Quetzal
New member
Nah, he was on the payroll. He has to play by their rules.
Praying football coach creates a mess
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i saw your attempt
it fails unless you can show where people were forced to participate
Jose Fly
New member
So just as I suspected, you're trolling again. Thanks for your time.
Quetzal
New member
The great part about ok loser is that so many people are beginning to put him on ignore, he is basically talking to himself. :chuckle:
Jose Fly
New member
That must be why he focuses on me so much. I'm one of the few who don't have him on ignore (in all the years I've been on internet forums, I've never had anyone on ignore).
Jose Fly
New member
Because it's not a criterion for the act to be illegal. In Engel v Vitale, the Supreme Court held that when a school official promotes a religion while on duty, that gives students the impression that the religion is the "officially approved religion" of the school, which puts "indirect coercive pressure" on the students to conform.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Why should anyone give him the time of day? He's a protected troll who damages the forum no matter what username he posts under. He degrades conversation, derails discussion, stalks posters, calls murdered students cowards - and yet you keep letting him come back.
Except, as far as I can see, he wasn't trolling.
You made the point that the coach was on paid time, that he constituted an authority figure and a representative of the government (I find the latter sentiment dubious), and there is a direct analogy between the coach's actions and those of a teacher leading a classroom in prayer, which is recognized as not being permissible.
Ok Dozer's response is: "Was anybody being forced to participate?"
I think that this answer holds a certain degree of weight. To what extent was he acting as a government representative, as an authority figure and so forth and so on if everyone was perfectly within their rights simply to leave? If the students voluntarily remained present for the prayer(s) when they simply could have left, then can we really say that he was acting as an authority figure? If there was no compulsion to participate, it's more difficult to see a problem. It's not even analogous to a teacher leading a classroom in prayer, since such a student is not free to leave the classroom. The teacher has a captive audience. Did the coach?
Clearly, I think that Ok Dozer would be singing a different tune if the coach were a Muslim or a Satanist, but even then, his questions are perfectly reasonable.
And frankly, from a teacher's point of view, I think it's wholly unreasonable to wish to divorce a teacher's religious faith from his teaching activities. I bring in religion into my philosophical teaching all the time.
Examples:
"Clearly, since all of the sense powers require a bodily organ, a dead Socrates, or even the soul of dead Socrates, can't touch, see, hear, etc. Thus, may we note, that there will be no 72 virgins in the next life...just saying. Nonetheless, the soul of Socrates remains the principle of these sensuous operations. If, by a miracle of grace (e.g., on the last day, at the last judgment, at the resurrection), Socrates should get his body back again, then he would be able to see, touch, etc. once again."
"Thus we have shown a God [in metaphysics] whose very nature is subsistent being. Might this not be the very God of whom we read, in Exodus, that He says of Himself: 'I am who am'?"
Even if I taught at a State funded school, I see nothing wrong with this.
Clearly, not a direct analogy between my actions and the coach's actions...nonetheless, I don't like the trend. There's a definite slippery slope which prejudices against religious expression in general, even where it might be fitting to express it.
Quetzal
New member
Precisely. But even so much as whistling in his general direction tilts Knight to the point that he believes action is necessary. That's too bad.
brewmama
New member
Nah, he can certainly pray if he wants, even when on the payroll. That is a number one priority in the bill of rights.
Do we really need to talk about Ok Dozer's person in particular? This is a pure sidetrack from the discussion at hand. If you don't like the fact that Ok Dozer in particular raised the question, then I raise the same question on my own behalf. See above.
Jose Fly
New member
Seriously? A person being paid by government funds, acting in his capacity as a government employee, and on work time isn't a representative of the government? How does that work? :idunno:
I'm sure you think it does, but as I explained the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
Already answered and explained.
The courts have ruled that even when the teacher provides an opt-out option, there is still pressure to conform to what the students perceive as the official religion.
I'm sure you do.
And I'd bet the school would see a problem, as well as some of the students and their parents.
I have no doubt that folks like you don't like the trend towards a more secular society. Oh well.
6days
New member
Would you agree that He should fight to defend what he feels is right and legal?
I would agree with you that he should cease if a court rules it against the law.
Would you be in favor of players organizing a prayer inviting players and coaches from both teams?
Jose Fly
New member
Only if he agrees that if he loses, he has to pay the school district back for their expenses. There's no reason the taxpayers should have to subsidize this guy's desire to tilt at windmills.
Would you be in favor of players organizing a prayer inviting players
A janitor working at a State hospital is paid by government funds, is acting in his capacity as a government employee and is on work time...to what extent is he a representative of the government?
I'm not entirely sure how I want to phrase the difference, but do you really not see the difference between a hospital janitor, on the one hand, and an IRS auditor, on the other hand?
This is what you said:
Be that as it may, it's just, on its face, flatly absurd. Suppose you have a school in which most of the teachers are Christians (and are quite outspoken about the fact that they are Christians), and a single teacher is Muslim. This teacher promotes Islam. In what sense can we say that any student is left with the impression that Islam is the officially approved religion of the school? In what sense are the students subjected to an "indirect coercive pressure" (whatever in the bloody blazes that even means) to conform?
Why?
I currently teach at a religious school. So meh.
At any rate, you say that various schools would see it as a problematic, as well as students and their parents.
I'm asking: why?
What is it about my actions which you would consider offensive from a secular point of view? What's so offensive about offering my religious views as a reasonable possibility, as a mere hypothesis, in answer to purely rational speculation? Or, for that matter, what's so offensive about indicating how a purely rational speculation excludes certain "religious" hypotheses?
If the senses require bodily organs, and "martyr" Achmed doesn't have a body, he won't be enjoying 72 virgins. That's evident to philosophical reason. Why shouldn't I say that?
6days
New member
Great comments!Without a doubt these lost souls from Seattle's Satanist Temple will be included in Coach Kennedy's prayers.
When haters are confronted with love, that puts them in a real quandary Mr. Fly.
How do you think that these lost souls who undoubtedly come from broken homes will feel when they see love for the first time in their lives?
Not sure they came from broken homes but the best response from a Christian is LOVE. Welcome this group... buy them hotdogs....pray for them.
Jose Fly
New member
You answered your own question. He is on government time, at a government facility, and being paid by taxpayer dollars. It's no different than if someone works for a private firm, and while on duty goes to a meeting. While there, he is representing the firm.
Legally, there is no difference.
I'm sure that's what you think. I think otherwise. That's why we have a court system...to decide and rule on such disagreements. And guess what? The courts have consistently ruled for my side.
The courts have ruled that there is coercive pressure on students to conform to the beliefs of the authority figure before them. It may be to get good grades, to not be disciplined, or just to fit in.
See above.
And private religious schools can teach whatever religion they like. Taxpayer-funded public schools OTOH, are a different story.
Because the taxpayers aren't paying teachers to preach to students about their religious beliefs.
Are you only ok with taxpayer-funded criticism of non-Christian religions? Would you be ok with an atheist teacher teaching students that Christianity is provably false? Or that gods don't exist? Or a Muslim teacher teaching students that Christianity says that God had sex, which is unthinkable for the Holy Allah?
genuineoriginal
New member
Are you claiming that a Christian cannot pray at any time they are employed?
Isn't that discriminating against established Christian beliefs and practices?
Christians are commanded to pray continually in the Bible.
1 Thessalonians 5:17 17 Pray without ceasing. |
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
not so, as long as nobody is forced to participate
unfortunately, what positions like jose's lead to is a total removal of any sort of display of religious belief while on company time (and the company we're talking about is the government)
if nobody is forced to participate, then the government (as represented by any of it's employees) is not establishing a religion
i suspect Jose would be offended by the school janitor having a statue of the virgin mary in the custodial breakroom (something I saw in many schools where the custodial staff was primarily latino) just because the children could see it when they passed by the open door