate, although some may have felt pressured to do so. The issue has never been about prayers being imposed, but on prayers being sponsored by a government-run school. US law requires the government to neither promote nor hinder religion, so conducting prayers as part of a school team activity is legally prohibited.

Saying he 'conducted' prayers is begging the question. Was he in fact, 'conducting' prayers?

Yes. That's why he was fired. Because he wouldn't stop. That is why this case is being steered up to the level of the Supreme Court. So that they can try to frame the issue of school prayer as being an infringement on the First Amendment right of the coach to pray on the sidelines, forgetting that the public is entitled to a public school system in which students are not pressured by a school official to engage in prayer as part of an official school activity. You really need to have this spoon fed to you, don't you?

No, I need an honest presentation of the facts. "Conducting a prayer" conjures to my mind a specific situation which is different from engaging in prayer.

That is already the law in the United States. The Supreme Court could be ruling to break that precedent in this particular case, since it could rule that government-supported schools can conduct religious ceremonies against the wishes of parents and students. I don't know what you mean when you refer to "secular religions", but it comes off as an oxymoron. Schools are not allowed to promote atheism or rejection of religious doctrines.

Secular religions are belief systems that include most or all of the trappings of religion but no particular belief in a deity.

An example is the prayer (Acknowledgment of Country) given to indigenous people in Australian workplaces before large/significant meetings or with meetings with external participants.

That's in Australia and may not even involve public-funded facilities.

Well yes, it's in Australia, but you are wrong to think it may not involve publically funded facilities. It happens in my federal workplace several times a day.

I was merely giving you an example of what I mean by 'secular religion'.

It isn't relevant to the law in the US, which would not be allowing your concept of "secular religion" in US public schools. Don't confuse this story with what goes on in Australia or in private businesses.

The Acknowledgment of Country may go on in private business but it most definitely goes in during public business.

I gave it as an example. There are other examples of secular religion.

 

[Copernicus]

Well yes, it's in Australia, but you are wrong to think it may not involve publically funded facilities. It happens in my federal workplace several times a day.

I was merely giving you an example of what I mean by 'secular religion'.

The law in Australia is fundamentally different on this score. I would not consider the indigenous religion in Australia to be "secular", and your term "secular religion" still strikes me as an oxymoron. However, it is your term, so you are entitled to define its usage as you wish. Your example of the indigenous ceremony would be legal in Australia, but not the US. At least, not for now. I fear that the Supreme Court supermajority of religious/political zealots is about to change a precedent that has existed for over half a century.

The US government is specifically prohibited from supporting or inhibiting any religious institution or doctrine, so worship sessions in public schools, whether in classes or extracurricular activities, are disallowed in principle. That said, the reality is somewhat different from the letter of the law, as there are all sorts of exceptions that allow the government to subsidize religious functions. What the coach was doing in this case was leading a prayer service as a tradition at the end of football games. The majority of players and parents may well have approved of that activity, and I suspect (but don't know) that the school authorities were looking for a way to allow the activity without giving the appearance of officially endorsing it. Based on the reporting, it seems that the coach decided not to cooperate, and that is what led to him being fired. Nobody fired him for being religious or praying. The issue here appears to be purely one of giving the appearance of a school-sponsored endorsement of a worship service. That would be perfectly permissible in a private school, especially a school run by a religious institution.

 

[Metaphor]

Well yes, it's in Australia, but you are wrong to think it may not involve publically funded facilities. It happens in my federal workplace several times a day.

I was merely giving you an example of what I mean by 'secular religion'.

The law in Australia is fundamentally different on this score. I would not consider the indigenous religion in Australia to be "secular", and your term "secular religion" still strikes me as an oxymoron.

It is not the religion of indigenous people in Australia.

However, it is your term, so you are entitled to define its usage as you wish. Your example of the indigenous ceremony would be legal in Australia, but not the US. At least, not for now. I fear that the Supreme Court supermajority of religious/political zealots is about to change a precedent that has existed for over half a century.

The 'Acknowledgment of Country' is not a rite of any indigenous religion. It is a secular prayer, devised a few decades ago. It is 'encouraged' to be uttered by every speaker at a large meeting before they speak about what they are actually there to speak about. It's mindless and hypocritical and a waste of time.

The US government is specifically prohibited from supporting or inhibiting any religious institution or doctrine, so worship sessions in public schools, whether in classes or extracurricular activities, are disallowed in principle.

I agree they ought be disallowed; I am arguing that there are belief systems that I have labelled 'secular religions' that should join the ranks of the 'traditional' religions. These include asking people to utter statements about indigenous people and culture that they do not believe.