Atheist Group Urges Investigation Into Coach’s Gesture to Unite Teams in Post-Game Prayer

BRIDGEPORT, Mich. – A national atheist activist organization has requested an investigation into what it calls a “flagrant violation of the First Amendment” after learning that coaches and players of a Michigan high school’s junior varsity football team circled up to pray with another team after a recent game.

“This conduct is unconstitutional because coaches endorse and promote their own religion when acting in their official capacities as school district employees,” the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) wrote in a recent letter to the Bridgeport Spaulding School District.

According to reports, after a junior varsity football game in Michigan between Bridgeport High School and Ogemaw Heights High School, players and coaches from both teams gathered together in the middle of the field to hear a few words from the Bridgeport head coach.

One of the attendees that day, Ashley Miller, described in a Facebook post what happened next.

“At that point, the [Bridgeport] coach talked to the kids about how it’s not just about winning but the sportsmanship, … then every player bowed their heads (including coaches) and they prayed!” she wrote. “They prayed on the football field … both teams together. This was amazing to me! I don’t know what was said, but that right there made my heart and soul smile! Kudos to the coaches and players!”

Miller shared a photograph of the two teams kneeling in prayer in the middle of the field. Players from both teams can be seen kneeling together in a circle with their helmets removed and heads bowed.

“That simple gesture brought both of our teams closer,” Miller wrote.

  • Connect with Christian News

Hundreds responded to Miller’s post by “liking” or sharing the photo and leaving comments of their own.

“I think this is a wonderful,” one remarked.

“This is a beautiful sight,” another said.

“We need more of these gestures in our schools and at our sporting events,” a third wrote. “God bless the coaches.”

However, when FFRF found out about the post-game prayer after a “concerned citizen” brought Miller’s Facebook post to their attention, it submitted a letter of complaint to the district superintendent.

“It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer,” wrote legal director Rebecca Markert. She argued that such a prayer is tantamount to an endorsement of religion and is therefore unconstitutional.

“We ask that Bridgeport Spaulding School District commence an immediate investigation into the complaint alleged and take immediate action to stop any school-sponsored prayers occurring within any district athletic programs,” Markert requested. “Please inform us in writing of the steps you are taking to remedy this serious and flagrant violation of the First Amendment.”

In an associated press release, FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said that the Bridgeport football coach’s decision to pray was “extremely unbecoming of coaches.”

“Public school employees should be aware that a good portion of their student population is most often comprised of individuals with different beliefs or no belief,” she stated. “Students should not be expected to pray to play.”

Although FFRF has expressed displeasure, others state that they support the post-game prayer.

“I don’t see anything wrong with it,” one commenter wrote. “Yes, I am a Christian, but even if I had not been, I would hope I would still be able to see the unity that it encouraged! A friend tagged me in the picture, and you can actually see both head coaches with an arm around each other. It’s a good thing!”

As previously reported, the FFRF has similarly accused school districts in Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina of violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing prayers at football games.


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
  • Amos Moses – He>i

    “flagrant violation of the First Amendment”

    gotta be reading a different constitution ………… that or the mental breakdown is advancing …….

    • Chakat Firepaw

      The FFRF is reading the exact same one courts across the US have used to repeatedly rule school coach-led prayer an unconstitutional action.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        so they are reading a different constitution …….. thnx …………

        • Chakat Firepaw

          Given that this is about a US school, the US constitution would be the correct one to read. Which one are you reading?

          It’s hardly like religious activities led or encouraged by public school officials being unconstitutional is a new thing. Engel v. Vitale was decided in 1962 after all, and the constitutional provisions involved came into force in 1868.

          A coach leading players in prayer also clearly fails all three prongs of the Lemon test: There is no secular purpose, it advances religion and it creates an entanglement between government, (in the for of the public school), and religion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so the 1789 constitution or the rewritten 1865 reconstruction version ……… or the one they just make up as they go along …..

          • Chakat Firepaw

            You do know that the US constitution contains rules for it being amended, right? To date it has been changed 18 times, (10 of the 27 amendments were made at once), with four more changes awaiting ratification, (although the 13th Amendment makes the Corwin Amendment a dead letter).

            Do you also know the difference between when a law came into force and when a court makes a ruling based on that law?

            To repeat my question: Which constitution are you reading? The US constitution contains strict prohibitions on the government advancing religion, (the federal government with the adoption of the 1st Amendment, state and local with the 14th).

          • Jerome Horwitz

            The US constitution contains strict prohibitions on the government advancing religion,

            Only to the extent of not creating its own religion, ala Church of England. Not with praying on a football field.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Incorrect, wordings that would limit the establishment clause in that way were considered but specifically rejected in favour of one that prohibited the government advancing any religion.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Bullspit. You don’t even know what you are talking about here.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Let’s look at some of those proposed wordings:

            “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
            account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
            established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
            manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

            “No religion shall be
            established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be
            infringed.”

            “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free
            exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.”

            “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of
            worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,”

            Instead you get “Congress shall make no law respecting an
            establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Something James Madison himself considered so strict that he felt that it prohibited the hiring of military chaplains.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
            account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
            established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any
            manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”

            The problem with pointing this out is the fact it was Madison himself that wrote it as the first draft of the First Amendment.

            Which makes your comment, and the implication the opposite is true, complete and utter balderdash.

            And why is it the only people making this dumb argument are the anti-Christian bigots?

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Who wrote it doesn’t matter, what matters is that it is a phrasing that was _REJECTED_. The phrasing that was finally accepted was one that was far stronger and has been long ruled to mean that the government cannot do anything to favour any particular religious belief, (or belief over non-belief).

            My position is only anti-Christian if you believe being Christian requires you to force your beliefs on others.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Given that this is about a US school, the US constitution would be the correct one to read. Which one are you reading?

            Obviously not the one that says, “You are allowed to take a knee to protest your country, but not to pray.”

            A coach leading players in prayer also clearly fails all three prongs of the Lemon test:

            There’s no such thing as a lemon test when it comes to religious expression.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Obviously not the one that says, “You are allowed to take a knee to protest your country, but not to pray.”

            The actions of private citizens are covered by the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Free Press and Free Assembly clauses, the actions of government representatives, (e.g. public school teachers and coaches), are also bound by the Establishment and Petition clauses.

            Remember, this is about the actions of a _government_ official in the course of his duties as such.

            There’s no such thing as a lemon test when it comes to religious expression.

            That’s Lemon, not lemon, it’s a proper noun. It comes from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case. It covers what is required for a government action or statute to be in compliance with the Establishment Clause.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            The actions of private citizens are covered by the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Free Press and Free Assembly clauses, the actions of government representatives, (e.g. public school teachers and coaches), are also bound by the Establishment and Petition clauses.

            Relevance, please.

            That’s Lemon, not lemon, it’s a proper noun.

            I do not care. It matters not if it is a reference to the fruit, used cars, Don or Meadowlark. The Establishment Clause was not written with the intent of censoring Christian speech, which is exactly what’s going on here, and what you want.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Relevance, please.

            It’s relevant because a public school coach is a _state actor_ when at work. When your job involves representing the government, you have to follow the rules that apply to the government when you are at work.

            I do not care. It matters not if it is a reference to the fruit, used cars, Don or Meadowlark. The Establishment Clause was not written with the intent of censoring Christian speech, which is exactly what’s going on here, and what you want.

            The coach can pray all he wants: So long as he does it _ON HIS OWN TIME_ and not when he is representing the government. When he’s at work, he can’t go forcing his faith on his players.

  • “That simple gesture brought both of our teams closer,”

    And sent a big “F*** you” to anyone watching who wasn’t a Christian. That’s why it’s illegal for a public school coach to be seen to endorse it.

  • Reason2012

    Meanwhile search on public school islam and notice how these “atheists” do nothing while islam is being taught in more and more public schools. it just exposes them as really pro-islam activists pretending to be atheists, using atheism to shut down only Christianity.

    • Croquet_Player

      What schools are indoctrinating students into Islam? I often hear this claim, and yet no one can ever seem to produce the name of a school or a school district that is doing so.

      • NCOriolesFan

        Google and you may find answers.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          CP is being intellectually dishonest. He hasn’t looked, and he has no intention of looking, because he thinks willful ignorance equals plausible deniability.

        • Chakat Firepaw

          The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim. That not even a single school is named implies that this is a case of “I’ve been told it’s happening somewhere, by someone who was told it was happening somewhere, by….”

    • Wesley Willis

      try typing “islam in public schools ffrf” into google

      • MarkSebree

        Still not seeing any reputable accounts listed. Only spins from sites that are known to be dishonest about such things.

  • Ken

    The Thought Police that Orwell prophesied.

    Ever notice that atheists insist that the Bible is not divinely inspired, and yet they treat the Constitution as if it was? They don’t believe that Paul, David, Moses, and Solomon were inspired by God, and yet Madison and the other Founders apparently were, since the atheists have made an idol of the Holy Constitution.

    The Constitution was written by human beings. In its original form it allowed slavery and denied women the vote. I think we can safely say there is nothing remotely “infallible” or “eternal” about the Constitution – especially since the Founders made it possible to AMEND it.

    Let’s get some consistency here. If you say my Bible is not inspired, I respond that the Constitution isn’t either.

    • chronicintel

      The Constitution was never meant to be an infallible document. Like you said, it can be amended; the Bible can’t.

      What the Constitution DOES provide is a basis for law and governance that protects the people, specifically, the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. As a starting point, that’s as a good a place as any other.

      The constitution originally was ambiguous about slavery, and hardly mentioned it outside the 3/5 compromise.

      On the other hand, the Bible condones and never condemns slavery, and even gives instructions on who you can enslave. It also promotes the idea that women are inherently inferior and not equal to men.

      So the fact that the Constitution ISN’T infallible or dogmatic, and CAN be amended, is a GOOD thing. It means as society grows and discovers things that can improve it, they can codify it into law so it would be harder to repeal. Re-instituting slavery or repealing the 19th amendment would be a monumental task.

      The Constitution also provides protections for Christians in the case when they will no longer make up the majority of citizens in the US. Even if half of Congress is comprised of Muslims, they still wouldn’t be able to impose Shariah Law because of the Constitution.

  • dansLaRue

    If participating was not required, claims of Constitutional violations seem a bit dubious. FFRF seems to be giving free thinkers a bad name.

  • InTheChurch

    I don’t see any coaches forcing the kids to pray. It’s both teams so all were asked. No was excluded. what’s the problem?

    • Jerome Horwitz

      The FFRF is the problem.

      • MarkSebree

        No, the FFRF is the solution. Christian evangelicalism/dominionism/reconstructivism is the real problem.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          Yep. The FFRF is the solution. Just as the Nazis were the solution to the Jew problem.

          You really need to shut your hateful, bigoted mouth.

          • Lady_Checkmate

            Take your own advice. Mark is correct.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          Again, just as the Nazis were the solution to the Jew problem, right?

          And flagging posts for hurt feelings doesn’t change the truth: Your comment shows you to be a flat-out bigot.

          If you don’t want to be called one, don’t be making posts like that.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Because telling people to not force their faith on others is exactly the same as mass murder.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Irrelevant.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            It’s always relevant to call someone on it when they attempt to poison the well.

            You are the one who brought up Nazis, that your comparison was garbage was your fault.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Actually the comparison is accurate. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a hate group. Mark Sebree sees the very existence of Christianity as a “problem” as much the same way as Germans saw the Jews.

            You don’t like that? You are cordially invited to build a bridge and get over it.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            The only way the comparison could be accurate is if telling people to not force their faith on others is analogous to mass murder.

          • MarkSebree

            “Actually the comparison is accurate.”

            No, the comparison is not at all accurate.

            “The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a hate group.”

            No, they are not. They do not advocate discrimination against anyone. They do not advocate any position that promotes fear and lack of reason. They are not trying to make any group into second class citizens. They work at the request of people in the area, representing them in legal matters.

            “Mark Sebree sees the very existence of Christianity as a “problem” as much the same way as Germans saw the Jews.”

            And you seem to have a problem reading for comprehension. Look at what I wrote. The segment of Christianity that I specified is the far right to extreme right segment, a portion that is noisy but not very large. Evangelicals only seem to care about imposing their beliefs onto everyone around them, with no respect for other people’s beliefs or the law. They use what power they have to harass others, and they think that the Establishment Clause does not apply to them if they are government workers, and the Free Exercise clause does not apply to non-Christians, and possibly non-evangelical Christians.

            Domionists further to the right of Evangelicals, and are supporters of the Seven Mountains Domionism philosophy which advocates that Evangelical/Dominionist Christians are supposed to control every aspect of life in the USA, including Education, Government (including the police and military), Education, Religion, Business, and Family. They want to scrap most of the Constitution and laws that guarantee freedom of religion and prevent discrimination based on anything. They want to change the USA from a secular republic into a theonomy.

            The last group I named is the most extreme Christians, and are nothing more than ISIL and the Taliban flying a different religious flag. These are the Recontructionists, people who follow the philosophy and teachings of Rushdoony. They want to scrap the US government all together and install a theocracy in its place, with their extremist and narrow-minded beliefs in control.

            These groups of Christians are problems because they want to undermine the US government and US Constitution. However, even combined, they are not a very large portion of the population, or of Christianity. The problem is that they have politicians in place, and financiers with very deep pockets. And their foot soldiers, like you, do not realize what they are really advocating.

            I do not paint Christians (or Muslims) using a broad brush as you seem to think I do, coloring all of the religion by the actions of its hateful, ignorant extremists. I pay attention to who is saying what, what they are really espousing, and place my divisions there, keeping the characterizations as narrow as reasonable.

            The Christians that I see as a problem are the ones that do not respect the rights of others, try to impose their beliefs onto others, and think that they are not to be questioned or challenged just because they claim to be Christian. These are the ones that tend to actually support the same sort of fascism the Hitler brought to Germany in the 1930s, and which lead to WWII and the genocide of Jews in Eastern Europe.

            “You don’t like that? You are cordially invited to build a bridge and get over it.”

            Perhaps you should start working on your own bridge.

        • NCOriolesFan

          Well, join the club and then it won’t be a “problem.”

          • MarkSebree

            Sorry, but I am not interested in joining the dark side. I am not interested in anything that espouses hatred, intolerance, racism, misogyny, ignorance, lack of compassion, lack of empathy, or anything else like that.

            And my joining the dark side does not prevent your beliefs, intolerance, and disrespect for the law and the rights of others from being a problem. It just means that the lobotomy that you gave me prevents me from thinking independently and realizing that it is a problem.

      • dansLaRue

        Religious dogma is the problem, the FFRF is trying to free people from that.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          The Freedom From Religion Foundation exists for one reason, and one reason alone: To remove any and all things Christian from the public eye. In other words, they are a hate group.

          They can say any frickin’ thing they desire, but it’s their actions that say something different.

          Anne Gaylor has publicly attacked the Bible. They went after a family for having a cross as a memorial for a loved one. Last week it was revealed an FFRF member named Preston Smith intends to have a Satanic marker placed in a Florida park for the purpose of mocking Christianity.

          And they say nothing about Islam and sharia creep.

          Now, I know, I know, perhaps you and others will scream and shout how untrue that is, how Islam is not being taught or accommodated in public schools and universities, using cognitive dissonance simply because you believe the same things as they.

          It’s worth mentioning that a month ago this website reported China had passed even tighter regulations on religion. I lamented no one on the sociopolitical left that posts comments here would condemn this. Surprisingly, one, MCrow, did.

          But only one.

          Which says everything we need to know about the godless left. And why bullies like the FFRF need to be fought.

          • dansLaRue

            I am not really qualified to speak for the FFRF, and am not “member”, however, freedom from religion, whether Christian, Muslim, or any other theistic dogma is a laudable goal. Whomever you want to worship is no concern of mine, but don’t push your view on me.

          • MarkSebree

            “The Freedom From Religion Foundation exists for one reason, and one reason alone: To remove any and all things Christian from the public eye. ”

            Which means that you know nothing about the FFRF. They work to keep religion out of the government, and thus keep government out of religion. They could care less about expressions of religion on private property, which is why they have not filed any law suits in that direction.

            “In other words, they are a hate group.”

            No, a social justice group that works to maintain the separation of church and state.

            “They can say any frickin’ thing they desire, but it’s their actions that say something different.”

            Actually, their actions support their words.

            “Anne Gaylor has publicly attacked the Bible.”

            So what? That is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantees of Free Speech, Free Press, and Freedom of Religion. Besides, the Bible is a rather intolerant and hateful book of mythology which people use to justify discrimination, misogyny, and many other forms of hatred and intolerance.

            ” They went after a family for having a cross as a memorial for a loved one.”

            And where was that cross located? Unless I am mistaken, it was located on a public highway, i.e. public property,, and it had been in place for 10 years. It gave the appearance of the government responsible for that road favoring Christianity over other religions.

            ” Last week it was revealed an FFRF member named Preston Smith intends to have a Satanic marker placed in a Florida park for the purpose of mocking Christianity.”

            Again, so what? He has a right to do that, and Christianity deserves to be mocked. The city decided to make the park a free speech forum in order to allow local churches to continue to install Christian creches every year. However, when they did so, they also are required to allow ANYONE to put up a display under the same rules, including one that supports Satan. If the city denies him the same access as the creches, they open themselves to an expensive lawsuit. Additionally, his display serves to highlight the intolerance and hypocrisy of Christians. There is already a pastor that has stated that he will try to destroy Mr. Smith’s display, which itself is a crime, and potentially a federal hate crime.

            “And they say nothing about Islam and sharia creep.”

            I can think of two reasons for this.

            First, there is no “Islam and sharia creep”. That is a boogeyman that the far right pundits keep bringing up to feed the fear of Muslims among the right wing supporters. Muslims in the USA make up about 1% – 2% of the population, less than homosexuals, which is another of the far right’s boogeymen. Muslims do not have the political power to impose their beliefs onto anyone.

            And second, you have only been reading right wing, mostly religious news sites, and you have not sought other sources of information. There have been a few instances where the FFRF has contacted government institutions about showing favoritism towards Muslims, usually by providing them with a special space for their daily prayers.

            “Now, I know, I know, perhaps you and others will scream and shout how untrue that is, how Islam is not being taught or accommodated in public schools and universities, using cognitive dissonance simply because you believe the same things as they.”

            This paragraph does not even make any sense. Comparative religion classes in middle schools and high schools do teach ABOUT Islam, along with Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions. History classes will also teach about it in order to give context for the history of the region and the time. However, that is not the same thing as proselytizing Islam and trying to convert the students to that religion. Christians have a very long history of doing that in public schools, as can be seen in the above article, which is why the FFRF so often needs to confront schools and school systems about their actions or the actions of their employees.

            “It’s worth mentioning that a month ago this website reported China had passed even tighter regulations on religion. ”

            Personally, I never saw the article or a news story about it. And no, I am not doubting you on that event. However, the FFRF is a strictly American Non-Profit organization. They have no power or reach in China, and China does not have most of the freedoms that the US has. It is a non sequitur.

            “Which says everything we need to know about the godless left. ”

            They stand for the rights of everyone, and you resent that. They stand against the bullying attitudes and actions of the far religious right.

            “And why bullies like the FFRF need to be fought.”

            Actually, the FFRF are the ones that are fighting the bullies. They are fighting people in positions of power that think that they can use that power to do whatever they want, no matter who is harmed by it, and what rights are denied to those in their power.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Thank you. With your words, you proved me right.

          • MarkSebree

            So, your point was that you are ignorant, intolerant, and hateful? If it was, then I did prove that you are those things.

            What I showed is that all your supposed points are irrelevant and do not match the facts. I showed that you do not have any idea about the subject you are trying to discuss. I addressed virtually every statement you made, and I shredded them. And your response is that you run away. You cannot defend your stance in an intelligent manner, because you have no actual facts to support it.

      • InTheChurch

        amen

    • Chakat Firepaw

      Do you honestly not get that when the coach says something like “let’s pray,” there is an inherent “and don’t forget who gives you playing time,” included due to his position of power.

      • Jerome Horwitz

        That is such horsespit I am almost surprised you said it.

        • Chakat Firepaw

          Do you not think that a coach is in a position of power over his players?

          Do you honestly believe that a suggestion by someone in a position of power does not carry implications from that position of power?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            If you are suggesting the coach in any way ordered the students to pray, it would be far better to sit down and shut up.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            You might want to go get a dictionary and look up “inherent”. Here’s some hints for you: It’s possible to threaten consequences without expressly stating it, (or even intending it). It’s also possible to give an instruction that is phrased as a request or suggestion, (if a man is waving a gun around and he says “why don’t you take a seat?” I somehow doubt you interpret that as anything but an order to sit down).

            Now, care to answer my questions? Or do you want to hide from them because the answers will either destroy your position or show you to be a fool?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You might want to go get a dictionary and look up “inherent”.

            Right after you look up the word, “nonsense.”

            This is nothing but a lame attempt to justify attacking the coach for praying. You are asserting those who participated did so against their will without any proof whatsoever, using a Grand Canyon-sized leap in logic that only people who hate Christians and Christianity as much as you do will appreciate.

            Sit down and shut up.

            We are done here.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            You still don’t get it: It was unconstitutional for the coach to lead or even participate in a prayer like that even if every student 100% honestly wanted to participate.

            Again: It’s an issue because, when he is at work, he represents the _GOVERNMENT_ not himself. If he wants to pray on his own time, he can, when he’s coaching a game his time is not his own.

      • InTheChurch

        interesting view but not true. I’m on a football team, we never say that or do that. We had a Muslim on our team, he stood there with his teammates in reverence but did not participate. He never got off the field. he respected us and we respected him. It was about the game and respect for one another.

        • Chakat Firepaw

          That just means your coach did not carry out the implicit threat when he was violating the students’ rights, (presuming this is something like a public school team and not a private league).

          • InTheChurch

            Public school and I would say the vast majority are the same way. There is probably one or two bad coaches.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            Then that coach _was_ one of the bad ones, (coaches and teachers leading or participating in student prayer is 100% unconstitutional). I also wonder just what would have happened to that non-Christian student if he wasn’t at least showing deference, (JSYK: What you describe him as doing _was_ participating).

            As for “one or two”: Just following one blog that doesn’t focus on this issue results in me seeing multiple cases of coaches being caught doing this sort of thing every year. Going to the FFRF’s recent news page gives at least two cases, (this one and a far more egregious one in Alabama), in the past three _weeks_.

          • InTheChurch

            Prayers on the field will not end. The coaches might back up but the students will continue to do it. Students will do it now out of rebellion.

          • Chakat Firepaw

            If the students are actually doing it on their own, then there is no constitutional issue.

          • InTheChurch

            I understand but just play a little devil’s advocate here, why is it ok for children to pray on the very field that coaches can not? student or coach, the argument is the location. unless I am wrong. If not, then it’s about the position or title the adult is in? if not, what is the fight about?

          • Chakat Firepaw

            The coach of a public school team is a government actor when he is at work. This means that he has to abide by the Establishment Clause.

            For the students, only the Free Exercise Clause is at play.

  • NCOriolesFan

    Sooner or later, the FRRF will realize they can never-ever destroy community values with their religious bigotry. I ‘d rather be sooner then maybe the USA can reduce the amount Vegas victims one community at a time. Keep praying coaches and teams in ALL USA communities.

    • MCrow

      What does Vegas have to do with FFRF?

      • NCOriolesFan

        Beleiving in something bigger than yourself helps keep the crime rate down – takes the selfishness out of life.

        • Wesley Willis

          please provide evidence of this claim. anecdotes do not count.

        • MCrow

          Even if that is true (not saying it is one way or another as it’s an entirely different discussion), FFRF does not interfere with your right to believe as you will, just from people trying to make others conform to their beliefs.

    • MarkSebree

      What religious bigotry? They are registering a complaint because someone in the community asked them to. They are asking the school to actually follow the law. They are not trying to affect any “community values”, unless you think that it is a “community value” for a government employee like a public school teacher or coach to seek to impose their beliefs onto your children even when those beliefs wildly differ from yours, or it is a “community value” for public school employees to be able to break the law with impunity.

      • NCOriolesFan

        The religious bigotry of demanding communities and people give up their religious values to appease a crybaby minority.

        • Wesley Willis

          orioles fan demonstrated he doesn’t understand the situation or what marks point was. then he resorts to name calling because he is unable to defend his position with logic and/or reason.

        • MarkSebree

          Actually, you are the one that is displaying religious bigotry. It is religious bigotry to demand that the minority keep quiet when the majority is trying to convert them and impose their beliefs onto them.

          Nobody has the right to impose their religion onto anyone else, no matter how much of the government they control, and no matter what their religion says. And that not to “appease the minority”, that is because of the law and the US Constitution.

          The US Constitution, including most of the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, and a couple other Amendments, was written to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. People following the majority religion do not need their rights protected, but the followers of a minority or unpopular religion do. People who’s opinions are in the majority do not need to worry about speaking their minds or writing what they wish in newspapers, but those with opposing, minority opinions do. Those that are not seeing their rights ignored by the government do not need to be able to sue the government, but those who’s rights are being ignored do need to be able to sue the government for redress of grievances.

          You seem to feel that you belong to the “crybaby majority” that does not like to be told that they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

  • Scott Davenport

    I’m thinking these atheist turds really need to take this up with the one and only God…

    It’s time to stop pussy footing around this issue…there is NO other religion than Christianity, and if you want to go to Heaven, that’s the only way. You don’t get there thru any of these false religions we Christians are forced to give lip service to…..time for this crap to end……

    • MCrow

      There are, in fact, hundreds of other religions. Most of which make the same claim. Your religious community does not get to supersede others. You are not forced to believe them, but you do not get to dictate what others believe.

    • MarkSebree

      “I’m thinking these atheist turds really need to take this up with the one and only God…”

      Right after you objectively prove that it exists, and then actually produce it.

      “there is NO other religion than Christianity,”

      Actually, there are a great many religions, and they are all just as valid as yours is. They include, but are not limited to, Buddhism, Hinduism, Chinese Traditional, Wicca, several versions of Shamanism depending on the continent, Astura, Scientology, and many others. Your intolerance does not change the objective facts.

      “and if you want to go to Heaven, that’s the only way.”

      In your opinion and by your belief. However, that does not make “Heaven” real, nor does it mean that you are correct about how to get there if it is.

      “You don’t get there thru any of these false religions we Christians are forced to give lip service to.”

      You are assuming that you do not also follow a “false religion”, simply because you happen to follow it. A claim that has nothing to support it.

      You are showing that you are a hateful bigot, and probably a theocrat. You have no respect for your US Constitution, nor for anyone besides yourself.

      “time for this crap to end”

      Your’s is the only “cr@p” that needs to end. You are nothing more than a Christian version of ISIL and the Taliban. You have the same attitude, hatred, and intolerance. The only difference is that you pray to a different deity.