Originally Posted by alias

I am not insulting the arguments made.

Originally Posted by alias

Your argument is "read between the lines". That is a pathetic argument.

Originally Posted by alias

I can find some Joe Blow to read between the lines and he could say the constitution forbids picking your nose in church.

Originally Posted by foundit66

That is precisely what you did with the phrase: "convuluted educated dummy's rhetoric".
That's all it is. An insult to the argument, calling it names, without actually ADDRESSING the argument.



No. It's a very real argument, based on the very real way that the world works and how the courts interpret the constitution.
Demanding that the EXACT phrase "separation of church and state" be found verbatim in the constitution is a pathetic argument. The idea exists as part of the ESTABLISHMENT clause, which you so blindly keep trying to portray as "no state religion".
Learn to read.



And again, you don't debate what was ACTUALLY said, instead you attempt to ridicule it.
Saying "the constitution forbids picking your nose in church" would be a LOOONNNNGGGG stretch.
Acknowledging what the establishment clause means is not.

The current legal analysis acknowledges the existence and meaning of the establishment clause.
You pointing to some random person who has a nose picking issue doesn't mean squat compared to that.

Originally Posted by alias

There is a separation, but it is not the separation you liberals like to think.

Originally Posted by alias

You and your pals want to keep religion in the churches and homes out of site.

Originally Posted by alias

That is not what the clause says. The clause explicitly states that congres shall not interfere with the right for Americans to freely express their religion.

Originally Posted by alias

You have twisted that to mean that there can be no expression on government property. That is not what it says.

Originally Posted by alias

That is why there are sculptures of the ten commandments on the US Supreme Court building. Why don't you try to get those removed?

Originally Posted by alias

Instead, you attack some podunk court in Alabama and force them to remove the 10 commandments. You are hypocrits. You "historicity" is just plain idiotic.

Originally Posted by alias

There is nothing against a football coach leading his team in prayer which he has every right to do if he wants to. He is freely expressing his religion.

Originally Posted by alias

Just because it is on school property means nothing. The president can have a person lead a Christian prayer at his inauguration, but a football coach can't before a football game. Stupid. I can't find that in the constitution either. You make it up as you go along. Stupid.

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...

Originally Posted by Jaxian

A school coach cannot lead his team in a prayer because he is employed by the government.

Understand that the government may make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that the government may not, for example, pass a law which establishes a time for prayer. Doing so would respect an establishment of religion.

Of course, the government may not avoid this law by granting the authority to establish a national time of prayer to someone else. The government does not have the authority to establish a national time of prayer, and thus it cannot bestow that authority upon someone else.

As I said before, the school coach is a government employee: his authority over the children there comes only because the government has hired him to do the job of coaching the team.

Because of this, the coach has no authority to designate a time for prayer.

Now, I think there is an important distinction to be made here: if the coach is not using his authority as a coach to lead people in a prayer, then he should be perfectly able to do it. But asking your team to say a prayer before a big game, for example, is clearly using your authority as a coach to designate a time for prayer. No such authority could have been granted to this coach.

Also understand that a coach leading his children in prayer is not a violation of the Constitution: it is simply the coach trying to use authority he was never given. For example, if a coach is only supposed to have his team practice for two hours after school, but he extends that time to four hours, then he has acted outside of the authority granted him. It is not a violation of the Constitution, just a guy doing something he isn't supposed to do.

On the other hand, if the legislature tried to pass a law which granted him or any other school official the power to designate a time for prayer, that would be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by alias

Where does it state in the constitution that a government employed coach cannot lead his team in prayer? It doesn't. Some judge said so and that is all. The judge is wrong.

Originally Posted by Jaxian

The government can pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. A law which designates a specific time to pray recognizes an establishment of religion. Therefore the government cannot pass a law which recognizes a time to pray.

Does this logic help?