Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 09:16:47 AMIn my opinion, it's no different than a teacher leading prayer, during school time, with specific students.  He was asked to stop doing it.  He refused and was fired. I don't see an issue with his firing. If the kids wanted to meet at his house, off campus and outside of a school-sanctioned activity and pray, I'd have no issue with it.

You just contradicted yourself.

"I'm not aware of an individual being prohibited from exercising their religion.  So, while a classroom can't have a cross hung, a teacher can wear a cross and even pray, on his/her own time, at work."

The football field is his work.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 22, 2021, 10:59:51 AMYou just contradicted yourself.

"I'm not aware of an individual being prohibited from exercising their religion.  So, while a classroom can't have a cross hung, a teacher can wear a cross and even pray, on his/her own time, at work."

The football field is his work.

A teacher can't, while she's teaching, lead a class in prayer. While she's at lunch or on a break, she can pray. A football coach, while he's coaching, isn't permitted to lead students in prayer.

"Churches were not targeted specifically"

Love how you are always wrong.

California certainly TARGETED churches.

Now I bet you will claim you never heard of it or forgot it.

Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 10:00:49 AMFor a variety of reasons, I don't equate religion and church, but that's a separate topic.  I also don't agree with the government being able to shut down businesses and churches, but churches weren't targeted specifically.  All gatherings were shut down.  Again, I don't agree with it and many churches rightfully won the right to reopen by fighting in the courts.

I would like to see SCOTUS rule on the authority of government to shutdown churches.  I think it's BS, personally.

Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 08:31:31 AMSCOTUS is made of people and people are flawed, influenced by outside pressure and make mistakes.

People that are unhappy with the fact that religion can't be taught in schools or that a state capitol can't have a manger scene, don't consider that it could very been a Muslim teacher that's teaching her class and a Muslim Governor who's deciding what is done at the capitol building.

Democrats have used the "separation of church and state" to stop ANY religious education in schools yet, have rammed through THEIR hateful ideologies like CRT, LGBTQ "tolerance and acceptance" and Evolution. It's funny how when Democrats like something for political reasons, it's not a "separation of church and state" issue but, when mainstream America likes something it is...

Quote from: winterset on July 22, 2021, 11:20:34 AM"Churches were not targeted specifically"

Love how you are always wrong.

California certainly TARGETED churches.

Now I bet you will claim you never heard of it or forgot it.

I'm saying that it wasn't only churches being targeted.  Newsom is a nutjob who is now facing recall because he shutdown everything.

Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 11:18:42 AMA teacher can't, while she's teaching, lead a class in prayer. While she's at lunch or on a break, she can pray. A football coach, while he's coaching, isn't permitted to lead students in prayer.

He was not "leading" students. If they wanted to join him it was their choice.

Sir, you have been exposed. Quit digging.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 22, 2021, 11:55:50 AMHe was not "leading" students. If they wanted to join him it was their choice.

Sir, you have been exposed. Quit digging.

A teacher could not, during class, call for volunteers to join her in prayer, either.  The violates the Establishment clause.

Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 12:05:07 PMA teacher could not, during class, call for volunteers to join her in prayer, either.  The violates the Establishment clause.

"call for volunteers"

Show me confirmation where he called for volunteers. As I suggested, quit digging.

Quote from: supsalemgr on July 22, 2021, 12:25:33 PM"call for volunteers"

Show me confirmation where he called for volunteers. As I suggested, quit digging.

It wasn't required, so it had to be voluntary.  How would you like me to word it to say he tried to let people know that a voluntary activity was going on?

Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 12:43:35 PMIt wasn't required, so it had to be voluntary.  How would you like me to word it to say he tried to let people know that a voluntary activity was going on?

you are assuming he said anything.

Quote from: p1tchblack on July 22, 2021, 08:57:41 AMRight, but if you're going to allow religion in public sector, you have to allow ALL religion in the public sector.

Satanic Sculpture Installed At Illinois Statehouse, Just In Time For The Holidays

And the government can't discriminate, so if the government recognizes one religion, they have to recognize every religion if someone were to request it.

If you're going to allow teachers to teach about their preferred religion, then you have to allow all teachers, satanists, atheists, etc to teach their beliefs.

Actually no they dont. Thats not in the constitution. All it demands is that we allow each individual to practice their religion. Anything else is an attempt to add things in that arent there, like the SC did with abortion.

It doesnt say anything about treating the religions themselves the same or allowing them all equally into the private sphere. Only one religion was part of our founding, so that religion will always be celebrated publicly more than any other.

And culturally as well we will always be majority christian. Thats not going to change.

Remember, according to the constitution, all AMERICANS are BORN equal under the LAW.
But there is nothing in the constitution that says all religions are equal, only that each individual has the right to practice it, nor that anyone has the right to be free FROM religion.

So I read in a new book (An American Covenant) that it was a letter between President Jefferson and the Danbary Baptist Church that brought this phrase to life.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster.

Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained.

By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." [10] That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]
[/b]
There is a lot of good information in this article.

Toy

Quote from: Solars Toy on July 22, 2021, 02:16:47 PMSo I read in a new book (An American Covenant) that it was a letter between President Jefferson and the Danbary Baptist Church that brought this phrase to life.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

https://wallbuilders.com/separation-church-state/

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster.

Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained.

By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." [10] That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

There is a lot of good information in this article.

Toy

Too bad we didn't include a restriction against govt schooling.
It's this Federal incursion that creates headaches over States Rights.

We have much work to do, undoing the penetration the leftist govt has taken over decades.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2021, 02:21:30 PMToo bad we didn't include a restriction against govt schooling.
It's this Federal incursion that creates headaches over States Rights.

We have much work to do, undoing the penetration the leftist govt has taken over decades.

State's should have never taken the federal money.

Quote from: Possum on July 22, 2021, 02:34:35 PMState's should have never taken the federal money.

Exactly!!!
Most States still deliver an oath for teachers to take, even Ca has one, written during the McCarthy era and it still stands to day.
But is it enforced?

The only way the Fed is allowed to get away with this shit is fear, States want that tax dollar.
This is why I say we have our work cut out for us, undoing all this Fed BS and shrink the Feds reach, and why I believe Trump is the ONLY man who can do it.