Football Coach Files Federal Employment Complaint After Being Placed on Leave for Praying on Field

Kennedy-compressedBREMERTON, Wash. — A football coach in Washington state who was placed on leave this fall until he agrees to stop praying at the 50-yard line at the conclusion of each game has filed a federal employment complaint, alleging religious discrimination.

As previously reported, Joe Kennedy, the assistant head coach for the varsity team at Bremerton High School and the head coach for the junior varsity team, was placed on paid administrative leave in October when he prayed at the conclusion of the homecoming game despite an order to cease his practice.

Kennedy said that he began offering brief prayers on the field in 2008, then praying on his own. He was subsequently approached by several team members who asked what he was doing.

“I was thanking God for you guys,” Kennedy recalls responding. “Then a couple said they were Christians and asked if they could join. I responded, ‘It’s a free country, you can do whatever you want to do.’”

He said that he never asked students to pray with him, but some desired to, including those from the opposing team.

“They just all showed up one day and the next thing I know, the other team was showing up with us,” Kennedy said.

In September, the Bremerton School District launched an investigation into the coach’s practices, and soon sent a letter outlining that some aspects of his religious expression must discontinue. It noted that Kennedy not only prayed at the conclusion of each game, but also prayed in the locker room with students and staff.

  • Connect with Christian News

While Superintendent Aaron Leavell acknowledged that “[e]ach activity has been voluntary” and that Kennedy has not “actively encouraged or required participation,” he asserted that the practices were still unconstitutional. He laid out rules so that the district would decrease its chances of a lawsuit, stating that while Kennedy may engage in religious activity, “students may not be allowed to join such activity.”

But although Kennedy agreed to discontinue the locker room prayer, his attorneys with the Texas-based Liberty Institute stated that he had done nothing wrong in seeking to pray by himself at the conclusion of each game. They opined there is neither any constitutional violation in permitting students to join.

As Kennedy offered a prayer at October’s homecoming game surrounded by his team and scores of other supporters, he was consequently placed on paid leave until he agrees not to pray at the 50-yard-line.

On Tuesday, the former U.S. Marine turned football coach filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging workplace retaliation against his Christian expression in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“[The district] violated my rights to free exercise of religion and free speech by prohibiting my private religious expression and taking adverse employment action against me on the basis of my religion, notwithstanding my request for a reasonable accommodation that would allow me to practice my sincerely held religious beliefs,” the complaint reads.

“I have observed other [district] employees engage in visible religious expression without adverse consequences,” he further noted. “For example, (name redacted) regularly engages in a Buddhist chant near the 50-yard line at the conclusion of BHS football games.”

Michael Berry, an attorney with the Liberty Institute, told reporters that the organization is simply asking for “Coach Kennedy to be allowed to pray alone—silently and briefly—at the 50-yard line after the game.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • The Last Trump

    Can’t prohibit “the free exercise thereof”. Period.
    It’s the law. Public or private. Inside or outside. Anywhere and everywhere.
    No matter how much the liberal left can’t stand it.

    • Josey

      AMEN AND AMEN! Glory to God! What a friend we have in Jesus, ever faithful, always true. Jeremiah 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

  • Guest

    This has been ruled unconstitutional in multiple rulings, a teacher can’t perform religious observances in the presence of students, on the field or in the stands while at work. Clear rulings by 9th circuit court in 1994, appeal to SCOTUS denied. Check out ‘teachers who pray’ an advocacy group that works to protect teacher’s right to pray at work – they have a whole section about coaches and prayer – this one is violating the law and the constitution.

    This case will go no where – the coach was offered religious accommodation to pray outside the presence of students which he refused. The EEC will rule against him – as they must – the 9th will uphold their previous ruling, and the SCOTUS will most likely refuse the case again since there is far too much precedence that a teacher cannot do things like this to be overturned.

    Even Justice Scalia has said that a government employee has a right to religious conscience, not a right to any particular job. If this government employee can’t obey the law and constitution as his position requires there are plenty of private sector jobs he can apply for.

    • afchief

      Wrong! That is a lie!!! 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.

      The election of Jefferson – America’s first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

      Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

      Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1]

      However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

      Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2]

      In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

      Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

      [N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

      In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

      [O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

      I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]

      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:

      It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7]

      Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

      [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

      Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

      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:

      Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]

      Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

      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]

      Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

      Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

      Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12]

      That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

      [T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

      With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

      That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

      Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

      Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

      For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

      One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

      In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

      Endnotes

      1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. (Return)

      2. Id. (Return)

      3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. (Return)

      4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)

      5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return)

      6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. (Return)

      7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790. (Return)

      8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. (Return)

      9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. (Return)

      10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207. (Return)

      11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. (Return)

      12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). (Return)

      13. Reynolds at 163. (Return)

      • Guest

        No, freedom of religion doesn’t mean someone can do anything they want anytime they want for the simple reason that everyone has the same right and the Constitution and the law must protect everyone’s religious liberty.

        I feel sorry for you that you haven’t a clue as to how this nation works and been deceived by those playing on your naiveté to such a degree that you hysterically call people telling you the facts as the law and constitution states ‘liars’ when all you are reading is the truth.

        This government employee was offered religious accommodation that was both legal and constitutional and refused it. As far as your clip and paste it was too long to display and off topic to boot.

        If you ever have anything actually related to what this issue is about please reply, but until then why not give your rude and vicious tongue a long sabbatical?

        • afchief

          Sorry, but you have NO clue of our Constitution. There is no law against praying anywhere. There cannot be a law. The right to freely express one’s faith is an unalienable right. Unalienable means CANNOT be taken away. It’s like skin color, or height, or dare I say it, sexual orientation. You is what you is and it cannot be changed. (I spoke that way so the Christ-haters can accuse me of being ignorant.) That is what unalienable means.

          The right to pray is unalienable. The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” The God-haters (and their cops) like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other. You still remember when marriage was marriage, don’t you?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Just a head’s up, chief: You’re posting to Oshtur, who’s been banned from Charisma News at least a dozen times for making fake accounts.

            Banned ID ‘Oshtur’: disquscom/by/Oshtur/following/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’: disquscom/by/charisma25/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (2): disquscom/by/charisma26/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (3): disquscom/by/charisma27/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (4): disquscom/by/disqus_27fwyh6L6C/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (5): disquscom/by/Charisma4999/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (6): disquscom/by/charisma5002/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (7): disquscom/by/charisma5005/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (8): disquscom/by/charismafail/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (9): disquscom/by/charismafail01/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (10): disquscom/by/charismafail02/
            Banned ID ‘Guest’ (11): disquscom/by/charismaguest01/

            Current ID ‘Guest’ (12): disquscom/by/Oshtur01/

          • afchief

            Figures! I remember that this person is a homosexual.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            He’s quite a persistent homosexual activist — that’s his “golden calf”.

          • afchief

            Which means this person is a liar.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Given over to a reprobate mind, as it is written.

          • Guest

            Yes Adam we know from experience that ad hominems are all you have since you can’t hold up your end of any discussion without a meltdown of some kind.

            Please, what does this topic have to do with ‘homosexual’?

            In the name of God stop being a tool for those who want to suppress the truth.

          • NGN

            and you’re quite the persistent faux xtian activist

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            “Christian”.

            I have no idea what a “xtian” is.

          • Josey

            Not at all surprised.

          • Guest

            hahaha! yes all named the same, all with the same identifying icon. Such a deceit! hahaha.

            If Charisma wasn’t so afraid of the truth they wouldn’t be banning accounts. But then since you are the minion of these deniers of fact and truth you already know that.

          • Guest

            Sorry Russ, you obviously have no knowledge of the Constitution, its history of interpretation and the body of law that involves.

            And no one said the person couldn’t pray, he was offered a place to do so outside the presence of the students as the constitution requires and he refused it.

            But since you are tossing out off topic red herrings I have to assume you know you are wrong on some fundamental level and are trying to change the subject.

            Again, the constitution and the law says that this government employee can not engage in religious activity in the presence of students. You can yell insults, you can stomp your feet, you can put your hands over your ears and that won’t be changing. He was offered religious accommodation – he refused it, and so the school district is within their legal and constitutional rights to suspend him and not rehire him.

            Those are the facts. Obviously you don’t like them but someone stating them isn’t lying, they are just saying something you don’t want to hear.

          • afchief

            Really? Show me the law? Show me where in the 1st amendment it states that?

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            Remember a SCOTUS opinion is NO law. Only congress can make or change laws.

            Waiting……………………………..

          • Guest

            That you don’t know what legal precedence and common law is just shows you have arrived at this discussion pretty much unarmed.

            Again, the government employee retains their free exercise and the constitution consider san government employee instructor of students engaging in religious activity in the presence of the students a potential violation of that establishment clause you just quoted.

            Telling the employee where they can do their free exercise is not a violation of the first amendment.

          • afchief

            Sorry Oshtur, but you are a liar. I remember you from Charisma. And you are full of lies. There is NO truth in you. I know Constitutional law and you are quite wrong!!! Again, I will ask you, show me the law? Show me where in the 1st amendment it states that?

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          • Guest

            That you don’t understand the law has been evident for some time Russ. Do you even know what the term ‘common law’ means? it is legal precedence by court decisions and has the weight of law.

            And since the coaches free exercise has not been infringed on you prove yourself the liar. He was given opportunity to pray by the school district but refused the religious accommodation.

            This EECO complaint will go nowhere as the legal representatives for the coach knows. Its all designed to agitate emotionally-driven people to become hysterical and manipulatable for their own gains.

            Stop being someone else’s puppet Russ.

          • afchief

            You are quite ignorant of Constitutional law and I’m not going to argue with you because you have been proven to be a liar.

          • Guest

            Russ I’d love for you to point out a single ‘lie’ but I know it’s never going to happen. I could show all the rulings that directly address this case and show the violations, but the sad truth is you could find them too with a single search on the Internet and you won’t.

            You want to scream!!!! the truth away, Adam wants to suppress it by silencing voices. Both tactics just isolate you further from the truth

            May God forgive both of you.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies…..satan!!!

            Bye!

          • Guest

            And the sad fact is you would be more convincing saying that in a mirror. Bye and again, may God find a way to forgive you.

          • Josey

            Hey won’t you go spout that to Obama a government official who supports sodomy, muslims that kill Americans. Last time I checked he claims to pray in the people’s house, loves the call of the muslim prayer.

          • NGN

            marriage is still marriage……

          • afchief

            Yep, it has been defined for hundreds of years as “one man and one woman”

            Homos can NEVER call it marriage. It is not possible!!!

      • Josey

        “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant. So right on acheif, thank you for that post and the truth!
        They have turned it upside down and in fact they only use separation of church and state when it comes to Biblical and Christian standards, they don’t say a word when Muslims have infiltrated our society and white house and schools, being excused to go to prayer five times a day as a Muslim is required in their religion, forced really. You could say that what was meant by separation talked of in the constitution means that the government is not allowed to force people to follow a state or government religion, well in the case of Muslims those who do not practice it are inconvenienced while the Muslims leave to go pray, the world stops for them…lol and yet no outcry, communism another state religion in some countries or Islam in others or Nazism, etc…those are just some examples of state forced religions that our constitution forbids for the U.S. We have an inalienable right by Almighty God to pray to Him whenever and wherever we choose, no one can stop anyone from praying to God first of all for there is always a choice each person has but they want to stop those who pray in public with threats which is persecuting God’s very own as what happened to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel and we see how well that turned out for those foolish enough to come against God’s faithful just as there will be consequences to those who do such things against God’s people on judgement day, some will suffer for it before that judgement day for sin always reaps death upon the one who willfully sins and does not repent. Look at gay pride parades, the indecency that is exposed on our streets that years ago a person would have been arrested for now they blatantly expose each other, among other things that I will not mention for it’s not appropriate to talk of such things and is done on public streets that all tax payers pay for but that is okay as far as these hypocrites and depraved ones think but let a coach pray on a tax paid field for the good blessings in a young persons life and look at that the threats and persecution thrown his way. What is the difference? You going to say the streets the gay pride flows down belongs to the sodomites only, think again, those streets are paid for by taxpayers same as the white house, the people’s house where sodomy was supported, who pays for the white house, taxpayers that’s who and the president holds one of the highest government positions but he is excused for the time being by the devil of this world system whose time is short which I love to keep reminding him of what God’s Holy word says about that…heh..Praise God! You claim the coach is a government employee and the school is funded by tax payers, what a crock and a bunch of hypocritical lies being perpetrated on the American people! They want it their way and theirs alone and lie, lie, lie against the constitution. It’s time for the children of God, not just preachers from a pulpit but all God’s people to speak up against their lies, speak the truth regardless of how they lash out and they are they violent ones not born again Christians who speak truth of what God’s Holy Word says, we are not the ones going around hurting others with hate and murder. It takes a bold Spirit filled child of the Most High to speak and preach the truth while they hit, spit, throw things on us, assault us because we know that if they hated Christ for preaching the truth and doing good and He is the Master, how much more will they hate us His followers but don’t fear, God knows and will make it all right soon. Even so Lord Jesus, come quickly. amen.

      • oregon_man

        “Wrong! That is a lie!!! In 1947…”
        It is a sin to bear false witness. Nowhere do I see more false witness than those who believe they are lying to please God.

        • afchief

          Another liar! Another person who can’t read!!! Show me where you get “separation of church and state” in the 1st amendment;

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

          Show me where the law is written?

          Waiting………………………

          • oregon_man

            The SCOTUS has heard cases for 250 years and uniformly determined the separation of church and state. You’re still bearing false witness by calling everyone else a “liar”, hypocrite. I’ll bet you do that often.

          • NGN

            he does…constantly. Especially when it doesn’t follow along with his views

          • afchief

            The SC justices rulings are meant to be legal OPINIONS, not the law of the land. Furthermore, their decisions are based on anything they can get their hands on. They have cited rulings handed down by courts in Argentina and other foreign nations before which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what OUR Constitution says. It’s about trying to attach as many tangential points in a row to justify reaching a pre-ordained political position. The recent appointees by the Fuhrer are some of the worst legal minds in America, and were before their appointment. DO you think that the Founding Fathers intended for the entire law of the land and health care for all Americans would come down to a single Supreme Court justice, just ONE person, who was black mailed by the NSA the night before rendering his decision into changing his mind? We are a LAWLESS NATION PEOPLE.

          • oregon_man

            “SC justices rulings are meant to be legal OPINIONS”
            LOL, it is the highest opinion, fool. You go right ahead and tell us how SCOTUS is wrong, everybody is wrong except you. Heard it all before.

          • afchief

            Are you telling me judges can “legislate” from the bench?

            Are you really the dumb of constitutional law????

    • thelordlives2011

      Sorry. But this teacher did nothing wrong. You do not know your constitution. Maybe you should go join Isis. You have the same thinking.

      • Guest

        Sorry just declaring victory in a discussion with no facts like you just did is what ISIS would do, you’d fit in with them far better than I.

  • gizmo23

    What’s the info on the Buddhist angle? I can find nothing about this on other news sources

    • Guest

      The coach and his lawyers say there is such a person, and the obvious result will be – if true – that coach will be told to stop and offered religious accommodation to pray outside the presence of students just as the coach was.

      Its just a red herring – they know they have no case they are just trying to toss out enough BS to delay the decision.