♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 3, 2009 13:43:56 GMT
Justices refuse appeal of coach banned from student-led prayersedition.cnn.com/2009/US/03/02/scotus.school.prayer/index.html QUOTE: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a high school football coach who had been forbidden to join in pregame prayers led by his student athletes. New Jersey high school football coach Marcus Borden had hoped the Supreme Court would take up his appeal. The justices without comment on Monday refused to take up the appeal of Marcus Borden. At issue was a school district policy that banned coaches or adults from participating in prayers initiated and conducted by students. Borden sued officials in East Brunswick, New Jersey, after they ordered him to stop bowing his head and "taking a knee" as a sign of respect while his players prayed in the locker room before games. He said such gestures were secular in nature, but the school said that as a municipal employee, Borden's actions could be seen as government endorsement of religion, potentially subjecting the school to lawsuits or sanctions. The school district said the coach had a long history of leading such prayers, even after complaints from several parents. Officials in their appeal said Borden even arranged a chaplain for team dinners. He had been coach of the East Brunswick Bears since 1983 but quit more than three years ago after refusing to comply with the school directive. He compiled a 116-100-1 record. A federal appeals court agreed the state policy was constitutional and that the school board had the authority to ban school employees from participating in prayer activities. The Supreme Court 46 years ago banned school-sponsored prayer recited at the beginning of the class day. Similar "moment of silence" laws, designed for students to engage in mediation or voluntary prayer, also were ruled unconstitutional when the purpose was viewed as a roundabout way to promote religion or return prayer to public schools. Such a ban was reaffirmed in 1992 in a case involving prayer at school-sponsored assemblies. Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded, "The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation." In 2000, a high court majority banned prayers at public high school football games, even if they were student-led and initiated. The case involved Texas students using loudspeakers to conduct pregame prayers with the team and spectators. Justice John Paul Stevens in that case concluded such a pregame prayer "has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship." Student-led prayers in the Borden case, according to the trial record, were conducted privately in the team locker room. The case is Borden v. School District of the Township of East Brunswick (08-842).
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 3, 2009 14:10:50 GMT
I find the concept of praying to a God a complete and illogical nonsense. Ask any religious person why his God allows the continuous suffering on earth; why some people die cruel and violent death; why some children are born deformed, why some suffer terminal illness while others do not, why smallpox, ebola,and the like exist, and why his God will not intervene to prevent such suffering, and he will undoubtedly come out with the standard reply. God has given us free will, and does not intervene in the affairs of mankind (or words to that effect).
In that case, what is the point of praying for his intervention?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2009 16:06:30 GMT
If all the people taking part in the prayers are there voluntarily, I can't see the harm. But the coach knew the rules and was blatently ignoring them.
Although I occasionally now attend church, I do object to people thrusting their religion down my throat. Years ago I was on a train with a blinding headache and a group of young people with guitars came into my coach and started to sing hymns. I was on the point of asking them to stop when an elderly woman (not with them) applauded and said how wonderful it all was. I bet she wouldn't have said the same had they been rock musicians.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 3, 2009 16:39:18 GMT
As a Christian married to an agnostic, I can see both points of view.
The ultimate question is this.
Was the coach either forced to pray by the players or were the players forced to pray by the coach? If not, then the court's judgement is a clear violation of his own rights to pray.
The statement 'there shall be no establishment of religion' does NOT mean and was never intended to mean that people were NOT free to worship as they saw fit.
That's where the law has got it badly wrong.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 3, 2009 17:23:59 GMT
The trouble is, "worship as they see fit," often involves some sort of proselytizing and exclusion of those whose beliefs are different. Was *all* the team involved in the prayer or just part. I can see very good reason for the coach to refrain if his participation gave tacit approval to some of the players over others.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Mar 6, 2009 18:00:12 GMT
Doesn't just BEING a coach give 'tacit approval' to some players over others?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 6, 2009 22:32:04 GMT
In re. playing ability perhaps - not personal choices - nor should it.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 26, 2009 7:47:41 GMT
The statement 'there shall be no establishment of religion' does NOT mean and was never intended to mean that people were NOT free to worship as they saw fit. Mr. Borden is perfectly free to worship as he sees fit; provided, of course, that he does so on his own time, and not the taxpayer’s.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on May 26, 2009 11:23:19 GMT
As a government employee, he was giving nod to a certain religion which is not allowed by public school employees when on the clock and representing the school.
He is free to worship in whichever manner he choses as long as it is not when he is on work related issues.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 26, 2009 16:00:36 GMT
As a government employee, he was giving nod to a certain religion which is not allowed by public school employees when on the clock and representing the school. He is free to worship in whichever manner he choses as long as it is not when he is on work related issues. Wouldn't coaching - pregame, game and post game - be work related? It's his job after all.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on May 28, 2009 16:20:23 GMT
I dare say that if prayers are so important to them, then they can do it in the changing room or before then or any other time. Personally, I find the kind of prayers that treat a deity like Father Christmas repugnant. Any God worth the name is not going to intervene in petty human activities for petty human motives just because petty humans asked it to. The whole idea shows how petty these peoples' concepts of religion are. I'd have more respect for invoking demons!
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 29, 2009 3:21:52 GMT
I'd have more respect for invoking demons! Would you now.....
|
|
|
Post by jbeukema on Jul 13, 2009 8:22:34 GMT
I would imagine that this would fall under 'prayer in schools'. This ruling seems consistent with past rulings
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 13, 2009 12:25:04 GMT
As a government employee, he was giving nod to a certain religion which is not allowed by public school employees when on the clock and representing the school. how about the wearing of the turban..yamulka..hijab..skul cap...do they not also give a not to certain religions?
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 13, 2009 13:08:52 GMT
There's a question for the French ban on religious symbols. The hijab is not a religious symbol but the turban over uncut hair is a required one. Given their colonial history, I suppose Sikhs are rather thin on the French ground but I could see trouble there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2009 14:24:55 GMT
I dare say that if prayers are so important to them, then they can do it in the changing room or before then or any other time. Personally, I find the kind of prayers that treat a deity like Father Christmas repugnant. Any God worth the name is not going to intervene in petty human activities for petty human motives just because petty humans asked it to. The whole idea shows how petty these peoples' concepts of religion are. I'd have more respect for invoking demons! Certainly, if God was being asked to intervene to help achieve a victory, that would be a bit like treating him like Father Chrsitmas! However, prayers asking for strength, and fair play to others would be okay - though as you say, of course these could be offered privately by those who choose to say them.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 13, 2009 16:16:44 GMT
There's a question for the French ban on religious symbols. The hijab is not a religious symbol but the turban over uncut hair is a required one. Given their colonial history, I suppose Sikhs are rather thin on the French ground but I could see trouble there. i wish you would tell the uk gov that the hijab is not a religious symbol.......could be fun
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 16, 2009 1:10:48 GMT
There's a question for the French ban on religious symbols. The hijab is not a religious symbol but the turban over uncut hair is a required one. Given their colonial history, I suppose Sikhs are rather thin on the French ground but I could see trouble there. i wish you would tell the uk gov that the hijab is not a religious symbol.......could be fun I think they know already! Just like the Spanish Mantilla and East European Orthodox hijabs are not mandated religious symbols but are cultural ones the same as every Catholic woman would be found wearing 20 years ago. However, the Sikh man's turban is a religious mandate along with uncut hair, shorts instead of briefs and a knife (though most wear only a symbolic miniature) and some other symbols you can look up for yourself. The symbol I would like to ban is circumcision. It desensitises men, so in return they are sexually rougher with women. And some parts of Africa (mainly Sudan) take it to mean stripping the entire outer skin off a pubescent boy's penis, equivalent to what they do to girls. But some women like mutilated men, just as some men like African excision of women, although one reason women give for doing it to the next generation is that it will make them less attractive as sex objects just to be used, but more attractive as wives wanted for more than sex, because most men prefer whole women for fun.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 16, 2009 7:45:20 GMT
""Just like the Spanish Mantilla ""which is derived from the moorish period of womens wear
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Jul 16, 2009 10:16:36 GMT
That may be true of some East European headscarves true but I can't see it applying in Russia or Ireland or Ealing Comedies where older women almost always wear a headscarf (usually with curlers under it!)
|
|