Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Alito said. “ … The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”
I don't think it's a question per se but more so an issue Joe raised. He quoted two verses from Matthew and asserted that trying to follow both was a "challenge." To summarize the two verses (which I think we all agree are good verses to live by), they were basically saying that one should pray in private and the other saying that one should be the "city on the hill" by performing good deeds. My response to Joe (and effectively you) was that I disagreed that it's a "challenge" because I interpret the second Matthew package as referring to "good deeds" and objectively I do not see how public prayer can be a "good deed." Instead, I find those two passages as a wonderful guide to live as a religious person: pray in private and do good deeds in public as public prayer should not be considered a "good deed."
Theoretically, you’re correct: we should always be open to changing poor decisions made in the past.
That wasn't the thrust of what I was saying, but sure, I'll certainly allow you to have an opinion about it.
Sure for things like voting rights and women's right to vote, prohibition, uh - no prohibition, voting age, and to guarantee women are treated as equals. But to include government's right to endorse religion on the taxpayers' dime I think we can leave as it is. Especially at time where religious affiliation is in sharp decline and below 50% of Americans.
The living Constitution also deals with due process, privacy concerns, and a whole host of things like that. What might be thought of as rights made up out of whole cloth resides in our precedents because it lives so fully and with such breathable fabric. It lives, Amused!
Well, it is being re-visited right now correct? But as others have pointed out, we don't know how much this is going to change things.
Things move in reactionary ways, too.
And to that I would say "Thank you Constitution". It'll be interesting to see how this version of the SCOTUS rules. Perhaps in 20, 30 years a more liberal Court will overturn this decision.
I cant seem to find the exact list of churches recognized by the military, so for all I know the satanists are on it, but obviously if there are 4000 tax exempt and only 221 recognized by the military, there is not an across the board "same religious protections" just because you are tax exempt.
First, I have no idea what the military has to do with this but I never claimed "4000 tax exempt" religions. But if you google "how many religions are there" you'll find its 4k. I don't how many enjoy tax exempt status in the US, but I do know that TST is one of them.
The Satanic Temple didn't "storm the field" or try to do that. They didn't even enter the stadium. They had asked, in advance, to do their invocation because multiple students & staff of the school invited them. As far as I can tell that request wasn't approved then the school put the coach on leave. The Satanic Temple folks did attend, talked to the people and reporters.
Thank you, I hadn't seen that article. It should be easy enough to agree, include all or include none. No favoritism regardless if you agree with a religion or not.
Oof. Not good, possibly immaterial. The school apparently gave him a 4-page letter specifying his infractions and why they were putting him on leave. If the locker room stuff was relevant to him being put on leave, then it would seem relevant to this case.
Looks like he did stop the locker room prayers. Here's more that's being reported from the SCOTUS hearing:
Would it be more like Lee v. Weisman then? Or Santa Fe from 2000?
He and his lawyers acknowledge this was improper if I understand correctly.
Agreed. The guy they have on for these SC cases is excellent at breaking it all down and highlighting the key issues of the cases.
The majority's opinion characterizes the coach as speaking in his capacity as a private citizen, not as a state actor speaking in his role as a school employee. So this ruling probably does not allow a teacher to pray during class in front of kids.
So the teacher could pray in the building after class? Instead of praying in their office or an empty classroom, they could do after class is over in the hallway? I guess I’m trying to see the difference between right after the game and say during the game or practice.
I don't know.
One of the students testified that he felt coerced. Guess we don't care about things like facts when it comes to furthering this court's religious agenda.
I could certainly see a situation where a kid is put in a situation where he goes along with the prayer because he doesn't want to offend or piss off the coach.
He testified that he only participated in the prayers because he was afraid of losing playing time.
80% of the votes in this poll say it should absolutely not be allowed or probably not be allowed, with 52% saying absolutely not.
The school district did everything they could to accommodate the coach, but he insisted he must pray in the middle of the field. I would be more sympathetic to the coach if the school hadn't offered other arraignments.
