‘Play, Don’t Pray!’ Atheist Group Lodges Complaint After Coach Photographed Praying With Team

Photo Credit: Evansville Courier & Press

EVANSVILLE, Ind. – A national professing atheist organization is urging an Indiana school district to launch an investigation into their high school football program after a local newspaper published a picture of the head coach praying with team members after a recent game.

In a letter to the superintendent of the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) described a “constitutional violation” that occurred after a recent high school football game between F.J. Reitz High School and Mater Dei High School.

“A concerned district community member contacted us to report that F.J. Reitz High School personnel, including head football coach Andy Hape, prayed with student athletes after a game against Mater Dei High School on Oct. 13,” the correspondence stated.

“It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer, participate in student prayers, or to otherwise promote religion to students,” the atheist group asserted. “We are writing to request assurances that this constitutional violation will not recur in the future.”

The post-game prayer was brought to FFRF’s attention after a local resident notified them of a picture published in Evansville’s local newspaper, the Evansville Courier & Press. In the picture, shown above, Hape can be seen gathered together with members of the football team after the game, their heads bowed in prayer.

“Coach Hape’s conduct is unconstitutional because he endorses and promotes religion when acting in his official capacity as a school district representative,” FFRF’s letter contended. “Certainly, he represents the school and the team when he acts as a coach of the Panthers. When public school employees acting in their official capacities organize and advocate for team prayer, they effectively endorse religion on the district’s behalf.”

In a statement on Tuesday, the group described Hape as “ostentatiously devout.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Football games should be about athleticism, not religion,” said Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor in the statement. “Play, don’t pray!”

FFRF has therefore requested that the district investigate the matter and ensure that coaches do not pray with team members in the future.

“We ask that the district commence an immediate investigation and take action to ensure that in the future Reitz High coaches will not pray with students during District athletic programs and will not otherwise use their position as District coaches to promote religion,” the FFRF’s letter concluded. “Please inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to remedy this serious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment.”

In recent years, the FFRF has taken issue with the pre- or post-game prayer routines of school districts around the country. Districts in Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Michigan have all recently received warning letters from the atheist group.

As previously reported, in 2015, a high school football team in Illinois responded to an FFRF complaint letter by issuing a statement of their own, in which they expressed their support for their coach, Mike Stine.

“We, as a football team and a family, give Coach Stine our full support,” the statement said. “He is the best coach in the state and cares about each and every one of us more than any other coach cares about his players.”

“We are proud that he is willing to stand up for his faith and for the example he sets for us,” it continued. “He is a role model for every one of us in a world where true male role models are becoming few and far between.”

The team then invited FFRF to attend a game and watch the players pray.

“The players will continue this tradition of praying before our games, and would like to extend an invitation to all members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to come out next fall and watch us pray and play the game we love,” they wrote.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Robin Egg

    That organization has nothing better to do than harass Christians and people of faith. One local resident saw a picture…..not even in attendance at the game, and notified FFRF. Since the coach and the team are okay with prayer, why should this resident care? Sad.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      they have a raging case and phobia of “spontaneous conversion” ……….

    • Maxwell Edison

      Because the FFRF doesn’t want anyone to be able to publically express their Christian faith. They openly hate Christians and Christianity, and have no qualms outright lying to get their way, as indicated here.

      As I know some anti-Christian trolls will come in here to defend the FFRF and the oppression and persecution of Christians, my message is we already have your number. You are cordially invited to keep your bigoted mouth shut.

      • Netizen_James

        No, sorry. That’s not up to you Max. That’s up to our gracious hosts. If you are a Christian, why are you bearing false witness against the FFRF? Isn’t that violating the Commandments?

        No, FFRF doesn’t care about any individual expressing their faith. FFRF only gets involved when GOVERNMENT entities are trying to use their civil authority to promote or endorse SOME faith beliefs above ALL OTHER faith beliefs. You will find ZERO examples (aka ‘evidence’) for your contention that FRFF is involved in any way with the ‘oppression and persecution of Christians’ as you contend. ZERO. Got facts? (here’s a quiz for you – was it atheists who brought the suit against Santa Fe that resulted in the supreme court case which banned the use of public PA systems for prayer during football games? Do you even know? Maybe you should try to find out….)

        We have a RIGHT, as US Citizens, to be free from government religion. That’s what the establishment clause is all about. Religious freedom necessarily INCLUDES being free from government religion, being free from government using the civil authority to promote, prohibit, endorse or enjoin ANY religion, and ANY religious tenet. Do you want the government prescribing which Bible you’re allowed to use? Of course not. Have you never heard of the Philadelphia Bible Riots? Look ’em up! These were Christians, fighting in the streets and killing people over which /version/ of the Bible should be used in public schools. THAT is exactly what the establishment clause was created to prevent.

        Do you think that beating someone up, or threatening them with harm because they object to the Gospel of Thomas not being included in the New Testament is ok? Or is that still a criminal act of assault, and the government shouldn’t involve itself in ecclesiastical matters?

        No, expecting government to be neutral toward religion, as the Founders intended is not ‘anti-Christian’.

        Here’s the applicable aphorism: To those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

        Equality means just that. It means that ALL citizens of the US are EQUAL under the law, no matter what religion they subscribe to. If you have a problem with that, then you’re not demonstrating and understanding of what America is all about.

        • Maxwell Edison

          ROTFL!!!!

          “As I know some anti-Christian trolls will come in here to defend the FFRF and the oppression and persecution of Christians, my message is we already have your number.”

          I said those words, and look who came running to prove me right!

          Thanks!

          • Netizen_James

            No, I proved your words to be LIES. Or didn’t you bother to read? Too long?

            Why don’t you think the Golden Rule should apply to YOU?

    • Netizen_James

      Next time you go to the DMV to renew your driver’s licence, how would you feel if the clerk took that time to try to convince you to convert to Scientology? Would that be a problem for you, that this government employee was using your taxdollars to promote his own beliefs on your dime? Or would telling the clerk that while on the government’s time, he needed to be doing the government’s business, not his religion’s business be a violation of his ‘right’ to promote his religion?

      Do you not understand that a public school coach is a government employee, just like the DMV clerk is?

      See how that works?

      • NCOriolesFan

        Organ donation can motivated by religion too. Are you against the DMV asking about it.

        • Netizen_James

          Can be but isn’t necessarily. Sure, some religions may forbid their adherents from donating their organs upon their demise, but that’s no reason to keep this question off of government forms. (There is a public interest in increasing the availability of donated organs for transplant.) Many people think consuming pork is inherently sinful, that’s no reason for the USDA to refuse to inspect slaughterhouses for pigs.

        • MarkSebree

          Organ donation can also be motivated by compassion or personal/family history. After all, atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists also donate organs.

          Religion can be for or against any legal action. The belief of some, however, should not be used as an excuse to prevent others from engaging in that legal action. If there is no SECULAR, rational reason why the action should be illegal, then it should not be illegal.

    • Guzzman

      The intent is to uphold the Constitution, not “harass Christians.” No public school employee acting in an official capacity is permitted to lead or join students in prayer. The federal courts have ruled on virtually identical cases. The school is at risk of a costly lawsuit if they do not take corrective action.

      Coaches wield tremendous power over student players who feel pressure to conform to what the coach wants. If a coach is acting like a pastor, students feel compelled to join in whether or not it is “voluntary.” Religious instruction of children is within the purview of parents, not government employees. The coach is free to practice his religion to his heart’s content off the job, as a private citizen.

      • Maxwell Edison

        The coach is free to practice his religion whenever and wherever he bloody well wants.

        • Guzzman

          No, the coach is not free to practice his religion “whenever and wherever he bloody well wants.” If acting in the capacity of a government agent, he must generally act in keeping with the Constitution’s prohibition on government actions regarding religion. If this were not the case, every public school teacher, law enforcement officer, DMV clerk, park ranger, bus driver, and so forth, could use their government position to proselytize under the pretense of acting as a private individual. Abusing government authority in such a manner is prohibited by law:

          Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990): “There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause FORBIDS, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

          • Maxwell Edison

            Wrong. Moving on….

          • MarkSebree

            Maxwell, prove that Guzzman is wrong, objectively. He supported his claim by referencing a federal court case. You simply rejected his answer because you did not like the truth.

          • Maxwell Edison

            I don’t need to prove anything to you. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

          • Silas Jennings

            Yes, and it was demonstrably wrong, so try again.

          • Maxwell Edison

            The Constitution is not wrong.

          • Netizen_James

            The Constitution says that government agents cannot use their public office to promote religion. So it is you that is wrong, not the Constitution.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Baldfaced liar.

          • MarkSebree

            Maxwell Edison,

            Thank you for admitting that you are a bald faced liar. James is correct in his assertion.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Lazy troll. We know what the Constitution says, and it doesn’t say what James says it does. He knows that. And so do you.

          • MarkSebree

            Actually, you are the lazy one. You refuse to defend your position, and you just go around insulting everyone.

            Unlike you, I am neither lazy nor a troll. We do know what the Constitution says, and we know what it means. James is correct on its meaning, and you are completely wrong. Perhaps if you were not so lazy, you could actually study the subject that you are writing about, and learn how to make a reasoned and intelligent argument.

          • Silas Jennings

            Christian News Network, how long must we endure the rudeness and name calling of Maxwell Edison? Directly below you see he calls someone a “lazy troll” as well and tells someone to keep their “bigoted mouth shut”. I would flag these comments but there is no option for your own rule of being disrespectful. Can you please deal with this issue?

          • Maxwell Edison

            Again, flagged for harassment.

          • Silas Jennings

            Maxwell, learn some basic respect and basic etiquette.

          • MarkSebree

            So, there is no reason for anyone to accept your claim that Guzzman was wrong about anything he said. You cannot support your assertion with any actual facts. All you have is your unsubstantiated opinion, which contradicts the facts.

          • Silas Jennings

            I think you’d do better speaking to an averagely reasonable brick wall…

        • Lark.62

          No. He can pray quietly in his head as much as he likes. He can believe whatever he likes. But he cannot use his authority as a government employee to influence the religious belief or behavior of any other person.

        • Exactly! That’s true freedom of religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Maxwell is wrong. Freedom of religion is not “freedom to practice your religion whenever and wherever you want.”

            Is freedom of speech freedom to say whatever you want whenever you want? No, because things like slander, hate speech, and obscenity are illegal.

            Does the right to bear arms mean you can have gun wherever you want? Try bringing one into a courthouse or an airport and see how that goes.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Careful, she might ban you! Oh…wait…she can’t.

        • kftgr

          He should stop being a coach and be a preacher. Problem solved.

  • Rookheight

    The Supreme Court has decided this issue. Government actors, especially public school district employees, cannot use their position to promote their personal religion. Imagine if this coach were calling students together to pray to Allah or Satan. FFRF would still object, but somehow I don’t think those defending the coach in this case would have the same tone…

    • Maxwell Edison

      Actually it really doesn’t matter what SCOTUS thinks. Telling someone that working for the government in any capacity means you are not allowed to express your faith is unconstitutional and anti-God.

      • Michael C

        Andy Hape is free to pray and express his religious beliefs.

        • Maxwell Edison

          Exactly. Which is why I said the FFRF is lying.

          • Michael C

            Representatives of public schools aren’t permitted to endorse or promote a specific religion.

            The students are free to gather and pray (or not).

          • Maxwell Edison

            And what exactly is being endorsed and promoted if a Christian coach says or engages in behavior according to his faith? Nothing.

            The Constitution does not say Christians are not allowed to express their faith because of who their employer is.

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
            of speech

            Anyone who says otherwise is going against the Constitution. And the Bible. Which is why I tell people who feel that way to roll marbles down a freeway.

          • Netizen_James

            So then you’re saying that you think classroom teachers should be able to lead YOUR children in prayers to Baal? Really?

          • Eldrida Urika

            So, if the team INVITES the coach to pray with them, as opposed to him leading it but instead only being a participant, would that be allowable? That takes away the onus on the coach being “in charge” of the prayer, doesn’t it?

          • Netizen_James

            No. By participating in their prayer, the government agent (the coach) is endorsing that activity, thus giving it government imprimatur – which is why that’s not allowed under the Establishment Clause. Government agents are not allowed to use the authority of their public office to promote, encourage, denigrate or decry any religion or religious tenet. Again – do you want your children’s teacher participating in student-initiated prayers to Brahma or Ganesha, giving your kids the impression that your family’s beliefs are weird and ‘other’? No? Then apply the Golden Rule as Jesus told us to.

          • Eldrida Urika

            As long as Christian prayers are done too, it doesn’t hurt the faithful and children will usually stick to what mom + Dad want so they will likely think of it as just another lesson to learn.
            Christians don’t say that about ours why do you expect them to be intolerant? Most religions are happy to let people know more even if it is a song or a prayer that is used. They are just happy that there is no intolerance between religions. And there shouldn’t be, and I’m tolerant so I say, I would not care as long as it with the permission of the parents. but many others can’t see it like I said above. So I can’t honestly see the other prayers being done because of the parents. Intolerance is sadly thought to be something that it is ok for Christians to behave like, but I don’t see it like that.
            I do not fear other religions and I don’t think I could. Even kids know when someone says something like what you suggested they go to the teacher about that person. Kids can’t even call a transgender child by the other name without being disciplined, so any nasty things like that would be dealt with or you know the whole deal.. they go to the teacher they go to the principle they go to their lawyers… a 3 step process before the court case. I just don’t believe it is harmful to learn as much as you can about everything and it doesn’t mean you will want to do it, it means you know about it and it can give people a better view of their life’s experiences.
            Learning is never a waste. and you can control what happens with that knowledge; so what is the problem other than neglectful parents who never know about their kids school and don’t bother helping them with their homework.
            It is those parents who find out and stop anything like about that Muslim course that had the kids praying 5 times a day and wearing clothes like Muslims and basically become one for the duration of the course. A mom saw some homework at well, I can’t remember what happened but I believe the parents put some limitations on what will end up happening. Unless parents have no say in what their children are taught, which is confusing to me because they removed Christianity from the schools without even putting courses to teach other people about our religion but they allow a course that has the children speak the words that Muslims perceive as the committed words to being a Muslim? A lot of people do not know Christianity because they aren’t but I think courses for all religions not omitting Christianity is necessary since our nation has many diverse religions that many do not know much about Christianity so shouldn’t it be included as a course now?

          • Eldrida Urika

            I don’t think that is what would be taught. Most religions would not agree with using their beliefs to SCARE others. Teaching other religions is not a bad idea, it teaches tolerance for other people and their beliefs, not necessarily the NEED to convert as most religions want people to believe willingly not by confusing or insisting we do things there way, any more than the majority of Christians want everyone to become like them unwillingly.
            If anyone who believes in their heart that their belief has doubts, it is not a total commitment to that belief until those doubts are gone.
            So, no, to me that is a racist belief that all religions are more about insisting we conform and that is not true. Do you realize you are grouping all religions and saying they are all the same and that is discrimination just as saying all Mexicans love tacos is.
            So your example is not valid to most people Netizen, as it does not have the same significance as you do, as we of faith, know that we want the person who comes to be a part of our faith needs to be honesty believing in it, not just believe because a friend does, or because it is taught in school.
            With all the things that are taught in school do you believe we grow up believing or even remembering everything we are taught? Do you not believe that as parents we can teach them the way that we believe, when they are taught about anything? If someone is concerned about another religion taking your child into that instead of what the people in their lives do, you don’t even know the truth about religions. They are not nasty people. Some people of each religion can be, but the religion itself is not about hate for most religions. We know there is an exception but I know of no other religion that is about hate and murder of non-believers like that. Even Jesus told us to love our enemy. You don’t seem to understand about what the other religions are about, and really should find that out before you expect things that are not there to happen.
            I think if the Government did this for the reasons that you make it sound like it is, I’m sorry but that makes your government racist and discriminating. It also says that we as Americans are too stupid and will believe anything without allowing for our own beliefs and our ability to help our children to understand and tolerate other beliefs as something to learn about, not something to fear.
            If it was not going to be limited to what they can and cannot impress on young children, I might be more concerned but there would be if there were any valid concerns about what is being taught.
            When a child comes home upset about something another child tells them, we tell them not to be upset, and that it is the other child’s belief, but not ours, or not the way we behave. We can’t stop what other children say to ours in the playground or in class in a more or less private discussion. That is a time to teach our children about accepting what others say and that they should question their parents about what they heard not get upset without checking with them first. Even asking the teacher would have likely ended the problem if the child had told the teacher what upset them, and it would be the child who upset them that would be taught not to repeat what happened. Parents are brought in when that child refuses to stop just as they are at any time they do not behave properly at school with an attitude that they do not have to follow the rules.
            So in the way I look at children and even older people, teens, etc., is that we have to give them credit for some understanding and we have to help them learn about those things they need help understanding. It’s not about what they learn so much as how we as parents will help them understand if the teacher did not help with that in the first place.
            Playground talk is just that and no one but the child is in control of what they listen to and what they choose not to. Teachers do not usually take things upon themselves to teach what they want, they follow a curriculum that is to create a complete learning of the lessons they need to be able to have a life that is better than not knowing some of those things.
            So I’m sorry but you haven’t convinced me that it is right to remove things when there is always a way to teach about them and it does not have to be about believing in what you learn. I learned about Evolution and I never believed what I was taught, so why do you think that children will not grow up having learned to decide for themselves about anything, unless we give them the tools to do that in their lives?
            Teaching a prayer is not saying they must believe in it. Telling a child about any other persons’ belief is to help understanding and tolerance for others, just like teaching them that people are allowed to be “different” and to be able to get along with them despite those differences. If they don’t learn how to do that as they grow up, they will have trouble in the real world when they are out on their own. It’s our responsibility to ensure our children grow up with their needs taken care of, including helping them through times they are upset. Teaching a child that it something is not ‘true’ in your own beliefs, takes what upset them and stops the fear. That’s true about anything that upsets them because it scares them. When children are too young and get scared it is normal, and just has to be helped with the understanding that’s all. Religious understanding is not how everyone explains things either. Some times it is just common sense that helps.
            Thank you for the discussion as I did enjoy it, and I’m sorry that I can’t agree but I can’t. The way I look at the world around me and what the human mind works when it comes to this kind of thing, is with the eyes of a person who wants to educate people not hide things we don’t like so people will not be able to educate themselves with the education system because it also allows for misunderstandings and those are worse than having it taught since it will stop those misunderstandings from being a fact instead.
            Blessings!

          • Rookheight

            No one is arguing that the students can’t pray. This is about the coach participating in students’ prayers.

          • Michael C

            No one is arguing that the students can’t pray.

            It appears that many people seem to be under the impression that there’s a plot afoot to ban prayer.

            The purpose of my comment is to explain to these people that this fear is unfounded. Nobody’s trying to stop people from praying. Nobody is preventing this coach from praying by himself and nobody is preventing these students from praying by themselves or together.

          • Netizen_James

            Your claim that FRFF is lying is false. They told no lie.
            Government agents are not permitted to use their public office to promote religion. If you don’t like it, move to some theocratic country like Saudi Arabia. They execute atheists and gays there, sounds like your kind of place.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Dude, zip it. I could care less what you think, and I am not going to block you. Just shut your hateful, bigoted mouth.

          • Netizen_James

            No, sorry, you don’t get to tell me to shut up. FTS. Who made you king? This is America, we don’t have monarchs here. The blasphemous and heretical founding fathers rejected the Scriptural doctrine of the ‘divine right of kings’ (see Romans13:1-6), and replaced it with the Enlightenment doctrine of ‘consent of the governed’. This nation was born of a rejection of Scripture, and is in no way a ‘Christian Nation’ and never has been.

            If you can’t refute the arguments in a civil manner, what are you doing here? You’re just making things worse by acting all rude and put-out about not being able to use the force of civil government to promote your religion as the officially correct one. Ever hear of a little thing called the ‘Golden rule’? Maybe you should look into it.

          • Maxwell Edison

            No, sorry, you don’t get to tell me to shut up.

            I just did.

            If you can’t refute the arguments

            What’s to refute? I clearly said bigots will defend bigots, and you proved me right.

            Done.

          • Silas Jennings

            You had no good reason to flag that. They will not remove it, nor should they.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Sure I do. And how do you know they won’t?

          • Silas Jennings

            Well, I don’t know what it is.

            Sock yourself Matthew/Jason/Jerome.

          • Maxwell Edison

            LOLOLOL Hypocrite much?

          • Silas Jennings

            No, I already told you I don’t use sock accounts. If you don’t believe me it’s your problem.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Then don’t accuse me of same.

          • Silas Jennings

            If it walks like a duck. Didn’t your mother ever tell you that it’s rude (and wrong) to call people bigots and other names? Ever notice no one else does and they DON’T get banned?

          • Maxwell Edison

            Anti-Christian bigotry has no place here.

            And as I said, we are trying to rectify the situation.

          • Silas Jennings

            “We”, that’s too adorable for words.

            Your problem is that you’re seeing “anti-Christian bigotry” where none exists. I’ve noticed that it’s CERTAIN behaviors that aren’t even common to all Christians that are the things that set you off.

          • Maxwell Edison

            That’s right. “We.” As in people who are not you.

          • MarkSebree

            Maxwell, What did James say that was bigoted? He told you that you cannot make him shut up, which is a factual statement. He related some basic American history for you, which is easily checked if you care to. He called you out on your irrationality, rudeness, and evasion of the questions that were asked of you.

            All you have done is call him and everyone that tries to correct your ignorance and misconception names, and evade any question asked of you. You cannot form a coherent argument to support your claims, so you try to use bluff and bluster, and fail miserably.

          • ppp777

            That is so obvious it took you ten million years to ” realise that ” how could people have been so stupid .

          • Netizen_James

            Ten million years? Don’t you creationists think that the earth is only 6000 years old or so? Where are you getting 10 million years from? Human beings have only existed for less than 3 million years, depending on whether you want to define homo habilis as ‘human’ or not. Strictly speaking, humans have been around for less than 350K years or so. So again, where is this ’10 million years’ figure coming from?

          • ppp777

            If you can’t get the sarcasm , then that is your problem .

          • ppp777

            That is exactly how America is going to end up that’s to moronic atheists like you , and they are called sodomites , and you are called fools .

          • Netizen_James

            I’d say that it’s the GOP that are the sodomites:
            “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel16:49)

          • ppp777

            Another deluded atheist thinks that God wiped Sodom from the face of the earth because the did not welcome people , read Geneses nineteen and the book of Jude and peter three .

          • Netizen_James

            I have – have you? Sodom was destroyed because they were fat and greedy and because they tortured, abused, and extorted money from travelers, rather than welcoming and protecting travelers. Sodom was destroyed for exactly the reasons that the Prophet Ezekiel said it was destroyed, and there is NO Scripture which contradicts that. Study your Bible. Or admit that you know less about the Bible than some ‘deluded atheist’.

          • ppp777

            That is sodomites attributes , check romans one and stop cherry picking

          • Netizen_James

            I have – have you? No. Your mind is closed and unable to acquire new insight. I pity you.

          • Eldrida Urika

            Yeah there is. The men that came to Lot’s house wanted the men to come out so they could “know” them. If they were not welcoming and all that, why wouldn’t they ignore some FRIENDS of Lot and why would they insist on the men only and not accept the virgin girls – at that point in history men would not have passed that opportunity up.
            The scriptures about Sodom were very clear message about men with men and women with women leaving the “natural” uses for selfish pleasure.
            What OTHER way can anyone take the “man on man” etc. with the added leaving the Natural part making it seem clear to us that it is a reference to homosexuality? How ELSE can anyone explain that without admitting that it is about homosexuality? the only other way I can think of men on men, is with football when there is a pile up.
            I just can’t see where it can possibly be another explanation for it. and really, prostitution with same gender is still considered homosexual so even that ‘explanation’ does not make it not about homosexual sex.
            So how can you say it isn’t about that.
            I’ve really tried to see it differently but I just can’t. I stood up for their equal rights campaign, so I’d honestly like to know if for no other reason than to be able to tell others about it. So convince me about that part of the bible, ok?
            BTW Changing the bible like they have is, yea, spoken directly about by God about what will happen to people who change the bible too.

          • Netizen_James

            There is no ‘book of Jude’, one of the epistles was allegedly written by Jude who was supposedly the brother of ‘James the Just’ and therefor also a brother to Jesus. And really- what can we expect someone like Jude to know about Sodom, which had been destroyed CENTURIES earlier? Seems to me Ezekiel is far closer to contemporaneous, and would surely know better what the cause of Sodom’s destruction was.

            Are you denying that Ezekiel was a prophet? Or are you saying that Ezekiel was WRONG? What kind of blasphemer are you to call a Prophet of God ‘Wrong’?

          • ppp777

            Wilful ignorance and twisting of scripture , check romans one [ if you think that is scripture ] .

          • Lark.62

            I trust you are not saying that the biblical book Ezekiel contains an error.

            If the bible is without error, then the sin of Sodom was that they were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned.

          • Well stated.

        • Netizen_James

          He is – when he is NOT acting in his official capacity as a government employee.

          When he’s on the clock, he is, like all other government agents, forbidden from using the authority of his public office to promote his own religious beliefs as if they were the ‘officially correct’ ones.

          • Michael C

            Andy Hape is free to pray at work. The problem arises when he uses his position of authority to lead students in the prayers of his religion.

          • Netizen_James

            When acting in his official capacity as a government agent, he is not allowed to behave in any manner which could reasonably be interpreted as being intended promote, encourage, disdain or decry any student’s religious beliefs. Yes, while on break, in the teacher’s lounge, he is entitled to pray. And of course, at home, in his church, or in any other time/place/manner where it is clear that he is NOT acting in his official capacity as a school district employee are all perfectly fine too. And of course, silent prayers in his own head (God I hope that boy under that pile is ok!) are unregulated, and irrelevant to the matter at hand.

            Further, as a Christian, perhaps he ought to take Jesus’ words a bit more seriously:

            “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 men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matt 6: 5-6)

          • ppp777

            Yeah off with their heads , those damn Christians , what has that religion got to do with America or its history , it is so obvious that the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with it , hail satan , you bloody heathens .

          • Netizen_James

            You do know that James Madison was a founding father, and the one who WROTE the first amendment, right? This is what Madison had to say about the Congressional Chaplains:

            “Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. …
            The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor. ”

            To get a better feel for what Madison was saying, replace ‘Quakers’ with ‘Scientologists’ and ‘Catholics’ with ‘Muslims’.

          • Eldrida Urika

            So if the coach meets some team members outside of school he can talk to them about religion? Because off school property is the legal precedence?
            But if he invited the whole team to his place for a victory bbq, he can’t talk about his religion? Is that right?

          • Lark.62

            Come on. Is he acting as their coach in that situation or not?

            If he is acting as their coach, he should leave religion out. At a team party he is acting as the coach of the team. Rather obvious.

            If the coach has a relationship with the kid and his family outside of school then discussion is probably fine as long as the kid’s parents are okay with it – neighbors, friends, scouts, church, etc..

          • Eldrida Urika

            Please don’t be sarcastic with me, I was asking to know how much it affects the coach/team outside of school. And for someone who doesn’t know much about the school problem with religion, I don’t know what is correct and what is not. You seemed to be answering the questions like mine so I asked you. OK?
            If you would rather not help me out, that’s fine, but not everyone is someone who harasses who ask questions. So how about you find out the person’s style to know it they are liars or trolls because I am not one and I don’t enjoy being spoken to in a sarcastic way – I’m too old for that kind of stuff, and never much liked it ever so, there you go.
            I will find another poster who does not mind my questions no matter how silly they seem to them. at least I hope I can…
            Thank you for the answers you were able to provide to me.

          • Lark.62

            I’m sorry. Your questions are sincere and you are willing to learn. Those traits are rare among internet commenters of all types, and to be valued. I’m not used to this. 😊

            I guess this falls under the “Keep it simple” principle. Does this person at this time have authority over the players due to his government position? If the answer is yes, he needs to keep religion to himself. If the coach and the player are interacting due to a relationship outside of school – church, neighbors, etc. – then discussion of religion is subject to the nature of the relationship.

            And adults should be able to establish boundaries. The coach might be the kid’s Sunday school teacher. But at school he should treat all kids equally and not promote religion.

          • Eldrida Urika

            First, thank you for understanding and making the changes, so won’t. I understand that but I should warn you, I am not a typical poster as I do try to consider things from both secular and my faith because I have been without religion for a longer time than I have been faithful to Jesus. I am usually able to put myself in the shoes of the other person to have greater understanding but often that is affected by whether I actually have all the information rather than a more limited amount which is why I like the posters who help with that kind of thing without needing to be asked. The different views can teach me a lot alone.
            I think my biggest problem is that I don’t see prayer itself as promoting a religion, but that that person feels a need to reach out to the one who they feel is the one they can trust to help them with their lives. God is that for Christians but I expect all religions have that to some extent and bowing the head closing the eyes to me to pray is what makes it private not something that is intended to be anything wrong because there can be nothing said aloud. If he is with them, in any way, since coaches are usually (right?) for him it is about respect for their prayers as much as it is about his own.
            If they are praying in the first place, how is it making any difference to those players that are already praying? I can understand the idea of leading them in prayer, but why is it seen as promoting a religion when it is it also what the team seems to believe already? You see my point don’t you? Not being the leader of the prayer is what makes it personal instead of it being anything meant to be ‘promoting’ it.
            Some would criticize anyone who does not show respect for someone praying, and that is how I would show respect for others prayers. I don’t have to pray to their God, just listen and pray to our own God. If you are influenced to such a degree by a different prayer to a different God, then in my mind, you are not strong in your faith for the God you have committed yourself to, and not that it had a negative influence. Faith in God is very important and the stronger your faith is, the better.

            There is one thing though:
            I was just reminded by my guide that there are some Christians whose belief’s are different than my own and do not behave the same towards others so I guess it would be those people who would not want this (ed. vs gov.) changed for a different reason and that is what the law is more focused on – I really hope that there would be a few Christians who are also of my belief to balance it a little, but I know that hope could be unrealistic when it comes to someone who thinks they have power. Power makes it about themselves, instead of the Lord.
            I find even the Pope says things that are against God’s Word, and If he has a connection with God, he would know that God’s Word will NEVER change. Not for us or for him or anyone. His Word is eternal and no one can say it is being looked at differently by God if it is shown in the scriptures. His Word will never change is right there in the Word loud and clear.
            So in that way, you have reached the point you WANTED me to understand with some guidance, but I still feel praying should never be withheld from anyone as it is – more than anything else – the way we connect with someone important to our lives.
            Maybe in a more modern way of pressing the image for you to see; It would be like not having the cell phone be able to connect with the tower when it is an emergency in either direction. Your mother or other relative who is more to you emotionally than anyone else, is someone you want to be able to connect with easy and quickly and know they are there when you need them or they are healthy or let them know you are ok or needing help about anything.
            If you need that help and feel that need to connect with someone important that can give you what you need at that moment, which is often to ask for strength but I am guessing all of their prayers would be about the game and not having injuries on either side, and about the encouragement of the Team to do their best with their own ideas of what to ask for, since they are not led by anyone but a student. Even students are able to put together a ‘list’ of things they want to go well in the games, to make a prayer out of that includes everyone’s ideas (team) so it is a compete prayer to say. There are some things in prayers that need to be carefully worded to give proper meaning. They can’t ask for a win with it being selfish, it must be with the other side in a way; Oh Lord, we pray for a successful game, but Lord we know it is in your control and if the other team wins we will still praise you! : that being a part of the kind of thing they could say. Selfishness in prayer will not likely get what you pray for. God wants us to view ourselves kind of low on the priority list compared to Him, and other people. We are not superior to anyone and should not act that way. (yes, it’s in the scriptures!! for those who are raising their eyebrows at that).
            I agree that there are some that would misuse the power but most General Christians are not like that so it is because of how those individuals see as a means of attaining power that is not theirs to use like that.
            Thanks again for the discussions… I hope I was not too tiresome for you as some people have inferred that before.
            Blessings!

          • kftgr

            You have some nice ideas about team solidarity. However, doing it through a prayer is only effective if everyone has the same creed. But can you see how it is a hostile burden for the minority team members?

          • Eldrida Urika

            So what is the difference between the coach praying with their own team and what they think about when the major athletes say their prayer or even their music icons? Some of them bring religion into their lives and talk about them on stage. Why would you want that to be able to be an influence? The coaches in this kind of issue are not bad examples an it’s wrong to think the kids are so stupid to respect a person beyond that and if they are not believers when they are done high school, they won’t be a believer then either and will not worry about whether it is to build their character as they are adults in the world on their own for the first time. Being influenced by a man who everyone in the community respects and admires clearly cannot be a bad influence. Whether it is the Coach or the Home Ec. teacher teaching prayers before eating a meal. No teen will stay influenced by a teacher in any major way unless they are in their lives still. Most kids forget about high school as soon as possible afterwards because it is the first summer free from school. Even athletes pray so what if it comes from those from the outside of the school/ home influences.
            You see, it is not about the coaches football abilities, it’s about his character and his behavior which is in every part of his life it’s a part of him now. If the kids are trying to be like him in Character, one thing that they would have asked is how he learned to be in control and calm and not get angry and tolerate the antics it’s something a lot of people don’t see in anybody these days. Religion was how he learned to be the man he is with all the respect and admiration he has, it came because of his religion. So it’s really not something he can separate from his life or being for that matter. So what you think is a religious influence is about modeling Good Behavior for others also to show other how to behave, who go on to teach others. What exactly is the problem with admitting that his life has formed him and the kids want to know what it can do for them. Maybe nothing at all, except at Football, so what difference does it make. It’s a Teenager who is going to be leaving that school as an adult with the ability to make their own life decisions and that is something we learn to do from people’s examples of behavior when they are doing those things. Anyone’s not just the coach, that is like saying he has more influence than the world on whether they pray or not. Because like I said, the team players all over pray before a game. they could have started on their own and invited the coach in for all we know. It wasn’t how the prayer started because all schools used to pray without a problem.
            The one thing you forget is that minorities often have a religion too and are never told not to pray to their own God, and it is good manners to stand still and quiet for others to pray.
            What about these minorities being bothered by the student led prayers. What is the difference in those positions. Student prayer is allowed without the coach so if that is what they do it will be with any minorities sorting it out amongst the team mates not out in public but where it can actually be worked out to be fair to others. Really, that can actually happen! Sorry but I am tired of seeing articles that are unnecessary to be in the media like that poem for saying Thank you. She apologized and said right away that she wouldn’t have done it if she had thought it would make anyone uncomfortable and would not do it again. So where is the story there when it was nicely settled without a problem. she complied without a hesitation.
            The people who resist I can kind of understand all the roo haa about it, but when the person apologizes and said they will not do it again MOVE ON MEDIA like this,
            the school will have to work something out but it will get done whether the world knows it or not because it’s the law. But the school should also be teaching them more than just do what the law says. It should be teaching them to be adults with adult responsibilities for when they walk out of the school after graduation.
            This kind of thing can be a major decision in their lives but it can be a minor temporary one as well. School is often left behind in the majority of ways when we leave school and we are all focused on looking towards the future instead. Any influences will be dropped if they are not a part of the person, rather than part of the student.

          • Netizen_James

            If the coach happens to attend the same church as the families of some of the kids who happen to be on his team, there’s no trouble there, because the coach is not acting in his official capacity as the coach- he’s just another guy going to church. If the coach is hosting a team event like a ‘victory bbq’, regardless of the physical location of that event, then he IS acting in his official capacity as Coach, and so is constrained from acting in any way which could reasonably lead to the impression that he, and therefor the school, and therefor the government supports and encourages any religion or religious tenet as the ‘officially correct’ one. Regardless of his own personal beliefs or opinions. It’s pretty simple, really. Again, do you want the DMV clerk wasting your time trying to convert you to Scientology while you’re just trying to renew your license? Of course not. This is NO DIFFERENT from that. If you don’t want government agents trying to convince your children that they will be reincarnated into insects if they eat beef, then you can’t allow government agents to promote and encourage YOUR religious beliefs either. That’s the Golden Rule. Didn’t Jesus promote that idea in the Gospels….Yeah, here it is: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31) Is that really so hard?

          • Eldrida Urika

            I look at the Golden Rule a little differently because I live it.
            You don’t understand it the way it was meant to be used.
            Treat others the way you want to be treated. That’s what that means!
            Your example of the DMV and (TBH) any place of business they would fire anyone who did that to one of the customers. Think about it…. Ok so now you understand right?
            You are making it like it would be corrupting the religions too. Normally religious people would know anything like that is considered hate speech if they taught them something like those you mentioned. Even something that actually affected the children’s health. Otherwise it is a lesson, a way to learn, fill your mind with lots of information so as you go through life you have a way to make decisions from all those things and what that lesson taught them.
            Jesus taught that Golden Rule like this

            If you want to be treated well, then by treating the other person well, they in turn will treat you well
            If everyone lived the Golden Rule like I do, the conflicts about everything are lessened.
            When I treat others well, 98% of people will in turn treat me well too. When i meet someone who does not treat me well, I still treat them well and I find they change how they are treating me. I’ve lived this way all my life and it’s actually a fantastic way to get along with everyone because you are more considerate to others because both sides are treating each other the way they want to be treated.
            We would not have the problems we have today if the Golden Rule as it was maybe 2 no 3 decades since we learned it in school and it worked. Kids were better to each other than they are now. Adults were too.
            No one said you must agree to anything like they do today. it was the money and the government that we had the government doing not controlling the schools so directly as they do now.
            I also ask for the respect I deserve because I show respect for others at all times. If I don’t like or can’t work something out with someone, I was taught not to argue, just walk away because some people won’t like you
            Some people won’t agree with you.
            Some people are nice and some are mean.
            Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
            It’s not necessary for all people to agree to get along, if people would walk away instead of fighting.
            I think you told me about the young child describing hell to another child who was quite upset about it, and I would be upset if another child did that, but, if it was one child to another there is nothing that the school did, it was the way the kid was threatened to behave themselves probably, or a Catholic as my husband used to be told that when he was at a Catholic school.Not all religions agree with even teaching young children about hell until they are old enough to not get upset and can understand it better, but my church doesn’t say anything like that at any time except to tell people to not give up because we know the consequences for giving up.
            I understand how upset that child’s father was when the child came home upset, but kids will mimic a lot of phrases they hear and many kids come home with a whole slew of curse words because one of the other kids uses them.
            The teacher should stop things like that but as a teacher’s aide I know how hard it is to watch 30 children 3 – 4 year old’s with one pair of eyes. Especially at free time.
            Kids even pick thing up at playgrounds from other kids, I used to explain the problem and tell them they should not do that/ say that and for the most part it worked but sometimes other kids did something ‘new’ and it would have to be discussed again.

          • Netizen_James

            >I look at the Golden Rule a little differently because I live it.
            You don’t understand it the way it was meant to be used.
            Treat others the way you want to be treated. That’s what that means!Your example of the DMV and (TBH) any place of business they would fire anyone who did that to one of the customers. Think about it…. Ok so now you understand right?You are making it like it would be corrupting the religions too.Normally religious people would know anything like that is considered hate speech if they taught them something like those you mentioned.It’s not necessary for all people to agree to get along, if people would walk away instead of fighting.<

            So the Abolitionists (many of whom were Christians) were wrong to fight to free black people from chattel slavery – they should have just walked away instead of fighting? Really?

            Our government is based on the 'consent of the governed'. Clearly then, us governed need to reach some level of agreement regarding what it is we're consenting to. Which means that we all can't just 'walk away' from discussions regarding the nature and scope of government. We all want the government to protect our rights from those who would infringe upon them through force or fraud – that is the primary (some would say sole) purpose of government. Thus, we must come to some level of agreement as to what those rights are, and what they are not. Some people think we should have a right to plant whatever seeds in our garden we want. Other people think that the government should have the authority to throw people into prison for planting politically incorrect seeds in their garden. Some people think that store owners should be allowed to refuse to engage in commerce with black people or Jewish people or gay people. While others think that everyone has an equal right to participate in the economy, and that such discrimination is inherently tortious. We can't just 'walk away' from these sorts of disagreements, we must resolve them for government to function.

            Try this: Put your stance regarding religion in schools into words. Do you really think that teachers should have the authority to lead YOUR kids in prayers to THEIR God(s)? When you put it like that, the answer is clearly 'no', right? Do you think that government schools should be allowed to discriminate, and not hire nonChristian teachers in the first place? Can you see how obnoxious and bigoted a stance that would be?

          • Eldrida Urika

            Before answering your post I want to apologize for any upset I caused you. It is not my way to intentionally hurt anyone so I did not do it maliciously or with forethought.
            If you look I was not in any way demeaning you about it, I simply said that I did not feel you understand it as I do. Then I explained my reasons and that should not be considered an insult. There is no reason to be offended, there was no offense to be had in anything I said. If there was an intentional offense tell me where please. I rarely miss them but I have had trouble with my Word and I can’t edit it quite as easily and I find I miss more than I realize, so if I have said anything towards you that is obviously putting you down, please show me so I can avoid missing it in the future. I’d appreciate that very much.
            Telling you about the meaning of the scriptures in my different way is all I intentionally did.
            Blessings
            I am working on the other things you posted as questions and I may post them as I finish one thing and then work out the other ones, one at a time.
            Blessings

          • Netizen_James

            Thomas Jefferson, also a founding father, said this of Christianity in particular: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Did they never teach you this in history class? Jefferson famously created his own version of the Gospel Story, eliminating any hint of miracles or the supernatural. Have people really never heard of the Jefferson Bible? No, Christianity had nothing to do with the foundation of this country’s government. There is a reason that the founders explicitly and intentionally left the words ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ out of the US Constitution. There is a reason why the ONLY mention of religion in the Constitution as originally drafted was in the NEGATIVE of the ‘no religious test’ clause of Article 6. There is a reason why the Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli which contained the very clear language that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

          • ppp777

            America was always biblically based that is so obvious even your constitution was worded given rights by their creator , and your society up till the late fifties was clearly biblically minded what ever your former fathers believed in their hearts , it is only now , ten million years later you are all turning against that and embracing all sorts of reprobate thinking , please don’t pee on my back and tell me it is raining .

          • Rookheight

            You’ve been misled. You might want to re-read the Constitution.

          • ppp777

            You need to re study history , Christianity only began to cease in the late sixties , now the long awaited communism has taken over , the irony of it all you could not make it up , well done

          • Rookheight

            You wrongly attributed a religious phrase to the Constitution. Re-read the document and then come back and try again.

          • ppp777

            The evidence speaks for itself , your the same people who says life came from nonlife and God does not exist , you cannot be taken seriously .

          • Rookheight

            The evidence does speak for itself, but in this case—as with the cases of evolution and cosmology, apparently—you just keep talking instead of looking at it. You haven’t even acknowledged your mistake in your original post yet. I’ll bet you never even tried to figure out what it was. Instead, you just keep saying what you think is true because you think it’s true.

          • ppp777

            Your first statement speaks for itself , I don’t need to hear any more , you are a true degenerate , get back under the rock you crawled out from .

          • Rookheight

            Resorting to ad hominem attacks doesn’t add a great deal of credibility to your arguments.

          • ppp777

            Its the truth , and that something you wilfully know very little about , if there was even a crum of truth in what you said Christianity would bearly been heard of in your country , the complete opposite is true , its intrenched in your history regardless what the likes of Jefferson believed .

          • Rookheight

            We’re talking about the meaning of the Bill of Rights, of which Jefferson was a co-author. I haven’t said a thing about Christianity—all of that was in your head.

          • Netizen_James

            That is simply false. The Constitution does not contain the word ‘Creator’ at all. (Nor the word ‘God’, nor the name ‘Jesus’.) You’re thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which has nothing to do with the government of the United States of America. There was no such thing as ‘the United States’ at the time of the DOI. The US Government has NEVER been ‘biblically based’. Never once. A government that was based on the Bible wouldn’t have put in the ‘no religious test for public office’ clause, now would it?

          • ppp777

            Belief in God is foundational in your country and in its very D N A , anyone with two minutes knowledge of your history would know that , but of course talking to people that don’t even know the difference between a man and a woman or define marriage or who thinks nothing made everything I know I’m not going to get through .

          • Lark.62

            The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of our nation and our government.

          • Netizen_James

            Nations don’t have DNA. Organisms do. That’s how they pass their traits on to their offspring, and that’s how evolution works. Surely you know this, right?

            No, Belief in the God of Abraham and Issac (aka YHWH, the deity worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims) is not ‘foundational’ to the US in any way. Again, the founders very explicitly and intentionally created a SECULAR government based on the Enlightenment doctrine of ‘consent of the governed’, and specifically and explicitly REJECTED the Scriptural doctrine of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ by rebelling against the ‘god-given’ authority of King George III. The founders intentionally and explicitly did *not* include either the word ‘God’ nor the name ‘Jesus’ in the Constitution for the United States of America. Feel free to believe what you want, but you’re not welcome to your your own facts. Historical revisionism is for Nazis and Stalinists – you’re not one of those are you?

          • Eldrida Urika

            I don’t mean to keep getting into the conversation, but I have a question. I’m not trying hassle you either ok?
            If the US was not founded on the Christian religion, why do all the government building have all the displays of Christian markers?
            I also wonder why the Christian religion was set in place as a part of the education system in that case. I understood the bible was like a first reading book (although I can’t imagine the thee’s and thou’s as a first time reader)
            If these things are so prominent in the US History, how is the Christian religion not a valid historical fact rather than the things that you use to support the opposite?
            Is there historical documents other than these that show anything different than what you say, or do you only use the ones that refer to it like these things.
            I know that it is the way to direct what you want to show by only giving one ‘side’ prominence in a post or site, but I really am confused when I put what you say alongside these situations (gov. buildings, education) it makes no sense. So, can you make those things make sense in the view you support for us please? I’d really appreciate it, as these discussions happen every time we have something religious pointed out in a school, so it’s been confusing for a while, I just was not at a point to ask about it before now.
            Thanks! and Blessings!

          • Lark.62

            Government buildings for the most part are definitely not covered in religious symbolism. The exception is the Supreme Court building which is covered In symbols of law and legal systems, including Hammurabi, Moses and Muhammed. No government building in DC gives special treatment to christianity.

          • Eldrida Urika

            I’ve honestly had never heard of Hammurabi or that Muhammed is there by anyone before. Just Moses and and the 10 commandments were what I thought was there.
            I can understand Moses, because he told them God’s Laws with God telling him as he told them. I believe he was the messenger of God’s law, not the creator of laws. The laws are also for JUST the Jews, not anyone else at all. Gentiles are not under those laws.
            I sort of understand the Hammurabi code, but considering how often I hear about how our Bible is too old, even though it can be used for every generation, why is some random king who lived that long ago also there. And why are people still using that instead of updating it to more current issues? There are a lot of things very different from those laws that would not be there wouldn’t there? or are they able to be for the edification of all generations like the bible is?
            Mohommed was a prophet and messenger for Allah, He too did not create the laws as Allah told him like God told Moses and some of those laws are down right scary to think of as part of our own law systems. I’ve read the Quran and there are some laws there about taking a hand of for stealing and blaming the woman and needing 3 male witnesses to prove that she was raped? Among other laws they have.
            From what you have said, there is no representation of the Christian Faith as taught by Jesus. The Laws of Moses were for the Jews. The king of Babylonia were not Christians that Christians seem to be aware of. The Laws of Allah are for Islam only.

            So Christian symbols within those 3 does not exist at all then.
            Thank you for telling me about the Court building. I guess if there is a symbol of Christian it is not a monument. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me.
            Blessings!

          • Netizen_James

            >Just Moses and and the 10 commandments were what I thought was there.The laws are also for JUST the Jews, not anyone else at all. Gentiles are not under those laws. <
            You really think that Christians aren't bound by the Ten Commandments? So why did Roy Moore want them in his courthouse? If the Levitican laws don't apply to anyone but Jews, why do Christians continually cite Lev20:13 as a way to bash gay people over the head?

            And where are you getting this 'cherry picking' theology anyway? Jesus said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Heaven and earth are clearly still here, so 'all' has not been fulfilled, and thus all of the Mosaic Law is still binding to Christians. Who is more authoritative, Jesus or Paul? Jesus says the Law stands 'till the end of the earth. Only Paul says that gentiles don't need to worry about the Law. Who are you following, Jesus, or Paul?

          • Eldrida Urika

            That’s what you get for listening to professional liars like David Barton.

            No it’s not, you know why? because I hadn’t heard that name until someone mentioned it to me, possibly in this board. I do not go to anyone else, everything is right there in red. I am strictly from the bible but! I have read the OT but do not know it even close to what I know of the NT. It uses the OT for references but Jesus changed a few things according to the scriptures.

            He was given all authority by the Father after he had already been teaching the Gospel.
            He told us when he told us his two commandments that they were “New Commandments” because (some have pointed out that it is stated in the OT) it was the words that Jesus used that said the commandments were made with his New Authority, even though they were also The Father’s, He was repeating them for us with that authority. But if you look at the scriptures about sin, they all include love after the mention of sin.

            His commandment to Love was magnified, when he told us that love can overwhelm the darkness of sin, Glory be to God, and that means that as long as their is love in our lives, and follow Jesus’ commands, you are doing what God wants us to do by being outstanding people because of the loving way we show when we choose to help someone, and the way our behavior is an example of something to follow when it stands out. He wants us to be outstanding and mentions that several times in the Gospel with a variety of words with the same inference when Jesus called us to be the light that brings others to our Father in Heaven to God’s Glory. He specifically told us a few of the behaviors that he wanted us to have in the scriptures in red. He was very strong in what He was trying to get across to us when he said “Do My Commands” – as direct orders from King Jesus. He never said, it would be nice if you would do my commands, but you know, not if it is too much for you to trouble of course…

            An humor: There was a fictional Queen that used to yell “Off with his head!!” when people did not do her commands quickly enough, or badly, or without the desired thing that the Queen wanted. Jesus told us very clearly in the Gospel, and the whole of the NT what he desired of us to do; do as in change about ourselves to become more like Him, knowing that it is impossible to be perfect, but Jesus also knows that it is impossible for us to be perfect, but what he wants is for us to attempt to be perfect in following what Jesus taught in the NT.

            There are scriptures that say what I just said, but I won’t point out where, because Jesus told us all that it was our responsibility to know the scriptures and when taught anything to always search the scriptures to confirm the truth of the lesson. I also believe that if you look for those scriptures it will be more than just that issue in that chapter. We should be reading our bibles daily. So looking for those scriptures should not be a problem, right? and you do sound like you are familiar with the scriptures too.

            When he taught about sin he also spoke about love of others and no more punishment than what He will give others Himself on Judgement Day. Love was in most of the lessons, and I was taught it was because God Is Love and that it is with love that we will attain the highest level of understanding that we can in our connection with the Lord and be the closest to Him that we can be.

            I think there must be many sins we do that we don’t recognize as sin, since Jesus told us about love and light and sin and darkness and light can overwhelm darkness if there is enough love/light. When we don’t recognize something is a sin, it is not likely to be repented for and might be one that we do consistently until that sin is pointed out in some way that God will choose to open our eyes to our sins so we can recognize them and repent for them.

            One of the things that I referred to that is the scripture where the account of what
            happened in Sodom was repeated to show us that issue, but there are also scriptures that specifically tell us all not to judge (He who has no sin should cast the first stone) or convict anyone of their sins (the woman caught in the act of adultery) and then there is the scriptures that point out that any sin punishable for, is to be dealt with on Judgement Day, to be clearer Any sin that is not the law of the land will be dealt with on Judgement Day, the point made in scriptures that we can’t see anyone’s heart like Jesus is able to do, and it is by looking at the heart he can see the evil intent behind any of the sins not repented for, but it is because of His total love for all of us, no matter who the person is, is beyond our imagination to understand. Everything about God is much higher than ours.

            So why did Roy Moore want them in his courthouse? If the Levitican laws don’t apply to anyone but Jews, why do Christians continually cite Lev20:13 as a way to bash gay people over the head?

            You really think that Christians aren’t bound by the Ten Commandments?

            So now I’ll start with the 10 Commandments to explain how it is true, just by telling you that the first 4 commandments are contained in the first of Jesus’ Commandments.
            All about the love we should have and show to God for all He has done for us.

            The last 6 would not be approved of as anything but sin, he told us that when we love everyone, we won’t want to hurt the ones we love, so we try not to sin against those we love? Jesus made the sins as something we needed to talk about to others because of
            repentance. If you do not know about what a sin is, you can’t know how to avoid the temptation to the sins. So Jesus told us to spread the Gospel to all corners of the world so all would know it and they would know about God and what to repent for .
            Everything that Jesus did during his time on earth, before his crucifixion, was teaching us about the Love he wanted us to have for everyone. The way to treat people the way you want to be treated so people get along better. If we are following his commandment and his commands about the kind of people we should be, we would never be in a position where we would be tempted to sin because it is only Jesus that matters and we all know that he died for our sins, but he also died for our souls and when you recognize that you realize a lot more truth about what Jesus did for us because He loved us that much; so much that he died so we did not have to make sacrifices of blood to God anymore to atone for our sins, because He bled for all of those. He came to teach us all and every word in the NT is a Testimony to Jesus as Apostles and Disciples were considered the leaders of those lessons and lifestyle and love of and for a God that is so Awesome it can’t be limited, who had to die to give the Holy Spirit to the others as well as to give others the beginnings of a belief that could have changed the peace of the world, but Lucifer was already here and the Lord had told him that he will not conquer His Children and that he will be put down into hell for eternity when the end of this world happens.
            He needs us to be able to recognize it when it was sin, and avoid the temptation of it, or pray for forgiveness with repentance.

            I know I say this a couple of times but it is for different chapters of the NT. This is all in scriptures if one looks for it, and I am of the belief that everyone needs to know where those scriptures are in the Bible and what I tell them is confirmed for their own edification and true according to the scriptures.

            I still have more of your post to reply to in this next post…Praise the LORD!!!

          • Eldrida Urika

            And where are you getting this ‘cherry picking’
            theology anyway? Jesus said: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
            and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
            law, till all be fulfilled.” Heaven and earth are clearly still here,
            so ‘all’ has not been fulfilled, and thus all of the Mosaic Law is still
            binding to Christians. Who is more authoritative, Jesus or Paul?
            Jesus says the Law stands ’till the end
            of the earth. Only Paul
            says that gentiles don’t need to worry about the Law. Who are you
            following, Jesus, or Paul?

            The reference to the laws indicates it is for the Jews as the Gentiles were, according to the Apostle who discussed it with the Lord, who told him that the burdens were too much for the Jews to bear and they have known them for generations, so it was said in scriptures that the Gentiles were not going to follow the laws, but be more about our devotion to God and our doing what he asks us to do at all times, and the things he asked us to remember and the things he commanded us to do. In other words he wants to see who will obey him by giving the commands to see who would read the bible and who wouldn’t when it was one of the things that Jesus told us to do. Many people of many religions only listen to their leader each week, and go home and put the bible down until the next Sabbath, and they have never taken the time to read the parts of the Bible that can make a difference to their faith, that might not be something a preacher has to talk about unless it is about obeying God.
            What an odd
            question to have been presented to me after I regularly speaking about
            Jesus and how I follow his Word very carefully. I am very good at the
            Gospel.

            It’s funny you call my beliefs cherry picking since I often reprimand others for doing that exact thing.

            We
            were told to know the scriptures and to search anything we hear to
            confirm it so it isn’t cherry picking to show you proof that something
            was actually said the way I told you it was said. It teaching rather
            than insisting you believe it because I told you so I tell you to look
            for yourself and make your own decision on the scriptures I speak about
            and whether you agree. I do not insist anyone believes what I say. It is
            in the scriptures so they can find out and see if they can confirm what
            I have said is in the scriptures.
            I do know that I am being led by
            the Holy Spirit and this is what I have been told to tell people so they
            can look and correct anything they were not aware of before by finding
            out whether they are true. The Lord will open the eyes of the ones that
            will/can use what I say to their benefit and become closer to God.
            Others He will open the eyes in other ways, and in other times, because
            God is the one who knows when the best time is.

            Perhaps you
            forgot that Paul was chosen by God and has the Holy Spirit and perhaps
            you were not aware that Jesus taught the Apostles things that were not
            in those parts of the bible. All it says is that he taught them at times
            and that indicates the Apostles are not speaking for themselves. The
            Holy Spirit gives us remembrance of all Jesus taught, so no matter who,
            even today, a practicing Christian who has the Holy Spirit speaks it
            will reflect Jesus’ Word, no one else’s. The only thing others could say
            in their own words is to testify about something that brings what they
            were teaching into perspective. Plus, the whole bible is God’s Word so
            none of it is not of God. They did not make things up as they went
            along, they told what they had been told, and when they were not
            successful at working something out, they went to the Holy Spirit to
            ask for guidance. That is also in scriptures.
            I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss anything unless I deleted some and didn’t realize it as I took your post in it’s entirety and broke it up within that to reply to you
            I’d rather take one thing at a time so it doesn’t take everyone so long to read both of our posts, as I know some would prefer me to cut my own down and both of us is a lot for those who didn’t like my length of post.
            Maybe that way if our discussion is to continue, we will both be a little more limited on what our posts contain.
            That really depends on whether you are interested in more discussion or not.
            I love to talk about Jesus. There is nothing like Him, and I love him with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind, and with all my strength. I bless His Holy Name regularly through out the day. So you are welcome to believe what you want to believe and it is your choice as to whether you desire Jesus enough to check out what I say is in the scriptures for yourself. Learning things that you missed in the scriptures before is a good thing, not a bad thing. The Lord loved us and he never told us life following Him would be easy as that would have been a lie; God teaches us through the trials we go through in our lives, and it is how we grow in our knowledge and beliefs in Jesus. He teaches us the Fruit of the Spirit that we could have once we learn the lesson in the trial. He is an awesome God who offers everything a person could want if the belief, faith, and trust is strong enough that he will provide everything he told us he wanted to give his children.
            God Is Love and We are to be the light to help draw people with His Love for us all.
            Blessings!

          • Lark.62

            Thanks.

            There is a segment of the population that will spin anything to make a point. Normal people like you and I and most of the population call this lying.

            The “but Moses is on the Supreme Court building” is an old favorite. The people making that claim conveniently forget to mention the dozens of other images given equal weight.

            There are reliable sources of information out there.

            Snopes and FactCheck dot org are good. Look for references to source documents.

            This is the link to the Snopes article on the Supreme Court Buildung. Delete the spaces
            www. snopes. com/ politics/ religion/ capital. asp

            Wikipedia is a reliable secondary source. It cannot be used as a source in academic

          • Eldrida Urika

            I liked geography and geology rather than history and continued them in higher learning; I’ve not got the brain that veers to it I guess. I love science and nature though and know a reasonable about of that to make up for it! Of course, much of what I know is from having a long life and combining it what I am aware of and asking someone to help me when I have any problems with a subject I do not know.
            I love learning, but if it is too much information it distracts from what I wanted or needed to know, especially for that reason. I also love to teach and help others know and understand all manner of things that are all around us all the time, but have not been noticed when it is not obvious in their busy world sometimes. Kids absorb information that is new and is about something they are interested in.

            I’m not so great at wanting to read history books, which is why I appreciate people like you who will help me understand some of it, without having to read it all. I am sorry but History isn’t really my subject. My husband is but not necessarily this kind of history.
            Oddly it is usually because it has too much for me to feel like I can remember in the right order etc. but I don’t have that problem with the bible at all. Many have said before that God works in mysterious ways lol!

            I will bookmark those sites so if I can’t find one of the nicer posters to help me with what the limited facts I need really need, at least I can try to find something out for my needs.
            I really appreciate your help, you have been very kind with the help you have given me.
            I am intrigued too: are you a Christian or atheist or ? You seem to know both the bible and the things that are happening about History with a much wider brush than a lot of people. Or maybe a history degree graduate? ‘smile’

            I guess there are the ones that attract the media kind of attention, and the others are just not made to be seen in the media because it used to be about how much they made by selling copies, but now it is more often about hits on the articles’ site and the supporters of those sites. The thing is no matter what the headline says, it is the way the person who wrote the headline who is choosing what reaction they feel will bring more people to the article. The same method is used for all advertising just more focused on the thing they are trying to sell, rather than an issue that people want to know about.

            I am aware of this practice because my dad was in the business and when he told me things like this, I always remembered it as this is a good thing to know about news headlines if you find you react to them. It might change how you read the article by the mindset the ad/headline is focused on giving it’s readers. It’s easy to manipulate by giving people an mental image to react to. It’s using the way our brains work as a tool to do a better job of attracting certain people to what the article says, and how it is said.
            So I am offering some of my knowledge to you to – maybe – make a difference to how you react to the headlines. It can make a difference to your perception of what is said. I hope you can utilize this if you don’t already know it.
            May I can ask you other questions other times now you know I ask for the knowledge not to hassle you? It would help to know I can find you to ask if I need to. Some here are not good at helping and prefer to belittle my lack of knowledge or what I try to say, and it would help to avoid that kind of thing if I have your permission. Do not give it just because I ask please, if you would rather I didn’t trouble you, only if you truly do not mind, ok. I don’t want to act like I am expecting to have it, rather than asking you to decide that. I’m sometimes excessively considerate to others at times. So now it’s up to you!
            Blessings and have a good day, or whatever!!

          • Lark.62

            The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789. This document with its 27 amendments is the basis for our government. Any document written before this including the Declaration of Independence has no authoritative standing. On the other hand, the Constitution makes us a nation of laws and Supreme Court rulings do have authoritative standing (Article III and Article VI).

            The DoI is beautiful. But it was in essence a press release drafted for the purpose of getting France to give us aid in the fight against Great Britain.

            The fact that some schools used the bible in classrooms does not make it constitutional. Google “Philadelphia Bible Riots”. This shows what happens when one sect manages to get their religious views established in public schools. Bear in mind that the people killing each other were all christians.

            The founders specifically and intentionally kept religion out of the Constitution. They saw what the merger of religion and government had done in Europe, including suppression, imprisonment and wars. The godless Constitution was intentional.

            A number of 20th Century Supreme Court rulings clarified the place of religion in schools. These are backed up by the Equal Access Act of 1984. Children have a right to pray, read religious texts, etc. in school. But school employees simply cannot tell anyone to pray, or give preference to one religious view.

            The fact that colonial schools taught from the bible before 1789 is not relevant. The fact that schools allowed prayer and bible reading before the 1962 Supreme Court ruling is not relevant. And as demonstrated in Philadelphia, the government should not be promoting religion.

            Wikipedia has good articles on the Constitution, the History of the Constitution, the Philadelphia Nativist (Bible) Riots, and School Prayer. Also read the articles on Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schempp, the Fourteenth Amendement and the Equal Access Act.

          • Eldrida Urika

            I have a wariness of Wikipedia and all it’s various Wiki sites because it was originally built by anyone who wanted to write their understanding of anything and not necessarily the truth. I like to have more than just wiki telling me about things ever since they had the problems identified.
            There is always three sides to every story told. The person that is telling their side, the person on the other side, and the truth. People do not view just one way from anything they are involved in themselves. Their truth is from what they see and only that view, without including other views which makes it like a half-truth instead.
            Try asking someone else who was present during something you were, what they remember about it and there will be some things that will be different. Just being on opposite sides of the room can bring a different view on some things. It is rare that two people (even witnesses) will tell the exact story when asked about one incident.
            So I tolerate others who believe differently than I but it does not mean I will jump sides just because of someone’s opinion. Even historians believe in what happened in history from what they accepted as truth when they themselves learned it and often from the side of the person they in turn learned it from. Too many sides make it stew instead of a bowl of understanding you see?
            The media have always been about making the stories sell copies so no matter when it is in history and many of the headlines were more for the reaction than showing them the whole thing for their own understanding of the issue. One side is useless without the other as it is limited to the view of the person who wrote about it.
            So if it was big in the headlines and believed as the ONLY way to view the issue than it is a directed opinion not a free thinking one. Does that make sense to you?
            I really do have an understanding of things in the world that has been within my life experience from the last 40 years minimum, and it is not all religious.
            Many people limit their knowledge from taking one view and not finding out about the other. I can’t do that it is not how I was raised to deal with the things in life and I believe it is a better way than just accepting what someone else tells me.
            I just cannot merge the two ways to look at this without having problems since they are totally opposite from each other.
            I know Christianity will be removed as there is no choices given to that. No one can even say their opinions without someone else bashing them for it anymore.
            I have read a lot of articles that say that there is a problem with the way some of the religions are teaching in the schools about their beliefs rather than their history including with the reasons for their belief. And with the law against Christianity being used by the education system – it isn’t even being taught about alongside the other religions when there are many cultures who have no “real” understanding of Christianity and that it should be taught alongside the others, not eradicated so the people don’t only know the others from their education. Children do not have the ability to reason which is necessary if they are being taught to make a decision like religion seriously. And religions are always serious to the ones that hold those beliefs.
            So unless they teach religions only at a higher level of understanding I think by not giving all religions a fair share of lessons about them, not how to live like them, just about how they lived/live and historical things, without pushing the belief like it is the only way to believe, then we can expect those religions to be believed above all else. So I only believe in equality of information about religions not that only one needs to be removed and all others may have all the lessons so no one who does not know and understand about Christianity is not able to make a proper choice.
            So take it out as we know you must out of the way they teach everything else, but don’t make it look like Christianity is a hateful religion because of past history of humans regardless of their personal faith. It is not our Christian religion that makes us hate anyone and murder is against our faith PERIOD. So those in that bible riot that killed others were not Christians in faith, they were going against every single thing that our religion believes. So don’t bother pointing things about Christians that are directed at making Christians like those people, because any faithful Christian will know those people were not followers of Jesus. He would never agree to violence of any sort, and he told us very clearly that murder is a very bad thing (sin) to do. They went against all of the Christian beliefs if they incited violence or murdered anyone. They were not acting as true faithful Christians. It actually makes me wonder if they were put in place to create a problem and encourage violence between the two sides, rather than those people were faithful, as Christians believe that there is a way to get along without violence or any worse sins.
            The majority of Christians could be said to be lovers not fighters, at least not with violence. the only fight we believe is our stand in support of our beliefs when others try to say we cannot have that belief. We will stand to fight against our religion being removed or changed if it is not in the bible. But we won’t be coming out of the corners ready for fisticuffs, as we use words like adults should.
            Your views seem to be so anti-Christian that it is for the most part like you just want that religion out of the nation and forgotten rather than allowing for others to see things differently. It won’t happen just by removing it from the government and education.
            So I feel like there will be a next phase of ridding the country of Christianity that will come after it is removed from the public eye in the majority of ways it is seen now and it was seen in the past. Because of people who hate Christians, and not because it would be to the benefit of everyone in the nation.
            I also think it should be up to the schools not the government how they run the schools based on everyone’s belief if they are all of the same belief. Otherwise it is like the places that will not allow a different belief in their countries.
            If they stick to the law when it comes to someone’s complaint, that is what should be what they need to base it on, not someone who has no bearing on the issue coming to say they can’t when it is what the PEOPLE of the school all agree on.
            People know they are able to complain and have something done if they join a school and it tries to force them into agreeing with their beliefs. So when the day comes that someone who is not Christian says they are not happy, that is when the school should be forced to hide their unanimous belief, not before. The government should have considered the many difference with the people of the nation as well as the fact that there are still virtually Christian only areas that exist today. To me refusing to let a whole group of people their belief when there is no actual issue is as wrong as forcing someone to only believe their view. It’s wrong to take anything away from a whole group of people who want it without any dissenters that are actually affected by that group. It is oppressive for them.
            They didn’t put up with it with one school area as the whole town showed up and prayed out loud together at the beginning of the next game. So it should be based on individual issues, not a blanket law that is not necessary for everyone.
            Pushing Christianity out of every public place and that is not about the supposed right to speak out on corners considering Christians are often removed by the police as the people who are trying to incite problems when it is the people heckling them that were violent? no it is not just a removal from the education system and government, it is way to make us hide behind our church doors or have a problem with the law.
            When people can be removed for speaking of the bible text – including things about loving each other – that is taking the Christian view out of the public eye. Otherwise, the law would remove the ones that disagree and are not able to walk by and not try to fight about it, instead of the Christian. And I am aware of exactly that happening.
            I can’t agree with erasing the Christian belief from the public just because others don’t agree with it.
            I was taught that some people will not like you, some will not agree with you and that’s ok because there will always people who do like you and do agree with you, so rather than fight (as in violent fighting) walk away and find those people who are a benefit to your life, not a negative.
            When I was a child and any child threw the kind of temper tantrum we see so often in adults now, they were called Spoiled Brats because no one is expected to always have their way. no one. not always. The way the nation gives in to so many thing because it hurts someone’s feelings is juvenile. it is saying that that person(s) are right and to heck with everyone else’s feelings they are the only ones that count. Do they not think we as Christians feelings are ‘hurt’ by this removal of our belief from the public? But does anyone care about our feelings when they choose to take a few opinions and make it into something forced on the ones that do not agree? NO not at all. Christian feelings have no power just others feelings.
            Sorry everyone has their feelings hurt and some often and some not, but it isn’t something you throw a temper tantrum so someone will want to stop it – like they do with youngsters who screech until they are given what they want – and giving in is just saying that they do have that power and makes them feel more important than anyone who disagrees. Do people not know that giving in to someone’s feelings is just wrong. It gives them the control over a lot of people who do not agree and not just religions either.
            Again, until I see evidence that people do allow Christians to speak their truth on corners and that anyone hassling them will be the ones who are troubled by the law, it is an obvious attempt at taking our religion and making it against the law because people don’t agree with it. It looks like that is what to expect in the future if they are already blaming Christians for the violence others incite. How else can I view this when those things are honestly happening.
            Please don’t try to tell me they aren’t true, because there are a few that I verified when I read them because it is wrong and I had a hard time believing it happened.

          • Netizen_James

            >It is rare that two people (even witnesses) will tell the exact story when asked about one incident<

            Interesting that you should understand the low evidentiary value of eyewitness reports, and yet still give credence to the anonymous hearsay of the Gospels! 🙂

          • Eldrida Urika

            I don’t listen to the “anonymous hearsay of the Gospels”
            You see the thing is, I go only by the bible, and do not need to look for outside ‘opinions’ as I am led by the Holy Spirit and I was not the one that wanted me to lead others this way, as it is Him that opens anyone’s eyes to what the scriptures say no matter where it is in the bible. There is many a person who has testified that they were reading a scripture that they had always understood as “this” but when they read it this time, it had more than “this” to be understood. He leads us to scriptures Himself if you are going to experience something that would be helped with knowing it. Too many people do not know the bible at all, too many put it down and only pick it up when they go to church (therefore ONLY know what the speakers at church tell them and believe them, without making sure they are confirmed in the scriptures. It is like how the scribes and Pharisees led the students wrong in the law by telling them things incorrectly and living in ways that were taught as sinful. Jesus told us in the scriptures specifically for us to even verify what anyone says about the scriptures and make sure that what they are teaching adhere’s to the scriptures.
            From what I can gauge from this site, the way I know the scriptures is because of 2 things; I listen to my Church leaders, and I read the bible too, but mostly I follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance to see the scriptures and understand them. I am quite confident that I say nothing that is not in the scriptures because I’ve read them myself. I speak for no one But Jesus, not even myself unless I am giving my own opinion which I try hard to remember to say it is my own opinion when I do.
            So as I keep repeating, you have the control now. If you do not believe the scriptures say what I am telling you, then you have the choice about whether to look for them and see if they do make what I say valid according to the scriptures. It is just my duty as a Child of God to lead people to the scriptures and let them have the control from that point.
            Each of us have a responsibility to confirm what the Word of God says, especially if it is not what you have known previously.
            It’s simply this: if you choose not to search the scriptures to find the ones I speak of, you are taking the chance that it is not the Truth which would make a difference to the way you live and teach etc. So that’s YOUR choice not mine so how would I be lying about those scriptures? It’s you that has to look for them, not me. I know where they are already. But it has to be each individual’s choice to want to know the Truth, so all I do is offer the scriptures so you have the control not I.
            God will have the people who he wants to look at them and will open their eyes to see, so other than being the messenger of God, I have nothing else I can do for those who read my posts. Including you.
            So if you don’t want to agree, or look, then fine! It is up to you, and anyone else who reads my posts. What you choose to do is not about my choice it is about yours. And God’s guidance to the ones who will look. If you are not one of those, then maybe God has decided this would not be the way to show you the Truth, but this is for others who do thirst for the Word of God and will take the time and effort to search and see for themselves.
            I just saw a very long reply that will as usual take me some time to go through. FYI I will reply to what you say but I have to do other things too, so I have to divide my time too. But I am enjoying this discussion as we are not slinging stones but exchanging thoughts, if you will please be careful about the insults. Otherwise, I won’t want to keep discussing anything with you. So I hope we can continue the discussion without it, and respect each others views as different beliefs and be able to look at it as help to understand each other.
            Blessings! Have a good day/evening!

          • Netizen_James

            >why do all the government building have all the displays of Christian markers?I also wonder why the Christian religion was set in place as a part of the education system in that case. I understood the bible was like a first reading book (although I can’t imagine the thee’s and thou’s as a first time reader)how is the Christian religion not a valid historical fact rather than the things that you use to support the oppositeIs there historical documents other than these that show anything different than what you say, or do you only use the ones that refer to it like these things.<
            So you're asking me to research your side of the debate? Can't you do that for yourself? 🙂 Show me where the COTUS grants the government the authority to promote your beliefs as being more 'valid' or more 'officially correct' than my beliefs. Good luck with that!

            Jefferson wrote: "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

            Madison wrote: "The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor."

            What more evidence do you need that it's *not* the case that all of the Founders were devout evangelical Christians who intended to create a 'Christian Nation'? Do I need to pull out the UNANIMOUS Senate ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli too, or do you already know about that? 🙂

          • Eldrida Urika

            Netizen, please don’t treat me like I am trying to hassle you, as I am trying to understand, not hassle.
            Every time there is a discussion about this religion /government thing, the things I pointed out were things pointed out in those. If I don’t ask I already understand. OK?
            So every time someone points out the Christian monuments (markers) in the Government buildings, they are ignoring the other religions that are also represented. OK that makes a difference to my understanding right there, because if I had known that before I would not have had the impression I had. I went to these places as a child and really have little specific memories of the monuments except the one with Abraham Lincoln in a chair that looked enormous to a small girl. That stands out in my memory, but the others do not.
            I can’t imagine those other religions being represented always, so have they been there always, or have they been added since the nation has become multicultural?
            I am not someone who is trying to try your patience. I am honest and straightforward in my posts at all times. So please help me to understand and not make me feel bad about asking or ask me to discuss it with someone else if you find me frustrating.
            I am a Christian but I don’t have the exclusive view because of the length of time that I have followed Jesus. I don’t have the belief that everyone must be Christian or must believe the way I do. I believe that tolerance helps the world get along a lot better than demands of agreement.
            I was in Canada for some of my education and I remember the history that told us that a big reason that people abandoned Britain was about the way the monarchy insisted people believe and that it was not consistent with the people’s beliefs that chose to come to the “new world” as well as taxes and other issues that they could not change so they instead chose to break off and come here.
            The majority of the States is still Christian so considering the last 100 years it would make sense that the majority of people who came here followed the Christian faith, regardless of the founding father’s beliefs. If the majority had not been Christian wouldn’t that mean a lot less than the majority would be Christian now? There had to be a larger majority in the past for it to still be the major religion now.
            I think that people chose to do what they wanted to do regardless of the founding fathers (not much different from today actually) and wanted their religion to be able to be seen by the world when they did include religion in the things that you are intent on removing, otherwise the founding fathers or the leaders afterwards would not have allowed those monuments in the government in the first place. Some higher up would have had to approve of them before they would be put in place. So that is another point I am not understanding. People could not put the Christian religion as prominently if the people in charge did not want it too. So if the founding fathers were not religious, it still appears that the majority were Christian regardless of those men, and still wanted the nation to be a Christian nation without the father’s approval necessarily troubling their efforts. So did all those monuments only been placed after the founding fathers were gone so they could not do that, or were they of the mind that since the people left England to get away from the monarchy; because of the way they controlled their religious abilities. The fathers would not stop the religious because it would have been acting the same way the monarchy they got away from, instead of the freedom they won in the independence of the USA. That makes more sense to me because of what they wanted independence from. I find it strange that the way you understand the reasons for the rebellion to become free from those pressures back at home, was to exclude God from a country that was at the time a very large majority of Christians who wanted God in their lives and the new nation just not the way the monarchy wanted it.
            I also look at it with the open mind that tries to look at every nuance of information to make determination of what I agree with/ believe when others tell me that I must agree or IT WAS THIS WAY AND DAMNED ANYONE WHO SAYS IT DIDN’T.
            Some places do that by erasing the holocaust and that is just as wrong (to remove history like it didn’t happen when the whole world knew) and saying it was this way when so many believe something else has got to be based with both sides information known. A decision made without considering both sides is irresponsible to me, especially when it is about someone’s words, rather than what others words also say. If you decide on something just because someone told you so (kind of like people knocking us for saying that we believe in the bible and it told me something) is like a little kids trust that mommy and daddy won’t ever lie to them – even about Santa Claus!!
            As adults we are responsible to be able to support our beliefs with facts not opinions.
            And if one set of facts is saying something different than another and the other set is what the majority believes, why would anyone ‘just accept’ another version of history that is totally different than most people’s understanding of the issue.
            It would be like future generations of those places that removed the Holocaust from their history books when they look at WWII and find out the truth from another place where does it include the Holocaust in history. What they learn is the reason they will know it is the truth because it has to be or WWII would not have been what it was.
            So how can I decide to listen to your version (no offense) and ignore everything I have learned in my life as ‘right’ when both sides have “proof” (in history) that they are “right” and it seems to me the majority (then) would have their way, more than what the founding fathers did if they were not Christians simply because the freedom of the nation depended on being free to have their religious beliefs dictated to them instead of coming from our Bible.
            When the founding fathers decided to remove Christianity from the nation’s beliefs, it did not work. Otherwise it would not have been an act of freedom it would once again be that they are TOLD how to believe or behave.
            So did I help you understand why I am questioning what you say, because it is simply that what you say is not consistent with all other information I have Ever heard about with the History of the Independence of the new world.
            One is saying it is not about Christianity and because the founding fathers did not believe as the majority of the nation at that time, I don’t think it mattered to them a whole lot since they built so much of the nation on the belief after the founding fathers made their own opinions into their freedom from the monarchy. That is what that is, their own opinions and obviously not what the nation who was made up of Christians would have wanted God included in their free nation.
            You seem to think that because they were not religious like the others who were, that the nation would just accept and change their views when that is a dream of an unbeliever. Because of the evidence of the faith it seems to be inconsistent with the facts.
            So tell me how I can only believe your version because the majority of people here seem to agree that regardless of the founding fathers non-religious views the nation was a majority Christian belief and they were not going to give up that faith because of someone else not believing in it themselves, no matter who they are. Faith is not something that should be weak enough to give in to another belief when ours is laid out clearly in our Bible.
            I honestly do not understand so if you can show me that it is the ONLY right way to understand the history of the USA when so many don’t agree, please do, as it can make a difference but remember that I can look at search results and only choose my own way of believing instead of the others too. The internet is capable of giving every opinion of views from every side of the issues.
            Also, why would so many Americans not know the truth about the history of the nation but you do? It makes me question things. I’m about learning all about as much as I can before I agree, not just one side or the other, both.
            Blessings!

          • Netizen_James

            >OK that makes a difference to my understanding right there, because if I had known that before I would not have had the impression I had.I believe that tolerance helps the world get along a lot better than demands of agreement. The majority of the States is still ChristianPeople could not put the Christian religion as prominently if the people in charge did not want it too.So did all those monumentsI find it strange that the way you understand the reasons for the rebellion to become free from those pressures back at home, was to exclude God from a country that was at the time a very large majority of Christians who wanted God in their lives and the new nation just not the way the monarchy wanted it. And if one set of facts is saying something different than another and the other set is what the majority believes, why would anyone ‘just accept’ another version of history that is totally different than most people’s understanding of the issue. When the founding fathers decided to remove Christianity from the nation’s beliefstheir own opinions and obviously not what the nation who was made up of Christiansthe nation was a majority Christian beliefwhy would so many Americans not know the truth about the history of the nation<

            Because of deceptive clergy, pandering politicians, and conspiratorial capitalists. That's why. Because the first victim of any war is Truth, and culture wars are no exception. Because the victors write the history.

            Bet nobody ever taught you about the Philadelphia Bible riots either, now did they? Does that mean they didn't happen? What did you learn about the Dressing Point Massacre? How about the Yazoo Land Scandal – did you learn about that one? Bet not. Have you ever heard of Howard Zinn? Read some of his history books. He's got the scoop.

          • Netizen_James

            See also: “The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness” by Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore

          • Netizen_James

            If my post with the link gets modded-out, please search for ‘Chris Rodda David Barton Glen Beck’ – the Truth is out there –
            you’ll find it.

          • Eldrida Urika

            It sounds like an opinion rather than some facts that will encourage me to view the issue differently.
            I go strictly by the bible combined with my own life experiences, not by someone else’s opinion.
            I haven’t been religious for most of my life so I still know the World Views of a non-believer so I am able to use both to make my choices and to understand what the things in the World vs. my bible. It has made a very big difference in a lot of ways, including being able to explain things from either point of view and help others to understand more.
            FYI take some things out of the link to have a chance to get through the mod. like periods, slashes, and then tell what needs to be changed next. They do not want links that could cause problems so by not having a direct link it is not a problem for the board, and we have to enter it ourselves into our browser instead so any danger is ours alone.
            Blessings!

          • Netizen_James

            The founding fathers were the heathens, rejecting the clear Scriptural Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (see Romans13:1-6) by rebelling against the God-Given Authority of King George III. Relying instead on the doctrine of blasphemous enlightenment philosophers like John Locke that government gets its authority from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. Surely you’ve read the Declaration of Independence, where the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and hence the words of St. Paul, are shredded to bits, right?

      • Netizen_James

        No, it’s not. Do you really want the clerk at the DMV wasting your time by trying to convert you to Scientology when you’re just trying to renew your drivers license? Do you want CPS agents removing children from the households of Christians because clearly the Christians are abusing their children by telling them that they’re inherently sinful and in need of Salvation? Of course not. Government agents are not allowed to use the authority of the public office to promote, encourage, decry or disdain any religion or religious belief. What goes around, comes around. This is what Jesus taught, and what we’ve come to call ‘the golden rule’. If you don’t want your child’s teacher leading them in prayers to Baal, then you can’t let your child’s teacher lead them in prayers to YHWH either.

      • Rookheight

        Actually it does matter what SCOTUS thinks, because we live in a society of laws. Article III says that it matters.

        It is not unconstitutional to prohibit government actors from using their position to push religion on public school students. In fact, it’s constitutionally mandated. Whether you think it’s anti-God is irrelevant.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Way to go Illinois; a benchmark for ALL school districts to follow.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Pray and Play.

  • Emily Hill

    As a resident in Evansville, Indiana….DON’T WORRY ABOUT WHAT OUR COACHES AND PLAYERS DO!!!!! That coach along with many other coaches do not MAKE these boys pray…they do it because they WANT to do it!!! Go harass someone else!!! Absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!

    • Maxwell Edison

      No, the anti-Christian hate group known as the Freedom From Religion Foundation merely followed the complaint of an unnamed fellow bigot who had a conniption because (gasp!) the coach was actually praying with the team!

      You know the type: If you are praying and you are not a muslim, then I am against it, and nobody should be able to pray.

      You know what? If I were the mayor of that town, I would tell the FFRF to get off their high horse and physically come down if they want to whine. And once they did, they’d be greeted at the door of their hotel room the same way Otter was in Animal House, if you know what I mean. Then they’d brought back to the airport and told to leave the town and its people alone forever.

      • Netizen_James

        And you would waste thousands of your citizens’ hard-earned tax-dollars on stupid court cases that you will LOSE and be forced to pay the FRFF’s court costs. And then you’ll have no money left to fix the roads or the sewers, and you will be voted out of office. It’s happened before, and it can happen again.

        But of course, those who refuse to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it…..

        And my, what ‘Christian Love’ you’re demonstrating there, with your threats of violence. Is that what Jesus would do? Would Jesus act like one of those neo-nazi-jerkwads from Omega Theta Pi? Really? Not the Jesus I read about in the Gospels. Maybe that’s Roy Moore’s Jesus who approves of hitting on 15 year old girls, but not mine.

        You live in the UNITED STATES. That means you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US SUPREME COURT. If you don’t like it, feel free to try to rebel and form your own country. But, given that you clearly don’t read history, I’m obligated to tell you – that didn’t work out so well for the rebels the first time that was attempted. How much blood will you spill over your attempt to create a theocracy? Are you that much of a Dominionist? Or do you even know what that means?

        • Maxwell Edison

          And my, what ‘Christian Love’ you’re demonstrating there, with your threats of violence. Is that what Jesus would do?

          You are aware Jesus chased people with a whip and knocked over tables, correct?

          Don’t evoke Jesus as if you know Him, when we both know you don’t.

          And, yes, I most certainly am in favor of violence toward bullies. That’s the way things used to be handled in the schoolyard, and it works.

    • Netizen_James

      Nobody is claiming that anyone forced the boys to pray. But that’s irrelevant. The government agent here (the coach) is not allowed to use the authority of his public office to encourage or endorse any religious belief. Period.

      Do you worry about what Police in Connecticut do when they violate the rights of US Citizens to be free from unwarranted searches or seizures? Of course you do. Or should. This is no different. US Citizens have a RIGHT to be free from Government Religion. Which you would immediately understand if the government were promoting or encouraging beliefs which you do not share….

      • Maxwell Edison

        Do you worry about what Police in Connecticut do when they violate the rights of US Citizens to be free from unwarranted searches or seizures? Of course you do. Or should. This is no different. US Citizens have a RIGHT to be free from Government Religion. Which you would immediately understand if the government were promoting or encouraging beliefs which you do not share….

        Not relevant.

        • Silas Jennings

          Please explain why it’s not relevant rather than just knee-jerking that it’s not relevant.

    • NCOriolesFan

      God Bless you Emily and your hometown coach.

  • Robin Egg

    Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
    of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
    assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    The coach and his players have the right to pray if they so choose. Period. If you do not like it, please contact your senator or congressman and express your displeasure.

    • Netizen_James

      “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. ” US Supreme Court on the meaning of the Establishment Clause. (330 US 1; “EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP”)

      No, the coach, while acting in his official capacity as a government agent is NOT allowed to act in any manner which could be reasonably interpreted as being intended to promote, encourage, disdain or decry any religious belief. By participating in the student’s prayer, the coach was violating the establishment clause. This is well-settled case-law. To fight it would be a stupid waste of taxpayer resources. Use that money to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and support those in prison, not to pay FRFF’s lawyers. Everybody wins!

      • Maxwell Edison

        Flagged for blatant anti-Christian trolling.

        I guarantee you if I spoke like this at an atheist website, I’d get banned so fast there’d be a hole in the space/time continuum. As such, this should not be allowed on Christian websites.

        • Silas Jennings

          Oh please. He didn’t even MENTION Christianity in his post.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Do you think I care what you think?

          • Silas Jennings

            No. You seldom care about facts.

        • Lark.62

          Most people, including christians, value accurate information. There is nothing “anti christian” about factual information.

        • Rookheight

          If you think reality is “anti-Christian,” maybe you aren’t as confident in your belief as you think.

          • Maxwell Edison

            The reality is some people hate Christians and Christianity. Which is why they come to a Christian website to tell people that others, like this coach, has no right to pray with his team. Not only does the Constitution not say that, the Bible also says this type of persecution stems from hate, and that you should not simply stop praying because some bigot tells you to.

          • Rookheight

            All you’re doing is assuming people who don’t say what you want them to say are anti-Christian. You’re just making things up so that you don’t feel so bad losing this “discussion” so badly.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Excuse me, who are you? Are you an actual troll or someone’s sock puppet? Because that is such an asinine statement it simply has to be a troll.

          • Rookheight

            A troll is someone who just tries to make others mad without saying anything of substance. You spout nonsense and then call everyone who challenges you a troll, regardless of what they say. I’m afraid you’re the only troll in this discussion.

          • Maxwell Edison

            No, a troll is someone that deliberately posts comments designed to anger people.

            There is simply no argument that the Freedom From Religion Foundation consists of people who hate Christians and Christianity. This Gaylor woman has publically attacked the Bible, not merely said, “Play, don’t pray.”

            I said from the word GO there would be people defending this garbage. You act like a bunch of anti-Christian bigots and then have the audacity to get offended when you get called on it.

            But here’s a newsflash: You have no right to be offended. You made the decision to come to a Christian website for the sole purpose of mocking and ridiculing the Christian faith and espousing anti-Christian attitudes. In other words, you came here because you HATE.

            And there’s nothing to deny either: All one needs to do is look at the active threads. Your own words make you (and the sock puppets) liars. Every. Single. Time.

            So spare me the baloney about “stating facts.” That’s already been rebutted, completely and thoroughly. This is about the open persecution of Christians and your defense of it.

            I’m done here.

          • Rookheight

            You gave up the game when you said that when someone “publically (sic) attacked the Bible,” that means that they “hate Christians and Christianity.” That’s just not true. I’ve publicly attacked both the Christian Bible and the Koran, but I hate neither Christians nor Muslims. As I’ve pointed out before, you’re just assuming people hate you so that you can feel persecuted. It’s all in your head.

            You repeated it again, saying that by standing up for the First Amendment we “act like a bunch of anti-Christian bigots.” But no, we haven’t and don’t. Again, it’s all in your head.

            Finally, you said that we “have no right to be offended.” I’m not sure what you even mean by that, but it seems like you’re the only one who’s “offended.” I, at least, am just standing up for the U.S. Constitution.

            As you said, you’re done here. Try calming down and re-thinking your entire position and maybe we’ll have a more civil conversation next time.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Dude, enough. Enough with the lies.

            It is impossible to have a civil conversation with someone who is being intentionally dishonest.

            You can stop acting like you are somehow higher than me, because at the end of the day, you still think this coach has no right to pray with his team, which still makes you a bigot. Good day.

          • Rookheight

            What lies? Government actors don’t have a right to use their position to promote their personal religion, especially to public school children. Your problem is with the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution, not with me. If you think any of that is a “lie” or “dishonest,” please explain.

            Also look up bigotry. You seem to say it a lot but don’t know what it means.

          • Guzzman

            You seem to think anyone who wishes to uphold the Constitution is a “bigot.” You are in serious need of a dictionary, because when you make that claim you are bearing false witness.

            From the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty website:
            “The separation of church and state, or the ‘wall of separation’ talked about by Colonial Baptist Roger Williams, early American leader Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. Supreme Court, is simply a shorthand metaphor for expressing a deeper truth: religious liberty is best protected when church and state are institutionally separated and neither tries to perform or interfere with the essential mission and work of the other. Separation has been good for both church and state.”
            – Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, “Mission and History”

          • Silas Jennings

            There you go again…”lies”, “lies”, “lies”, “dishonesty” and not a single example of what you actually mean. I read Rookheight’s message through several times looking for a lie or anything that could be CONSTRUED as a lie and there is nothing like that there. You’re going to have to do better in articulating your rage.

          • Netizen_James

            >I’m done here.<
            would that it were so!

          • Netizen_James

            The Bible also tells you to go into your closet and pray to your Father in secret, because the ones who pray out in public so that everyone can know how righteous they are have already got what they wanted. Maybe if more Christians would actually follow what Jesus said, rather than putting so much weight on the words of Saul/Paul, the Body of Christ wouldn’t be in such bad shape as it is now.

            And yes, the Constitution DOES say that government agents are not allowed to use the authority of the public office to promote, encourage, denigrate or decry any religion or religious tenet. That’s what the establishment clause means. Our right to religious liberty necessarily includes the right to be free from Government Religion – regardless of *what* religion government wants to promote.

            In short, it is my opinion that ‘There are no gods we’re on our own’ is exactly as inappropriate for a US Motto as ‘In God We Trust’ is, and for exactly the same reasons.

          • Silas Jennings

            I cannot think of a single person who hates Christians or Christianity. I can think of plenty of people who hate some of the misguided and hateful things SOME Christians do believing themselves to have the moral high ground when all they have is bigotry.

          • Amen.

        • Netizen_James

          You don’t know many atheists do you? If you posted something similar but opposite to the AtheistRepublic facebook page, you would be certainly NOT be banned. They just LOVE ignorant theists trolling them – you’ll get boatloads of condemnation and possibly even some outright abuse. But they won’t ban you! They’ll just play with you like cats playing with an injured mouse. And you’ll have the mouse’s chance of your arguments actually standing up, because so far you have presented no arguments, no evidence, no facts, no history, merely bluster and name-calling, and threats of violence in Jesus’ name.

          While you’re at it, send a nasty note to the FFRF folks. They post their crank-mail to facebook regularly. You are certainly not alone in your ignorant bigotry, and penchant for threatening violence in Jesus’ name. Be sure to check for grammar and spelling though – they post ’em as they get ’em, and dang some of your fellow Christians are stone-ignorant.

    • Maxwell Edison

      Anything posted by Netizen_James should be flagged on sight due to his defense of anti-Christian bigotry, which in turn is spurred by his own hatred for any and everything Christian.

      • Robin Egg

        Already done. Thank you. Yes, he is full of hate for Christians that is evident. Sad that he has nothing better to do with this time. God bless!

        • Netizen_James

          So you’re going to join in to the bearing of false witness? Think for yourself. What did I say that demonstrated any sort of ‘hate’ for Christians? I posted a quote from the Supreme Court, and talked about how religious liberty is for EVERYONE, and that means that religious liberty implies that we have a right to be free from Government Religion. I’d have said the exact same thing if the government were promoting or endorsing Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism or atheism. But in this particular case, the government agent in question was promoting Christianity. Religious liberty means we have a right to be free from Government Religion. Period. No matter whose religion the government is attempting to promote.

      • Silas Jennings

        That doesn’t usually work out too well for you. He’s correctly pointing out that you can’t proselytize whenever and wherever you want, depending on your capacity. That does not constitute bigotry.

        • Maxwell Edison

          And he’s wrong. And so are you.

          • Silas Jennings

            There is a reason you get banned and the things you flag do not. I mean a five year old could figure it out.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Yep. We are working to rectify that.

            People who mock and/or ridicule God, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity or the Bible don’t belong here and are persona non grata. Even a five-year-old can understand that.

          • Silas Jennings

            “We”. Cute.
            I would say your Christian persecution meter is through the roof when you accuse someone of “blatant anti-Christian trolling” when they don’t even mention Christianity.

          • Netizen_James

            And contrary to your lies about me, I have done none of those things. I have not mocked anyone’s beliefs, I have not ridiculed anyone’s religious beliefs. I have merely posted the facts about what the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean, and facts about existing caselaw, and my opinion about that caselaw. If you think you can find one statement of mine that ‘ridicules’ God, Jesus, Christians, Christianity or the Bible, I challenge you to reply to this post with a copy-n-paste quote of that statement. You will not be able to do so. And I think you know it, and that you’re deliberately lying and bearing false witness against me, because you have no other way of defending your opposition to religious liberty applying to EVERYONE, not just people who are just like you. You sound like one of those people who can’t even acknowledge that the ‘Christian Left’ exists at all. Let me tell you – some of my best friends are Christians. The leader of the group “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” is a Christian. (well, was, Rev. Lynn just retired) My friends who are Christians are leftists BECAUSE they are Christians, and they value Jesus’ words regarding the equal worth of all humans, and the danger of being addicted to the worldly temptations of money and power. Rack up your treasure where the moths can’t eat, and thieves can’t steal. Sell all you have and give the proceeds to the poor. Isn’t that what Jesus said to do? Is Joel Osteen doing that? USE that brain that God gave you for something other than padding your skull.

          • Maxwell Edison

            And contrary to your lies about me, I have done none of those things. I have not mocked anyone’s beliefs, I have not ridiculed anyone’s religious beliefs.

            They just LOVE ignorant theists trolling them – you’ll get boatloads of condemnation and possibly even some outright abuse. But they won’t ban you! They’ll just play with you like cats playing with an injured mouse.

            This is what I love about anti-Christian bigots: Sooner or later, their mask slips and their true self shines through.

            You are free to call me a liar all you like. But you, I, and of course, the God you don’t believe in but for some reason despise know where the truth is, and it is not in your favor.

          • Silas Jennings

            “If one reads the Bible and believes what it says, it is impossible to be anything but a conservative.”

            Obviously you haven’t seen the bumper sticker that says “Obama is not a brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare…You’re thinking of Jesus.”

            Maybe you need to read the Bible again.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Blasphemy. Flagged.

          • Silas Jennings

            It isn’t blasphemy, and they have no reason to flag it.

          • Silas Jennings

            Please explain why this is blasphemy.

      • Rookheight

        Just because someone is refuting your points and embarrassing you at every turn doesn’t make them anti-Christian. They’re just right and you’re mad about it.

    • Lark.62

      The players have an absolute right to pray to any deity they choose or not pray at all free of all government interference.

      This means the coach, while acting with government authority, cannot encourage or discourage religious observance.

      The coach can talk to god in his head all he wants. On his own time, he can kneel, pray out loud, whatever. But while acting for the government, he cannot tell someone else which religion to practice.

      • Silas Jennings

        And some very ignorant people would call that “anti-Christian hate” for some odd reason and feel like we are all out to get him. Sorry, them.

    • Lark.62

      Senators and Congressmen do not outrank the Constitution.

  • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

    This is exactly the reason why our church association firmly encourages all members to vote for the Constitution Party, especially in the local elections! It is long overdue that we bring more people with the Christian outlook on things into our local government, as to then allow them to succeed in federal elections. This way, slowly but steadily, we can reclaim this country back for Christ, including by reintroducing prayer (and Christian norms) into our public schools.

    • MarkSebree

      So, the “Constitution Party” wants to overturn and dismantle the US Constitution. Good to know, and a strong reason to vote AGAINST them.

      • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

        Mark:
        You can look up their platform on their web site. They are not a perfect Christian party–not even close. But having them in the government would be a start.

        Relative to the US Constitution, what the heck do you mean? The Constitution was created to guarantee the rights of Christians in this country. Not those of Cathlics, Mooslims, atheists, or any other pagans!

        • Rookheight

          James Madison and Thomas Jefferson strongly disagree with you. Your view is massively ahistorical, “Dr.” You’ve been misled and apparently never checked yourself.

        • MarkSebree

          And that statement supports my point. The First Amendment and the No Religious Test Clause, as well as Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, guarantee the rights of ALL people to worship whatever religion they want, or no religion at all, without facing any discrimination or loss of rights.

          You want to do away with that equality. You want to dismantle the First Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and remove other protections in the US Constitution which support the rights of everyone. You promote discrimination, bigotry, ignorance, and other societal ills. You are so filled with intolerance for others that you cannot even spell “Muslims” correctly.

          Your statements only support my point. The Constitution Party wants to dismantle the US Constitution, and effectively destroy all the values and ideals that made the USA great. You are one of the domestic enemies that I swore to protect this nation against when I joined the US Navy.

          • Maxwell Edison

            You promote discrimination, bigotry, ignorance, and other societal ills. You are so filled with intolerance for others that you cannot even spell “Muslims” correctly.

            Christians should be intolerant when it comes to things like this insulting garbage. Hypocrite.

            Flagged.

          • Silas Jennings

            There was no reason to flag this.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Silas, you need to be quiet. Seriously.

            Mocking or ridiculing God, Jesus Christ, Christians, Christianity or the Bible shouldn’t ever be tolerated on a Christian website.

            Is there any part of that you don’t understand?

            The only reason you don’t have a problem with it is because you agree with it. And why you should keep your mouth shut.

          • Silas Jennings

            I understand perfectly, Matthew. You don’t. Your persecution meter is through the roof. No one ridicules God or Christ. It’s only His followers that occasionally get ridiculed, and with good reason.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Troll post. Flagged.

          • Silas Jennings

            Look, I am only trying to help you out here. Everything you write on this forum is nasty, combative, aggressive, rude and paranoid schizophrenic. You flag everyone and cal them names. They will BAN you for that. I am starting to think this is what you WANT them to do.

          • Maxwell Edison

            What?

        • Netizen_James

          I do hope that was intended to be sarcasm.

          Surely you understand that Roman Catholics are Christians, don’t you? So are Episcopalians, Anglicans, Mennonites, Amish, Presbyterians and Baptists.

          Or are you just an ignorant nativist, like those involved in the Philadelphia Bible Riots? Would you have been one of the Puritans who banned Christmas, and had Quakers executed for heresy? Would you have been one of the folks executing Anabaptists merely for rejecting the idea of infant baptism?

          No, the founders created a secular government for a reason. The constitution contains no reference to God or Jesus intentionally. This was not some ‘oversight’. The founders left us with a secular government, one intended to be neutral toward ALL religions – promoting none, encouraging none, prohibiting none, enjoining none.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Surely you understand that Roman Catholics are Christians, don’t you?

            No they are not. And a red herring.

          • Silas Jennings

            My dictionary says they are. Is my dictionary wrong?

          • Maxwell Edison

            I didn’t stammer.

          • Silas Jennings

            So you know better than the dictionary. Interesting.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          “The Constitution was created to guarantee the rights of Christians in
          this country. Not those of Cathlics, Mooslims, atheists, or any other
          pagans!”

          Apparently, you’re not very familiar with the Constitution. Why don’t you go read it, come back and tell me where it says only Christians are given rights?

          • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

            King of Rhye:

            First of all, what the heck is a rhye? Did you happen to misspell the word rye, as in crop from which some, especially the Jew, make bread?

            Relative to the Constitution of the United States, you’re kidding us, right? The Constitution was written by Christians and for Christians, in a manner that any real Christian in a real Christian country can get along with one another. To respect this simple proposition, it was written that the government is not prohibit Christians from practicing their Faith, regardless of their Christian denomination, and that the government will not attempt to establish a religion akin to the Cathlic Papism that was ravaging Europe at the time.

            Developing reading comprehension skills and reading the Federalist Papers and other related documents would help you realize your place within the Godly scheme of things! Jesus gave you a brain, do try to use it.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m surprised I don’t get asked about my name more often, actually. It’s a reference to the lyrics of several songs by my favorite rock band, Queen.

            As for the rest: Yes, the Constitution was written by Christians. Well, mostly by James Madison, who while Christian was a firm believer in freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

            “The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated
            hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions
            with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality
            of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly
            increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE.” [James
            Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freedom]

            And sure, it was “written for Christians”….as well as for people of any other religion or those of none. After all, it says “We the people”, not “We the Christians”, doesn’t it?

            “it was written that the government is not prohibit Christians from
            practicing their Faith, regardless of their Christian denomination”

            Where was that written? Certainly not in the Constitution.

            Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Hmm, that doesn’t say that it’s limited to Christian denominations….

            Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
            privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
            State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
            process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
            protection of the laws.” Nope, that doesn’t say “just for Christians”, either….

    • Nick Halflinger

      You do realize that means we will become a Catholic country, as that is the largest voting block.

      • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

        Nick:

        I think you’re confusing the US of A with Mexico!

        • MarkSebree

          No, you are confusing your desires for reality. Roman Catholics make up 20.8% of the US population. Unaffiliated make up 22.8%. And while Protestants make up 46.5% of the population, that is divided between roughly 6000 denominations. (All values taken from CIA Factbook)

          While the larger denominations may have a significant share of the Protestant christian population, their total numbers as a share of the US population does not surpass the Catholics or the Unaffiliated.

      • MarkSebree

        Actually, there are more Unaffiliated now in the US than there are Catholics, according to the CIA Factbook. 20.8% of the population is Catholic, and 22.8% is Unaffiliated.

  • Lisa Franey

    I think we should pray if we want to pray. And these others need to shut up and turn their heads if they don’t like it. Just like the opinions of does one breastfeed in public or not. We thankfully have a great president now so I’m thinking he wouldn’t go against people praying no matter where plus he just might put Prayer back in schools. Be find with me! Anthesist can stay home and home school instead of the religious staying home. This country needs more Prayer then probably we wouldn’t have so many atheists

    • Netizen_James

      So you think it would be perfectly appropriate for your child’s public school classroom teacher to lead the class in prayers to Brahma and Shiva? Or to encourage them to have their ‘thetans’ audited by a licensed Scientologist? No? So why not apply the ‘golden rule’, and treat others as YOU and YOUR FAMILY would want to be treated? If you don’t want the government promoting beliefs you don’t agree with, then you can’t allow government the authority to promote beliefs you DO agree with. If you think you want ‘prayer in school’, watch out what you wish for. Surely you’ve heard of the Philadelphia Bible Riots, right?

      • Maxwell Edison

        Irrelevant troll post. Flagged.

        • Silas Jennings

          Very relevant, very interesting, and there was no reason to flag it.

  • A3Kr0n

    Hopefully a letter is all that it will take because the FFRF has an excellent track record for winning lawsuits.

  • Croquet_Player

    One hopes the school will consult with their lawyers and do the smart thing before they waste a lot of taxpayer dollars on an expensive lawsuit they will lose.

    • Danielle Norman

      You do understand that isn’t how it works, right? I’m sure that the school board has an insurance policy that pays for legal battles. The taxpayers already pay for that policy. As far as win or lose, I’m not a judge. If the newspaper recants the story or there was no actual statement saying they they were in fact praying to a religious being then it falls under assumption. And we all know what assume stands for.

      • Lark.62

        The track record of court cases is quite clear. The school district will lose and pay the plaintiffs legal fees.

        • Danielle Norman

          Do you just comment to see your name or actually try to research? Sueing for reimbursement of legal fees is quite difficult and in most states not legal as it is considered an attempt to hinder another’s right to sue.

          • Bob Johnson

            You may want to check out Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) in particular information concerning settlement of legal fees. After losing the case the district had to pay.

          • Danielle Norman

            Good job Einstein- now look at the date—2005. This is almost what year? Anyone… anyone… Bueller…Bueller?

          • Danielle Norman

            And at one time you could trade people for two mules. Things change. I’m not endorsing this school or actions. I’m suggesting that a bunch of bullies are inserting their values into a town/school. I’d like to see statements from the players if anyone felt coerced, intimidated, or threatened had they not participated in a group circle. I have no clue what they were praying to or if it was just a moment of silence. To me once again it seems like a bunch of radicals with panties in awad trying to get some hoopla started. Why do they believe they deserve a formal statement? Did they have a child involved? People, you are owed NOTHING in this life.

          • Netizen_James

            >I’d like to see statements from the players if anyone felt coerced, intimidated, or threatened had they not participated in a group circle.<

            None of that is the least bit relevant. If you think it is, you clearly do not understand the legal issues involved, and need to do more research.

            Start with Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), then move on to McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948). Take a minor side-trip to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), then keep going to the meat of the issue – Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962), Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985), Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000).

            The caselaw precedent is clear: government agents, which includes public high school coaches, during the performance of their official duties are not allowed take any action which could reasonably be interpreted as intending to promote, encourage, denounce or decry any religious belief. Period. By participating in the allegedly student-initiated prayer-circle, the coach was creating the impression that he, and therefor the school, and therefor the government endorses and supports the religious belief that prayers have value. And that, all by itself, without any need for anyone to feel coerced, intimidated or threatened thereby, is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Which even folks here would admit was problematic, if this was a Muslim coach participating in Muslim prayers (on prayer mats and facing Mecca and all) initiated by students. But for some reason, some folks seem to think that government promoting THEIR religion is ok, it's only a problem when government promotes SOMEONE ELSE's religion. Which of course is an inherently bigoted and discriminatory stance.

          • TruthvLIes

            The fact that none of this is relevant shows how much the USA has gone down the sewer.

            Tell me, what has FFR done for America? Zilch. Zero except cost the Education system a lot of legal money because of the FFR total lack of objective reality.

            The First Amendment talks about what Congress can and cannot do. Not what a Football coach can or cannot do. The fact that FFR will leave no stone unturned to enforce their pathetic attempts to control society shows their lack of concern for the needs of others and their inability to have meaningful relationships with normal people who tend to live and let live because they are not harming anyone.

            I really believe they are the equivalent of the the Afghanistan Taliban whose only motive in life is to tell everyone how long their beard should be and what the dress should cover.

          • kftgr

            > “Tell me, what has FFR done for America? Zilch.”

            FFRF gets involved when someone in the school asks them to advocate on their behalf. Are you saying that those that the FFRF has helped do not deserve fairness and equality?

          • Lark.62

            On what basis do you conclude that the laws governing recovery of legal fees have changed since 2005?

          • Lark.62

            There is generally no need for the plaintiff to sue for legal fees. When the case is decided against the government, the judge issues a judgment that includes recovery of legal fees by the plaintiff. This is quite routine, which one would know if they bothered to look up factual information.

            Recent examples of recovery of legal costs by the FFRF:

            Santa Clara, CA March 2017 $6500

            New Kensington Arnold School District, Feb 2017, $163,000 ($40k to the FFRF).

            Shelton, Conn, Feb 2017, about $1000

            Antelope Valley Union HS School District, CA, April 2016, $10,000

            The larger amounts happen when government officials drag the case through years of appeals or take other actions which run up costs. The Dover School District only had to pay $1 million even though actual plaintiff legal costs were much higher because the judge took pity on them.

        • TruthvLIes

          If the court takes notice of mealy mouthed atheists when the people are minding their own business, the court needs to take a good look at itself.

          The court should uphold anything that will make students better students. It needs to investigate if any of the students praying are causing trouble at school or are if they hard working students and good models. That is what the court shoud concern itself with. Not if some mealy mouth atheist organisation doesn’t like it because some students do what they can’t handle.

          • Lark.62

            The coach is not “minding his own business.” The coach is using his authority as a government employee to direct people under his authority to pray to a deity of his choosing.

            This is illegal.

            And this is the dead opposite of “minding his own business.”

            Every player has the right to pray to a deity of his own choosing or to not pray at all, free of any interence or “encouragement” of any person acting with government authority. The players can pray or not. The coach cannot participate while wielding government authority.

          • TruthvLIes

            You are so pathetic. As if the coach saying “Our Father, which art in heaven” is going to turn every student into a rabid evangelical. Get real and face up to reality.

            I am quite sure that if any of the students were anti God they would have been on the blower to FFR and letting them know what the coach was doing. Who knows, the players may have asked the coach to pray before and after the game.

            You don’t know so keep your sticky beak out of things that don’t concern you. From what you say you don’t give a damn whether the students are good students or are good role models or not.

            I am retired teacher and I faced reality when I was a teacher. No student is going to be perfect and no teacher is going to do everything right every time but I loved teaching because my main interest was to bring out the best in the students, not to cross every T and dot every I to obey the rules perfectly.

            To bring out the best in every student you have to be flexible as they all have different personalities.To frogmarch them to the same tune is a recipe for disaster.

            I had such a good relationship with my students at the school swimming carnival they threw me in the pool fully clothed. Why did they do that? Simple. They knew I would not get out of the pool and give them all a detention.

            I was very proud that they felt free enough to do that.So don;t stick your nose into where you are not wanted and let the staff do what is necessary to bring the best out in students. The coach knows how to do that. You don’t. Your methods will do nothing but make them resentful and poor players.

      • Croquet_Player

        It depends upon their insurance policy. If it’s found that the administrators knew the law, but were negligent in preventing instructors from breaking the law, they may be only partially covered, or not covered at all. And if they opt to enter into a losing lawsuit which was their fault, they may lose their coverage entirely, or find that their premiums have gone up significantly. Instructors may not pray with students. They may also neither encourage nor discourage students from praying, alone or in groups. It’s really not that difficult to grasp the limitations and freedoms involved.

    • TruthvLIes

      NO, I hope they will fight it and every other school district do the same until the FFR shut up and let people get on with their lives as they see fit.

      They are so petty and pathetic. As if praying together is going to make students bad students, when in fact those students that have some religious background make better students but the FFR are so mealy mouthed all they want to do is sabotage the lives of people they don’t agree with.

      They are a petty lot of dictators.

      • kftgr

        > “As if praying together is going to make students bad students, when in fact those students that have some religious background make better students”

        Are you still okay with it if the coach doing this was Muslim?

        • TruthvLIes

          Non sequitur

        • TheKingOfRhye

          I tried to get him to answer a similar question and he never answered it. Either he doesn’t get how it’s relevant or he’s just ignoring it because he doesn’t have an answer.

      • Croquet_Player

        Students have every right to pray in school, alone or in groups. They also have the right to be free from any sort of religious intrusion by staff, whether to encourage or discourage. This is perfectly fair, and protects everyone.

        • TruthvLIes

          If we are to go by the photo, and going by what I know about praying, I would say that the boys were praying for the coach.

          • Croquet_Player

            They are free to pray for whomever they like. But when the coach got involved, he broke the law.

          • TruthvLIes

            As I understand the gospel according to atheists, the coach is not allowed to initiate the prayer. The photo suggests that he did not do that. It suggests that the students initiated it therefore no law was broken.

          • Croquet_Player

            This is not about atheists. This is about U.S. law. The coach is not allowed to pray with his students. It doesn’t matter who initiated it. And the photo in no way suggests who started it. It just shows people praying. You have no idea who started it, based on the photo alone, and neither do I, and it doesn’t matter.

          • TruthvLIes

            So you say O high and mighty one but then if you don’t pray how would you know?

            A bit like a none driver telling a driver the correct way to drive.

            As I have been involved in prayer for years and years and years and years, it does not take much to see what is going on. The student behind the coach with his hand on his shoulder is obviously praying, and it is obvious that the coach is not verbally praying.

            The other students are lending thier support to the student praying which is the way it works most of the time when a group are praying.

            So tell me, what are the parameters of groups you have been involved in who are praying?

          • Croquet_Player

            What makes you think I’ve never prayed? You make an awful lot of entirely baseless assumptions. It doesn’t matter who initiated it, an adult instructor cannot engage in religious activities with students at school.

          • TruthvLIes

            Simple. You never answered the question I asked you about praying.

            Adn please quote the law that says a coach cannot be involved in anything religious even if he is not doing anything towards the religious activity.

          • Croquet_Player

            Well, you’re mistaken. I have prayed. As far as coaches praying with students, please see Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

          • TruthvLIes

            U.S. Supreme Court

            Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

            Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

            No. 21

            Argued November 12, 1968

            Decided February 24, 1969

            393 U.S. 503

            Syllabus

            Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the regulation was within the Board’s power, despite the absence of any finding of substantial interference with the conduct of school activities. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed by an equally divided court.

            Held:

            1. In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. They were not disruptive, and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was within the protection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth. Pp. 505-506.

            2. First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Pp. 506-507.

            3. A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 507-514.

            383 F.2d 988, reversed and remanded.

            Still looking for the word Coach.

          • Croquet_Player

            “Neither the school district nor any representative of the school district (teacher, coach, administrator, board member, etc.) may constitutionally encourage, lead, initiate, mandate, or otherwise coerce, directly or indirectly, student prayer at any time in any school-sponsored setting, including classes, practices, pep rallies, team meetings, or athletic events.” – Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1524 (2009)

          • TruthvLIes

            Precisely. It does not say a coach cannot join in student led prayer. As I said, the photo suggest the students were praying for the coach not the coach praying for the students.

          • Croquet_Player

            You clearly have your own interpretation, of the photograph, and how legal prayer in schools works. I suppose we’ll wait to see how the incident is resolved.

  • Danielle Norman

    Prove they’re praying. They might be bowing their heads like others take a knee when they bring politics into football (which by the way isn’t about athletics either). PS- Mater Dei is a catholic school. I think religion was brought on the field as soon as they walked on.

  • Lark.62

    A. You wait in line for an hour at the DMV. As the clerk is processing the form for your driver’s license she notes you did not fill the form out properly. You will need to correct the form and go back to the beginning of the line. However, if you will pray a Muslim prayer with her and say “There is no god but allah and muhammad is his prophet” she will let you fix the form without waiting in line again. Why not? It’s only words. What does it hurt?

    B. You get pulled over on the way to church with your kids in the car. The cop says he doesn’t like what your church teaches. Unlike your church, he says his church is teaches the proper things about infant baptism, salvation through faith versus works, the nature of hell and more. He tells you if you would agree to take your kids to his church today he can give you a warning rather than a $250 ticket.

    C. The public school coach tells his players he always talks to college recruiters. He tells them players with good character and team players always get a good recommendation. Without those qualities, the college recommendation won’t be near as good. At other times, he says prayer demonstrates character and builds team unity and that the team will join together and pray to his deity before every game. He never says anyone has to pray but every player knows how important it is to the coach.

    One of those things is exactly like the others. All three are illegal. No person can use the authority of their government position to promote religion. Every individual has a right to be free of government employees using their power to push their religious beliefs. Period.

    • TruthvLIes

      The coach is not promoting religion. The coach is giving his care and attentions to every aspect of each player but you being an atheist would not understand that because you believe that people do not have a spirit.

      And for your information the First Amendment says that Congress..not the local school coach shall establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of religion.

      The last time I looked a coach was not the Congress.

      • Lark.62

        Hmm. The coach is not pushing his religion? Really? The coach is giving care and attention to each player? Seriously?

        One question. Is the coach asking each player to pray according to their own religious conviction or is the coach directing them in prayer to his deity?

        Don’t bear false witness.

        And how many times does one person have to be told that 1. the 14th Amendment exists, and 2. the Constitution gives the Supreme Court authority to interpret the Constitution?

        • TruthvLIes

          Yes seriously. As I said, being an atheist you do not comprehend that man is made up of body soul and spirit. Because you have denied your spirit and you want to kill everyone else’s and if necessary do so by force.

          As we were no there we don’t know but I have a very good suspicion that not one of the boys were vehemently anti God. It is you that is vehemently anti-God and you want to impose your anti-God ideas onto everyone.

          In fact, I have a very good suspicions that you are a mean, sour, unhappy and miserable human being that has been duped into believing their is no God.

          Sorry to disappoint you but there is a God. he is alive and well and he talks daily to his children to make sure they are OK.

          Doe you have a Dad like that? If not, then you have been sold a pup.

      • getstryker

        I would agree with you . . . from the article, it would appear that the ‘entire team’ supports the coach and participates ‘voluntarily’ in prayer after the game. The coach is not ‘forcing’ or ‘using his authority as a government employee’ to push his religious beliefs on anyone. FFRF is a rabidly anti-Christian bully and uses these tactics all over the country to stifle those that support Christianity. Thank you for standing up for Christ. May God Bless you and yours.

  • Jason DeVillez

    I wonder if FFRF members use the US currency at all. Turn over a dollar bill and you still see the words “in God we trust”. Pretty sure the US currency is government issued and is how the FFRF is funded. So maybe they should stop using money because it’s clearly forcing the will of God and Christianity on them. Grow up. Get over it. There’s more important things to worry about in this world than being offended by someone trying to do good. Spend your time more wisely and actually make a difference for the better.

    • Lark.62

      This “logic” is why we would like to see “In Gob We Trust” removed from money. And this is why the FFRF stands up to every violation of the First Amendment.

      Each violation of the Establishment clause is used to defend further violation in an unending spiral.

    • Guzzman

      Better get your story straight. The reason “In God We Trust” was not ruled as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion was because Christian lawmakers and judges claimed it had a “secular purpose” and “has no religious significance.” So which is it – religious or not?

      The motto has nothing to do with our founding or our heritage. Infusing our national motto with religion undermines the Founders’ intent to create a “separation between religion and government” (to borrow Madison’s phrase). The original seal and motto of the United States were developed by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin – the motto was non-religious, “E Pluribus Unum.” In fact, “E Pluribus Unum” was considered the motto of the United States for nearly two hundred years, until it was changed to “In God We Trust” in 1956.

      Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that “we trust” in a god. Maybe some citizens do, but a sizable portion do not. We all have a right to decide these matters for ourselves. The government should not pretend it has any grant of authority to speak for us on religious matters.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        Well …. “IN GOD WE TRUST” (all caps on all “currency” as currency is not real money) …. is not the same as “In God we trust” …… and i am not entirely convinced they are talking about the God of the bible …… it seems to me the GOD they refer to is MAMMON ………….

        • Guzzman

          You make a good point. The Founders never intended our coinage to carry religious messages. Teddy Roosevelt, a devout Christian, was opposed to putting “In God We Trust” on money: “My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege…”

          My personal feeling is that the motto is a typo – it was probably supposed to read “In Gold We Trust.”

    • Netizen_James

      so you think we should just ignore it when people violate the law? Why bother having laws then?

  • Faithwalker

    Every day we see and hear that there is a concerted effort to remove from the public, but the events follows Matthew 24:7-9 “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name.”

  • BobInBpt

    Well if it’s OK for Leftist, anarchist teams to KNEEL in protest against our National Anthem, why is it an issue for a team to kneel to pray ??????

    • Michael C

      why is it an issue for a team to kneel to pray ??????

      It isn’t an issue. Nobody said that players, fans, coaches, or janitors weren’t allowed to pray.

      The government school (or a representative of the school), however, isn’t permitted to lead a prayer because the government doesn’t have a religion.

  • Mary Irvine

    If they choose to not believe in God that’s their choice no one makes them pray so what gives them the right to complain about someone that does believe and pray. Talk about a bunch of two faced idiots gwwppeez

  • Beaudah

    I guess I see this in a different perspective. I am a christian and have been since I was 16 years old and I am 68 now. I don’t get involved in people’s religion and would appreciate the same out of non-believer’s or people of other faiths. I frankly do not lose any sleep over unbeliever’s or anyone that supposedly believe’s in another religion because I concern myself with family and friends being saved. Just because we may not have the same views on who believe’s and who doesn’t should have NO affect on anyone else. I don’t agree on a lot of things but why does it bother these people that gripe and complain about it? Why can’t they just quit being trouble makers or is it because the attention they get from others is really what it is all about. One thing they could do is to ignore what I and others believe? You don’t have to participate in the prayers just like we don’t participate when you or others put your rug down wherever you are and pray to whomever. We just walk around them and not give so much attention. There are people that can not stand for some to be able to show their beliefs because they don’t want to be reminded of maybe a time when they did believe or not, but they love stirring trouble, making people upset because they are trying to turn everything and everyone to their beliefs. I don’t agree with them but I can tell you that it has always been a tradition to pray before ballgames for the safety of all involved in the game and the fans. To tell me I can’t pray before a game with the players, coaches and fans is barking up the wrong tree. No one but God will tell me I can’t pray WHERE AND WHEN I want too!! They should try the same thing. This is my opinion just like anyone else has the right also. May God Bless this nation.

    • Netizen_James

      If the public school teachers were leading your children in prayers to Baal, don’t you think you would be concerned? Would you sit and take that and say nothing, or would you ‘gripe and complain’ about it? Same thing.

      • Beaudah

        Netizen James, I agree with your statement but here is what I believe. If there is a prayer to Baal and that is not your belief, then your child should not participate in that prayer. My grandchildren are in public and private christian schools and in the public school, there isn’t prayer before the start of the day. That is when I think that prayer should be done equally if there is other prayers to be said. I love the God I serve and if we don’t stand for our beliefs then why have one? It is just the way that people go about it. Why is media attention so important to their cause? I do care but I go to prayer to Jesus to get the answers. Thank you for your reply and the nice way you spoke your opinion.

      • Maxwell Edison

        Irrelevant troll. Flagged.

    • Doug Indeap

      Those calling on the government to constrain itself in keeping with the Constitution from promoting religion by arranging, endorsing, or participating in prayers are not objecting to students praying. Indeed, the FFRF supports the freedom of students to pray or not as they choose.

      • Maxwell Edison

        Why do people come in here and spew garbage they KNOW to be untrue? The Freedom From Religion Foundation has **NEVER** supported religious freedom, especially Christianity.

        • Doug Indeap

          If you are unaware that the FFRF commonly observes that students have a right to pray if they wish (and it often does so in cases involving Christianity), consider this your notification of that fact. If you already knew, then perhaps you can answer your own question.

          • Maxwell Edison

            No. They don’t. Unless they are muslim.

          • Doug Indeap

            Oh. I see, you just throw s*** out there. I mistook you for someone who ascertains facts before mouthing off. Seeing little of use coming from “discussion” of this sort, I’ll just bid you good day.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Oh. I see, you just throw s*** out there.

            Project much?

            I mistook you for someone who ascertains facts before mouthing off.

            The fact is the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an anti-Christian hate group, who regularly persecutes people of faith for exercising same. This particular website reports their shenanigans all the time.

            For you state the FFRF does the exact opposite, you should have expected to be called out on it.

          • Doug Indeap

            Okay, I’ll offer one further comment—directed at process, but touching as well on the substance of our discussion. By your “reasoning,” I gather that whatever hoo-ha you read on this particular website all the time somehow becomes the measure of truth in your mind, so if someone, me for instance, shows up and states an actual fact to the contrary, we should rightfully expect to be “called out on it”—as if getting “called out” on that basis somehow should matter to anyone. That’s just not how it’s done.

            Let me show you. If you remove your eyes from this site long enough to check out the FFRF’s site, you might find, for instance, its letter of September 25, 2017, to the Attorney General of Louisiana objecting to his remark in a public speech that “we will get prayer back in public schools.” In the course of explaining constitutional law to the Attorney General, the FFRF stated: “Of course, the law also means that children are allowed to pray on their own time in their own way. For instance, a student is perfectly free to bow her head and say a prayer before lunch, or at any other time and in any manner that it is not disruptive to others. That has always been the case, no court has decided otherwise, and no one—certainly not the Freedom From Religion Foundation—is advocating to take away students’ individual religious liberties.” The FFRF also acknowledges this law in its letters to schools on such issues.

            See? The FFRF directs its objections to the governmental actions of the schools and supports the freedom of students to pray or not as they choose, , just
            as I said—truthfully—and just as you denied—falsely. That’s how and why you ascertain facts—actual
            facts—before mouthing off.

          • Doug Indeap

            By your “reasoning,” I gather that whatever hoo-ha you read on this website all the time somehow becomes the measure of truth in your mind, so if someone, e.g., me, shows up and states an actual fact to the contrary, we should rightfully expect to be “called out on it”—as if getting “called out” for that should matter to anyone. That’s just not how it’s done.

            Watch. If you research the FFRF, e.g., by checking its site, you might find, for instance, its letter of September 25, 2017, to the Louisiana Attorney General. While explaining constitutional law to him in response to his comments about prayer in schools, the FFRF stated: “Of course, the law also means that children are allowed to pray on their own time in their own way. For instance, a student is perfectly free to bow her head and say a prayer before lunch, or at any other time and in any manner that it is not disruptive to others. That has always been the case, no court has decided otherwise, and no one—certainly not the Freedom From Religion Foundation—is advocating to take away students’ individual religious liberties.”

            See? While objecting to certain actions of government regarding prayer, the FFRF supports the freedom of students to pray or not as they choose–just as I said truthfully, and just as you denied falsely. That’s how and why you ascertain facts before mouthing off.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Dude, ever hear the proverb “Feces made to shine is still feces?” No matter how you try to defend the FFRF and portray them as some wonderful organization being misrepresented by a conservative media, there are too many people who know better than that, and that is due to their actions. Not mine, not the aforementioned media, their’s.

            Further, I took the liberty of checking out your posting history. Turns out you are also a proponent of the church and state separation myth. Which makes your defense of the FFRF little more than hero worship and your opinion absolutely worthless when it comes to matters like this.

          • Doug Indeap

            In a (purported) search for “facts,” you again resort to some sort of illogical herd mentality, suppose this is about “opinions” rather than “facts,” and take comfort that others in the herd share your error. You could instead just review the evidence yourself and see that it reveals the facts to be otherwise–plain as day. And as this is about finding facts, your ad hominem reference to me and my opinions is all the more pointless. The is an exercise in critical thinking, not running with the herd.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Yeah. Has anyone told you gaslighting doesn’t work on me?

            It’s impossible to defend the indefensible. But you actually tried. And failed.

            Have a nice life.

          • Doug Indeap

            What’s this nonsense about gas lighting and defending? You misunderstand. I aimed only to demonstrate–with evidence–the truth of my statement that the FFRF supports the freedom of students to pray or not as they choose and the falsity of your denial. I did that. That you choose to avert your eyes and not acknowledge what’s under your nose doesn’t change the fact. And yes, let’s both have nice lives.

  • Roy Veteto

    i always find it amusing that those opposed to prayer in school are never around when there is a school shooting

    • Lark.62

      Citation please.

      About 25% of young people are non religious. There were likely atheists in the school at every school shooting.

      Prayer and mass shootings are unrelated.

    • Maxwell Edison

      Yeah, it’s an odd coincidence that when I was in school in the ’70s and ’80s you never heard of such things. But once you got rid of corporal punishment and God….

      The mind boggles.

  • The coach is a government agent. Were the team to agree among themselves to get aside to pray together, that would be permissible. The Coach cannot lead or join them because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from showing favoritism to any religion.

    • Maxwell Edison

      Funny how the “establishment clause” does not actually say that.

      • I think that you should google and read “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779” at “Founders Online.” It was written by Jefferson and It is the document from which the Establishment Clause, written by James Madison, was derived. Too, the courts look at intent when adjudicating matters of church and state.

        As well, you might already know what Jefferson thought of his bill, as he mentioned in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. He felt that it established a “wall of separation” between church and state.

        It is a short read, but fully lays out the intent. And this is why the U.S. has seen relatively little religious violence in its history.

        • Maxwell Edison

          I think that you should google and read “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 18 June 1779” at “Founders Online.”

          Irrelevant. Try reading the Constitution instead.

          • I’m sorry, but your response is unintelligible in relation to my statements. Are you saying that you do not accept that there are reasons for the various statements/laws in the Constitution?

            Apparently I am not as wise as you. My poor brain cannot grasp the concept of actions without causes. Please tell me why they made the statements that are in the Constitution. Did they just grab them out of thin air?

          • Maxwell Edison

            No, it’s really just a matter of understanding this bill you refer to isn’t the Constitution. And what you say the Constitution says is incorrect. The First Amendment says Congress can neither create its own religion nor keep people from practicing theirs.

            Just how did we get from that to the idea the First Amendment was written to abridge the rights of and otherwise oppress Christians simply for their faith?

            Answer: Judicial activism.

          • You make wild assumptions as to what I know and what I have read. In order to protect religion from government, there had to be a law that forbade any government involvement in any particular religion. That means that, under the law, no religion is officially recognized by government.

            I’m astonished that you dismiss intent, which the law depends upon. If you were to read and understand the sequence by which the Establishment Clause was adopted, you would not be so dismissive of intent.

          • Maxwell Edison

            In order to have freedom of religion, we must have freedom from it. Right?

          • Yes, I believe in equal rights for all citizens. Freedom and individualism. I believe that one person’s right to freedom of conscience in matters of religious practice applies to all people, no matter their religion or lack thereof. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s in your Bible, you know–in different words.

          • Maxwell Edison

            That’s not what I asked. Try again.

          • The literality of your question is far too vague and begs many questions. I say that, in the U.S., the answer is, logically, an unqualified YES. In order to have freedom of religion (all religions), we must have freedom from it as well. Otherwise, people would not be equal under the law.

            But you must expand on the meaning of your question. There is another angle to “freedom of religion,” (e.g., which religion should have freedom of religion?). For example, if there is no freedom from religion, and you think your religion has the right to preach and teach in public schools, then Muslims have an equal right to preach and teach Islam in public schools.

            If your religious “freedom” says that Islam may not be taught in public schools, then Muslims have the right to demand that Christianity not be taught.

            So, when you say, “freedom of religion,” is that inclusive or exclusive?

          • Maxwell Edison

            I say that, in the U.S., the answer is, logically, an unqualified YES.

            In the United States, freedom from religion means:

            *Closing your eyes.
            *Holding your ears.
            *Doing both.
            *Walking away.

            What it doesn’t mean:

            *Forcing people to stop practicing their faith.

            That’s pure Marxist thinking.

            If your religious “freedom” says that Islam may not be taught in public schools, then Muslims have the right to demand that Christianity not be taught.

            Problem with this argument is Islam is not a religion. It is an ideology. One that mandates misogyny and murder.

          • You make wild assumptions and set up a textbook-perfect straw man argument. It is clear that you have not understood a word I’ve said and probably didn’t even read my full response. Too, it is proof that you’ve never taken a course in freshman critical thinking (informal logic)–this is not a condescension, but an observation. Millions of Americans have not had such a course. I’ll take that fact into consideration as I continue.

            First, you can’t, with intellectual honesty, simply insert your OPINION in place of facts, list made-up negative attributes about people who don’t believe as you, ignoring your opponent’s logical argument, and then dismiss the beliefs of 1.6 billion people, or 23 percent of the global population, as not constituting a religion. In fact, Islam is the fastest growing RELIGION in the world. According to the Pew Research Center, at the current rate of growth, it’s ranks will equal Christianity by 2050 to become the largest religion in the world by 2070.

            Secondly, you ignored my questions pertinent to this “debate”:

            . . . the ultimate question I have is, why do you not believe in equal rights under the law for all citizens?

            and

            . . . when you say, “freedom of religion,” is that inclusive or exclusive? In other words, What do you mean by “religious freedom?” Please define and give examples.

          • Maxwell Edison

            On the contrary: I figured you were just another Marxist so I set a trap for you that you yourself engineered. And you oh so merrily sprung it in a public forum.

            I don’t need to say another word, just enjoy my victory lap. For now your opinion on this issue means nothing.

          • It is sad that you show yourself to be both a coward (dodging my questions, striking out and then running way). Where is your sense of of civility, honor and justice–any desire to understand and find common ground?.

            Be well my friend. It would serve you well to read Matthew 25: 32-46 and the consider Luke 6:31 – And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”

          • Maxwell Edison

            None of which is relevant here.

          • I’m not surprised that you would not recognize or ignore the significance.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Nope. It just is not relevant.

          • TruthvLIes

            So you are against homosexuals that try and prevent christian having religions freedom by seeking them out and getting them into the courts to try and stop them having religious freedom?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Funny, often those who would dismiss the intent of the Establishment Clause are the same ones who are quick to say that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended just for former slaves.

          • And those who claim that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was meant only for slaves completely miss the logic that if blacks must have equal rights, then so must whites, browns, olive tones and all others. That is why the courts apply that clause to everyone. If equal rights under the law apply to one group of Americans, then it must apply to all.

            There has been much debate over this concept of equal rights and apparently, fundamentalist Christians are vehemently against it.

            Why do I say that?

            Judging from the third of the nation (mainly Christian fundamentalist/evangelicals) that back the white supremacist Donald Trump–enjoy his daily personal attacks, dismiss his lies (a cardinal sin), dismiss his misogyny (believing that women are her for mans’ pleasure), his sexual misconduct, his clinical narcissistic sociopathy (striking out at anyone opposing him and unable to let any slight go unanswered), his political profiteering, his cheating students out of their tuition and workers out of their money, and especially enjoying his racism (siding with the –while thumping the Bible and holding themselves to be the best citizens are, in fact, very much like him when it comes to treating others as lesser people and insisting on using the government as a blunt instrument with which to bludgeon the rest of the nation into bowing to their religious beliefs in inequality of rights.

            I understand and accept that millions of folks are motivated by people like Trump. I understand that they feel better than others, especially blacks and browns and anyone who believes different in matters of religion.

            And yet, they have no interest at all in understanding concepts behind the laws in the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, written for the minority, not the majority.

          • TruthvLIes

            And I understand that you have a humongous chip on your shoulder that you can’t get off unless you are railing against everyone who does not agree with you.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Jefferson’s intent was to see the church protected from the government. Not the reverse.”

            OK, you want to keep government out the church, but not keep the church out of government? Don’t you think that would get difficult, to do both? Jefferson talked about a “wall of separation between church and state.” The way walls usually work is that they keep things on BOTH sides from going to the other.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Obviously you haven’t read the letter. That wasn’t Jefferson’s intent.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What letter?

          • Maxwell Edison

            *facepalm*

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Ah, I apologize, I missed HobbesianWorld’s reference to Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. I thought you were talking about the Bill For Religious Freedom, and I was confused as to why you were calling it a letter. Excuse my mistake, but I don’t see how you would get that Jefferson intended that from the letter, either. The letter seems pretty clear to me: “…building a wall of separation between church and state.” If you think I’m missing something there, tell me what.

            Anyway though, you were the one saying intent was irrelevant, weren’t you?

  • Colorado Conservative

    Wonderful to read the Illinois team stood up to the FFRF bullies. Our city did the same when they issued one of their demand letters. When confronted head on they scattered away like cockroaches in the light.

    • Guzzman

      Did you read the article? The complaint, from a local resident, had nothing to do with the team praying. The legal problem centered around the coach’s participation in the prayer. The coach is a representative of the public school. The public school is a government entity. Government cannot take sides when it comes to religious worship. When acting in the capacity of a government agent, the coach must generally act in keeping with the Constitution’s prohibition on government actions regarding religion.

      The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that “the touchstone of the Establishment Clause is ‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.'” [McCreary County v. ACLU], 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).

      • Maxwell Edison

        Did you read the article? The complaint, from a local resident, had nothing to do with the team praying.

        Really? In fact, the resident got upset over a photograph of a coach participating in a prayer with his team. The overwhelming majority of people in this country wouldn’t give a flaming horse’s patoot. But because one person did, the FFRF felt he should be punished for it.

        • Guzzman

          The Constitution restricts government action regarding religion. Those restrictions are not subject to vote – even an “overwhelming majority of people in the country” cannot vote to dispense with the Constitution’s restrictions and grant the government authority to promote religion.

          The FFRF is not looking to punish anybody. It is merely asking that the school district, a government entity, not entangle itself in promoting religion. None of this calls into question the right of the players to pray, which was the point of my original comment.

          • Maxwell Edison

            The FFRF is not looking to punish anybody.

            Just can’t stop with the lies.

          • TruthvLIes

            And their denials to push their mealy mouthed agenda. And I have just noticed that it looks as though the boys are praying for the coach. If that is the case, they definitely have done nothing wrong.

  • Georgie Franklin

    Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.

    • Maxwell Edison

      What school do you attend?

  • TruthvLIes

    What a miserable lot the Freedom from Religion are. As if the coach praying with his team is going to herald the end of the world.

    Who knows the team may be asking God’s forgiveness for playing bad or not playing with true christian character thus making them better players and better people.

    They obviously hate people doing those things which they enjoy because being atheists they are of all people most determined to take all the joy out of life because they have nothing to be happy about.

    Someone should take them to court for interfering in another’s person’s freedom of religion. The sooner the better and every time they threaten they should be counter threatened with legal action.

    • Nick Halflinger

      Your plan only puts money into FFRFs pockets. I have am idea, why don’t these folks just follow the law and watch FFRF go out of business.

  • gramma aac

    It is NOT ” illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer, participate in student prayers, or to otherwise promote religion to students.”

    It is illegal for Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances!!!!!!!

    • TruthvLIes

      That is right. The school is not Congress.