If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   High school football coach in hot water for baptizing his players   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 88
    More: Silly, high school football coach, high schools, Mooresville, baptisms, Religion Foundation  
•       •       •

4124 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 8:40 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-31 10:53:14 PM
What's the big deal?  I played football for the Kansas City Jewish High School and we had to have a briss before every game.  We won a lot, and my dick is a really thin reed-looking flesh straw thing, but we went to some big games my senior year!  All of my wives have said it's not a big deal.
 
2014-01-31 11:00:53 PM

Omahawg: is baptize another way to say they caught a teacher splooging all over the students again?


No it means take them into the shower if ya know what I mean.
 
2014-01-31 11:11:11 PM

1nsanilicious: Did anyone actually read the article?

This all came about when a twitter photo showed him with his team at a baptism, which was for one of the players belonging to a church that other team members went to. The coach was invited to attend because they knew he was Christian.

He wasn't disciplined and said he knew that doing something like that would have been a violation.

He was a guest at someone's baptism, sorry to ruin your hate on Christians thread.


DId you?  Because if you had you would have the part about how he also regularly led students in prayer.
 
2014-01-31 11:14:17 PM

iheartscotch: If the kids agree to be baptized; then, I don't care.


Uh, what if he says "take the baptism or you're off the team?"

It's called an abuse of authority.
 
2014-01-31 11:27:45 PM

Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.


The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?


Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Not legally binding, but just a tidbit of history on the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state."  It should be noted that this concept goes back further, to that of Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, in 1644, "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"


Supreme Court of the United States cases:

Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878):
"The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."


Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."


Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) :  The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.


So, yeah, it actually is Unconstitutional.  And these are not the only cases where the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue.  Oh, and before you try to claim that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to declare something Unconstitutional, well, you would be wrong on that, too.  That is part of why they were created.  "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States"
 
2014-01-31 11:34:03 PM
Now up in Starkville, MS, the coach instructed his players in the "baptism", so to speak, of a bull into a steer.
www.sectalk.com
 
2014-01-31 11:37:29 PM
In other news.  Football coach fails to understand the concept of having someone secretly bless the holy Gatorade.  Then have it dumped on all the players without telling them they've been baptized until later. Voila
 
2014-01-31 11:39:29 PM

iheartscotch: If the kids agree to be baptized; then, I don't care.


The kids will "agree" to whatever the local authority figure tells them to do.
That is why they are "kids".
That is why this is wrong.
That is why this moron should be sh*tcanned.

/what if the kids had "agreed" to an after practice circle jerk
//led by the coach in the showers
///would you care then?
 
2014-01-31 11:42:14 PM

Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?


Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Not legally binding, but just a tidbit of history on the origin of the phrase "separation of church and state."  It should be noted that this concept goes back further, to that of Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, in 1644, "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"


Supreme Court of the United States cases:

Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878): "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meani ...


Yep, thank you. Lot's of history and legal precedent go into that.
 
2014-02-01 12:14:57 AM

Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?


Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.
 
2014-02-01 12:17:54 AM

Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.


"If you don't get baptized in a good ole Christian church pronto you're off the team" is a law of religion for football players.
 
2014-02-01 12:21:16 AM

Aussie_As: Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.

"If you don't get baptized in a good ole Christian church pronto you're off the team" is a law of religion for football players.


And the coach being employed by a government-run school makes him a government official.

/I assume, at least.  I have no idea what a Graded School District is
 
2014-02-01 12:21:25 AM
Jim_Callahan:

Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

There's the establishment clause saying that the federal government can't take actions backing or undermining any establishment of religion.  The privileges and immunities clause says that the states can't violate any protection the constitution grants with respect to the federal government.  Public schools are state institutions.

I know this isn't something that's all in one place that you can google in five seconds or less, but c'mon, man, this is basic civics, not rocket science.  If you grew up anywhere that's  heard of the United States you should be able to work that one out in a few minutes with the amendment list and if you grew up actually in the states you should know it offhand.


I know it's a huge pain in the liberal rear to not pretend like you know everything, but the truth is,  your officially sanctioned monologue doesn't become more true the more times you repeat it to yourself.

FTFA ".promotes the constitutional separation of church and state  ~~ promotes the constitutional separation of church and state  ~~ promotes the constitutional separation of church and state."
No such thing.
 
2014-02-01 12:23:40 AM

Aussie_As: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

Amendments aren't part of the constitution?



I suggest you send away for a free copy, after you learn to how to spell it.  Then you can spend as many hours as you like pondering and crying why what all your liberal friends, Rachel Maddow et al., have been lying to you.
 
2014-02-01 12:26:00 AM

Aussie_As: Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.

"If you don't get baptized in a good ole Christian church pronto you're off the team" is a law of religion for football players.


I would hope not.
 
2014-02-01 01:00:02 AM

Stinkyy: Aussie_As: ....

"If you don't get baptized in a good ole Christian church pronto you're off the team" is a law of religion for football players.

I would hope not.


Well the other possibility is that all the good Christian boys on the football team just loved engaging with their coach about football and religious issues. I'm from a very different culture to you so I wouldn't know if that was feasible or not. When I was at school, the last thing the football players (that's Australian Rules Football, a more athletic game than gridiron but still a tough sport with hard hitting and much less protective equipment) would have wanted to do is get all churchy with their coach and teammates.

It really sounds to me like this guy was, at the very least, at risk of abusing his position and pressuring kids into religious stuff they weren't into. But maybe I've just missed a cultural detail. Maybe high school football teams across the US are all about moral Christians reading their bibles and getting metaphysical with the coach.

So if I've misunderstood high school football culture because I've based it on stuff like Revenge of the Nerds rather than actually having experienced it personally, you're right and I'm wrong.
 
2014-02-01 01:05:51 AM

Stinkyy: Aussie_As: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

Amendments aren't part of the constitution?


I suggest you send away for a free copy, after you learn to how to spell it.  Then you can spend as many hours as you like pondering and crying why what all your liberal friends, Rachel Maddow et al., have been lying to you.


RIght. So you're saying amendments aren't part of the constitution and the constitution's interpretation is in no way affected by Supreme Court rulings of the past 200 years. Good luck with that.

This isn't about liberal versus conservative. The only reason you take it there is because you have no facts of any bearing on your side. Pathetic really. But that's what your butthurt obviously does for you.
 
2014-02-01 01:08:19 AM
I would have gone further than "order to stop".  I would have fired that clown so hard.
 
2014-02-01 01:12:50 AM

Teresaol31: Atheist numbskull


You care to elaborate on that cuddles?

opcshow.org
 
2014-02-01 01:16:51 AM

MFAWG: OnlyM3:

I remember when Conservative humor wasn't just recycled Librul humor, but that was a long, long time ago. Like on the 80s long.


Farking thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that they seem barfing up memes from daily kos circa 2004.
 
2014-02-01 02:00:27 AM
i find the type of person who thinks this sort of thing is ok is a perfect venn diagram match with the type of person who is honestly surprised when you suggest that maybe someone is not christian. its like the idea of a non-protestant, non middle-class, non white person is more of a thought experiment. you mean to say there are hindoo's in hindoostan who don't accept the lord jesus christ as their personal beer coozie? well bless your heart!
 
2014-02-01 02:23:39 AM

OnlyM3: [commieblaster.com image 222x227]


Congrats.  You are now farkied in Red, like the other known trolls, with the tag "Republican douchebag".

It's sad how stupid Christians are.  They are all about forcing people into their religious beliefs, but if the coach in this case was an atheist telling the kids "there is no god" or a Muslim or Hindu or Jew teaching about his religion, you would be pissed when they forced it onto your kid.  But you're a christian, and therefore, too farking stupid to understand that point.
  

AliceBToklasLives: /srsly - I thought winning Texas high school football coaches were above the Constitution.


It has nothing to do with Texas, but for an idiot like you "It happened someplace outside of Texas" is likely too complicated for you to grasp.
 
2014-02-01 05:03:44 AM
Maybe Jesus Christ can't kick a field goal?
i21.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-01 05:40:22 AM
Dammit Teachers and coaches. Your job is to teach and coach.

Don't get religiony on them.

Don't fark them.

Teach and coach the subject matter. that's it.
 
2014-02-01 05:45:01 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-01 06:26:26 AM
Football Baptism
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-01 09:06:10 AM

gar1013: goatleggedfellow: How often does the bible cite Jesus preaching to children outside the view of their parents?

As I recall, He usually talked to adults.

Often, but not always...here's a few from the Gospel of Matthew.


Matthew 19:14-15
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Matthew 18:1-3
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 21:15-16
But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,

"'From the lips of children and infants
you, Lord, have called forth your praise'?"


Matthew 6:5  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 others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
 
2014-02-01 09:15:39 AM
"He's a very proud Christian," Edwards said.


Just like Jesus taught.
 
2014-02-01 09:32:54 AM
Did he baptize them in the shower ala Sandusky?
 
2014-02-01 10:39:27 AM

mutterfark: gar1013: goatleggedfellow: How often does the bible cite Jesus preaching to children outside the view of their parents?

As I recall, He usually talked to adults.

Often, but not always...here's a few from the Gospel of Matthew.


Matthew 19:14-15
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Matthew 18:1-3
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 21:15-16
But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,

"'From the lips of children and infants
you, Lord, have called forth your praise'?"

Matthew 6:5  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 others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.


Matthew 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a basket, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

The Bible  tells you to share your faith before it  admonishes hypocrisy. They even repeat it.

Luke 11:33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.
 
2014-02-01 01:19:30 PM

wellreadneck: mutterfark: gar1013: goatleggedfellow: How often does the bible cite Jesus preaching to children outside the view of their parents?

As I recall, He usually talked to adults.

Often, but not always...here's a few from the Gospel of Matthew.


Matthew 19:14-15
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Matthew 18:1-3
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.


Matthew 21:15-16
But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.

"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,

"'From the lips of children and infants
you, Lord, have called forth your praise'?"

Matthew 6:5  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 others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

Matthew 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a basket, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

The Bible  tells you to share your faith before it  admonishes hypocrisy. They even repeat it.

Luke 11:33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.


There's is a substantial difference in living a Christian life publicly and praying in public. Feeling the need to declare your faith loudly and publicly as often as possible does not, IMHO, profess faith but shows insecurity. Or to put it a different way paraphrasing the words of a comedian whose name escapes me; 'you never hear anyone say "oh we were doing great until Jesus made me fumble'. I am an atheist who was raised in the Catholic church. To me, the very idea of sports figures giving thanks to god for a TD, HR or slam dunk is the very essence of taking the lord's name in vain. But that's just me.
 
2014-02-01 10:52:37 PM

Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.


Are you really that farking stupid?  Or are you just retarded?  He led the team in prayer.  That is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, as established by the 1st Amendment and numerous, subsequent case rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

So you know what you can do?  Go back and get your GED or get a refund from whatever College or University you went to, because you are clearly an uneducated fool.
 
2014-02-02 12:20:38 AM

Mock26: Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.

Are you really that farking stupid?  Or are you just retarded?  He led the team in prayer.  That is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, as established by the 1st Amendment and numerous, subsequent case rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

So you know what you can do?  Go back and get your GED or get a refund from whatever College or University you went to, because you are clearly an uneducated fool.


Mock26: Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion.  You with me so far?  I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead.  I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion.  You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.

Are you really that farking stupid?  Or are you just retarded?  He led the team in prayer.  That is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, as established by the 1st Amendment and numerous, subsequent case rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

So you know what you can do?  Go back and get your GED or get a refund from whatever College or University you went to, because you are clearly an uneducated fool.


Well done on your hostility.  Apparently the Fark Satan brigade is still hopping mad for its indefensibly weak arguments. THIS is what really offends me, people that are so inconceivably warped, they believe so strongly in their make-believe histories, and blinded in their abysmal degeneracy, they go on with themselves like they're authorities on anything. Unofficial, private, non-compulsory.  Those words mean anything to you?  Establishment Clause much?  Constitutional Law much?

Hey pal, there's the Constitution, there's common law, and there are hundreds of years of foundational documents on the liberties of speech and prayer.  The coach has numerous outs and is unlikely to be able to afford to slug it out, and probably understands the wisdom that fighting a battle with your illiberal zealot friends will be a financially straining experience.  Should the coach choose to file a lawsuit, and everything were laid out on the table, he'd be absolved. The winners here are those such as yourself that desire to degrade and create chaos from order, or stamp it out under the Leviathan.

You are clearly an expert in creating and believing fallacy, and a brutish one at that.  But with a limp-wristed twist:  Congratulations on your surrender and to your affiliation with the opposite of what is good and just in the world. Have a seat over there and color, and please don't get anywhere near people who're remotely educated.  Have a great night.
 
2014-02-02 12:43:20 AM

Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: Mock26: Stinkyy: First, it is NOT a violation of the Constitution, no matter what the satanist loy-yah says and the principal parroted. I just checked, no separation clause anywhere in there.

The First Amendment: 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.

Note the part about no law respecting an establishment of religion. You with me so far? I am not going too fast for you, am I?

Hi there, dickhead. I was just wondering the part where the coach established a law of religion. You know what you can do, and it involves your thumb and your ass.

Are you really that farking stupid? Or are you just retarded? He led the team in prayer. That is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, as established by the 1st Amendment and numerous, subsequent case rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

So you know what you can do? Go back and get your GED or get a refund from whatever College or University you went to, because you are clearly an uneducated fool.

Well done on your hostility. Apparently the Fark Satan brigade is still hopping mad for its indefensibly weak arguments. THIS is what really offends me, people that are so inconceivably warped, they believe so strongly in their make-believe histories, and blinded in their abysmal degeneracy, they go on with themselves like they're authorities on anything. Unofficial, private, non-compulsory. Those words mean anything to you? Establishment Clause much? Constitutional Law much?

Hey pal, there's the Constitution, there's common law, and there are hundreds of years of foundational documents on the liberties of speech and prayer.  The coach has numerous outs and is unlikely to be able to afford to slug it out, and probably understands the wisdom that fighting a battle with your illiberal zealot friends will be a financially straining experience.  Should the coach choose to file a lawsuit, and everything were laid out on the table, he'd be absolved. The winners here are those such as yourself that desire to degrade and create chaos from order, or stamp it out under the Leviathan.

You are clearly an expert in creating and believing fallacy, and a brutish one at that.  But with a limp-wristed twist:  Congratulations on your surrender and to your affiliation with the opposite of what is good and just in the world. Have a seat over there and color, and please don't get anywhere near people who're remotely educated.  Have a great night.

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahhhaahahhaha! You claim that a public school teacher leading students in prayer is not a violation of the Constitution (despite the overwhelming evidence that proves that it is in fact a violation) are accusing someone else of not being educated?  Oh that is priceless!

And in regards to common law and foundational documents, well, none of those trump the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings.  So yeah, a public school official leading students in prayer at school or a school event is Unconstitutional.  That is an established fact of law.

Or would you care to refute the Supreme Court rulings I mentioned earlier?
 
2014-02-02 01:19:50 AM
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962):  "Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited."

Abington School District v. Schempp
, 374 U.S. 203 (1963): "Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day - even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents."

So tell me, Stinkyy, which part of those historical cases is make-believe?  Hmmm?  Care to refute either or both of these cases?
 
2014-02-02 01:26:03 AM
If your desperate grasp on citations weren't so weak (putting the Jefferson letter near the top was the great tell-tale), I'd point out excerpts from several, such as Newdow v. Rio Linda Union (" The First Amendment does not impose an amorphous "separation of church and state" standard but rather prohibits the establishment of an official church and similar coercive action',"  , Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette etc. etc., and waste time pushing those in front of your snooty nose.  Religious expression has plenty of protections that you'd prefer to conceal under your masturbatory display of citations that go strictly in your favor.  What you've conveniently ignored is what the coach actually did, but don't let me interrupt your pseudo-highbrow basking in ignorance.  Was the state endorsing religion?  No.  Was the coach coercing individuals?  No.  All you sit and do is obfuscate, and you're keeping me from my whiskey.  Keep pretending, keep grasping. Satan will reward you handsomely.  Good day, dickhead.
 
2014-02-02 01:42:52 AM

Stinkyy: If your desperate grasp on citations weren't so weak (putting the Jefferson letter near the top was the great tell-tale), I'd point out excerpts from several, such as Newdow v. Rio Linda Union (" The First Amendment does not impose an amorphous "separation of church and state" standard but rather prohibits the establishment of an official church and similar coercive action',"  , Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette etc. etc., and waste time pushing those in front of your snooty nose.  Religious expression has plenty of protections that you'd prefer to conceal under your masturbatory display of citations that go strictly in your favor.  What you've conveniently ignored is what the coach actually did, but don't let me interrupt your pseudo-highbrow basking in ignorance.  Was the state endorsing religion?  No.  Was the coach coercing individuals?  No.  All you sit and do is obfuscate, and you're keeping me from my whiskey.  Keep pretending, keep grasping. Satan will reward you handsomely.  Good day, dickhead.


Newdow v Rio Linda Union deals with the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.  It does not authorize school-led prayer.  Not only that, but it is a Circuit Court ruling which does not overturn or supersede any previous Supreme Court ruling.

Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette  has absolutely nothing to do with school prayer.  It was a case dealing with holiday decorations on government property.  The ruling on this case in no way deals with or even affects rulings on school prayer.

So, 0 - 2.  Care to try again?

As for endorsing religion, technically, from a legal standpoint, the state was in fact endorsing religion.

And where in all of my posts have I stated that religious expression is not protected in this country?  Nowhere have I said or even hinted at that.  All I have done is stated the legal cases where the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion ruled that school officials (and this includes teachers) are forbidden from leading students in prayer, that such an act is Unconstitutional.

And, No, I am not ignoring what the coach did.  He lead students in prayer.  That was clearly stated in the article.
 
2014-02-02 01:48:51 AM

Stinkyy: If your desperate grasp on citations weren't so weak (putting the Jefferson letter near the top was the great tell-tale), I'd point out excerpts from several, such as Newdow v. Rio Linda Union (" The First Amendment does not impose an amorphous "separation of church and state" standard but rather prohibits the establishment of an official church and similar coercive action',"  , Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette etc. etc., and waste time pushing those in front of your snooty nose.  Religious expression has plenty of protections that you'd prefer to conceal under your masturbatory display of citations that go strictly in your favor.  What you've conveniently ignored is what the coach actually did, but don't let me interrupt your pseudo-highbrow basking in ignorance.  Was the state endorsing religion?  No.  Was the coach coercing individuals?  No.  All you sit and do is obfuscate, and you're keeping me from my whiskey.  Keep pretending, keep grasping. Satan will reward you handsomely.  Good day, dickhead.



"Capps wasn't disciplined, the superintendent said, and has written players and their families that he won't lead the team in any more prayers."

Hmmm, "lead the team in any more prayers."

As for coercing, care to quote me court ruling where it states that it is only Unconstitutional if there is coercion involved?
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report