Originally Posted by foundit66

Ahh yes.
Prepare for the stampede of the strawman arguments...



Wrong.
I have no problem with public displays of religion, as long as they are not on governmental property with the primary purpose being religious in nature.



It doesn't.
It does not interfere with the right of Americans to freely express your religion.

You CAN pray at a football game.
You just can't have the school coach LEAD that prayer.

You CAN put up a monument of the ten commandments in a public place.
That public place just cannot be governmental property, if the primary purpose is religious.



I keep linking you to explanations of the word "establishment", which you gloss over and misrepresent.
Religious icons on governmental property, when there is no real purpose beyond religion, IS an example of "establishment".



Are you thick?
How many times do I have to answer this stupid question before you realize that it's been answered?



That's your opinion.
I think it's idiotic to insist that religious icons be placed on governmental property.
If I wanted to place a cross on property that I don't own, people would get upset.
I don't understand why YOU don't get that...



No. The COACH HIMSELF praying is him "expressing his religion".
Getting the TEAM to follow him in prayer is not "expressing his religion".

And here's a bonus question which I expect you'll avoid again.
If it's really an issue to "express your religion" by having prayer lead at the football game, WHY do you people always through a fit when the coach is excluded, but OTHER POSSIBILITIES which are allowed are overlooked?

A parent in the stands could lead the parents in prayer, but I've never seen or heard of that done. Instead, you insist that the coach has to do it...

Why is that?



It's not "made up as I go along".
It's all an issue of "establishment", and you demonstrate over and over a refusal to understand that concept in the constitution.

Refusing to understand. THAT is stupid...