Football Coach for Christ - Out of a job

[PaintMyHouse]

There is nothing in flux about this or RvW, just people trying to skirt the laws with new ones or not obey the law in the first place, like Coach Jesus, who isn't obeying Jesus either.

That law that can't be established.

Got it.

It's not the law, dumbass, what cannot be established is religion.

Still haven't read what you appealed to in your lame argument ?

Why are you having so much trouble understanding that as a State or Federal employee, you cannot promote, or be seen as promoting, religion?

Religion and Public Schools

I have no problem doing my own research.

I guess have to ask why you can't do yours.

Have you figured out the foundation for your argument yet ?

It isn't the first amendment.

Every Supreme Court decision on Church and State issues refers back to the Fist Amendment. Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...

Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.

Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).

I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.

Correction: You can't make an argument.

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

 

[bodecea]

He doesn't get paid to pray to his god on our time. He was already told to knock it off, and he refuses. See ya, coach...

Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.

Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).

I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.

Correction: You can't make an argument.

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

Yet.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.

Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).

I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.

Correction: You can't make an argument.

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Insubordination is defined and legitimate cause for discipline.

Better argument than the first amendment, which is not an argument (that you've been able to make).

I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.

Correction: You can't make an argument.

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

Yet.

????

No, they never were.

States essentially took the lead from the Bill of Rights and wrote them out of their state constitutions.

Everyone back then better understood how this was supposed to work and what a miserable experience it was to have a state sponsored church.

The fact remains that the constitution nowhere forbids people from practicing religion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"The Court's decision
In an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled that government-written prayers were not to be recited in public schools and were a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, because before the decision could be announced, Justice Felix Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire, and Justice Byron White took no part in the case.[6]

The Court explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. It then stated that school's prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible.

The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. The Court further held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough not to promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which still violates the Establishment Clause."
Engel v. Vitale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

The law that can't be established...got it.

Religion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.

Read the 1st amendement.

It says nothing about establishing religion.

It says no laws can be passed regarding it's establisment.

Looking for that argument.....

I'd really be looking for that refund if I was you.

"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.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Ya do know you highlighted "Congress" it says nothing about state legistratures....

The Supreme Court fixed that. The Constitution applies at both the Federal and the State level.

Lmao....then why didn't you post that in the first place? You knew the constitution says something different.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't have to make an argument that the Supreme Court found perfectly valid, in 1963.

Correction: You can't make an argument.

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.[11]"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Religion is what cannot be established, meaning promoted or sponsored by the state, dumbshit.

Read the 1st amendement.

It says nothing about establishing religion.

It says no laws can be passed regarding it's establisment.

Looking for that argument.....

I'd really be looking for that refund if I was you.

"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.[1]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Ya do know you highlighted "Congress" it says nothing about state legistratures....

The Supreme Court fixed that. The Constitution applies at both the Federal and the State level.

Lmao....then why didn't you post that in the first place? You knew the constitution says something different.

I know how it was originally applied but since it now applies to both the State and Federal, it matters not a damn.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Correction: You can't make an argument.

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the

minor.[11]"

And hence an example, at the federal level, of what happens when people become politically correct.

This is another one of those pnuembras of light !

There is nothing in this argument that supports the firing of the coach over 1st amendment principles.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't need to make an argument. Everyone but you knows what it is. The State cannot promote religion. It must, by law, remain neutral. That is what protects religious freedom here.

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the

minor.[11]"

And hence an example, at the federal level, of what happens when people become politically correct.

This is another one of those pnuembras of light !

There is nothing in this argument that supports the firing of the coach over 1st amendment principles.

His pregame prayer, that he led, was an establishment. He was told to knock it off and then he came up with a new plan, which also isn't allowed. He works for the state, not the church. He can pray on his own damn time in his own home and church, not our schools.

And there is nothing PC about obeying our laws in this secular nation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Supporters of Joe, kind of. They're all good with Public Prayer, even if Jesus was opposed.

See ya around, Joe: https://www.libertyinstitute.org/file/Bremerton-Public-Statement---10.28.15.pdf

And just before: https://www.libertyinstitute.org/file/BremertonSchoolDistrictDenial.pdf

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Lucky he only lost his job. Is grounds to arrest him for violation of other students' civil rights.

 

[rcfieldz]

If Christ were alive today...would he play high school football? Or maybe be a male cheerleader.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

School administration ordered him not to pray with students multiple times. So on multiple occasions he broke federal law and violated other students' civil rights. If I were the local DA I"d have him arrested and thrown in a stinky cell while filing federal charges against him. Make him an example. Don't like the law? Get it changed. But you don't get to ignore it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, how do you explain that there were state sponsored religions into the 1830's that were never challenged in courts ?

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the

minor.[11]"

And hence an example, at the federal level, of what happens when people become politically correct.

This is another one of those pnuembras of light !

There is nothing in this argument that supports the firing of the coach over 1st amendment principles.

His pregame prayer, that he led, was an establishment. He was told to knock it off and then he came up with a new plan, which also isn't allowed. He works for the state, not the church. He can pray on his own damn time in his own home and church, not our schools.

And there is nothing PC about obeying our laws in this secular nation.

There is nothing established when he prays.

My guess is that he works for a school district.

Get back to me when you have an argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the sake of argument what the example is doesn't matter, they are not and never should have been allowed. Look up the debate on a Congressional Chaplin. That will help you out.

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the

minor.[11]"

And hence an example, at the federal level, of what happens when people become politically correct.

This is another one of those pnuembras of light !

There is nothing in this argument that supports the firing of the coach over 1st amendment principles.

His pregame prayer, that he led, was an establishment. He was told to knock it off and then he came up with a new plan, which also isn't allowed. He works for the state, not the church. He can pray on his own damn time in his own home and church, not our schools.

And there is nothing PC about obeying our laws in this secular nation.

There is nothing established when he prays.

My guess is that he works for a school district.

Get back to me when you have an argument.

He used to work for a school district, now they are just paying off his contract after kicking him out of the program, which he can now have nothing official to do with. And the school, the Supreme Court, and I all agree on him breaking the law, which means, both you and he are fucked.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

According to who ?

That has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen.

The constitution certainly didn't forbid them.

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the

minor.[11]"

And hence an example, at the federal level, of what happens when people become politically correct.

This is another one of those pnuembras of light !

There is nothing in this argument that supports the firing of the coach over 1st amendment principles.

His pregame prayer, that he led, was an establishment. He was told to knock it off and then he came up with a new plan, which also isn't allowed. He works for the state, not the church. He can pray on his own damn time in his own home and church, not our schools.

And there is nothing PC about obeying our laws in this secular nation.

There is nothing established when he prays.

My guess is that he works for a school district.

Get back to me when you have an argument.

He used to work for a school district, now they are just paying off his contract after kicking him out of the program, which he can now have nothing official to do with. And the school, the Supreme Court, and I all agree on him breaking the law, which means, both you and he are fucked.

I am not anything of the sort.

I don't agree with what he did.

I am more prone to ask people to back up their assertions.

Saying that the SCOTUS said so really is like hiding under their robes.

You posited it had to do with the 1st amendment (and again hide under the robes of the SCOTUS) which it doesn't.

Like I said, you should attempt to get a refund from whoever gave you your education. You were totally gypped.

 

[Dana7360]

He is free to practice his faith, but not on our secular religiously-neutral dime.

Wonder what ever happened to
impeding the free exercise of religion?

He is free to practice his faith, but not on our secular religiously-neutral dime.

I thought the article said this took place after the game?

Whose 'dime' was he on?

He said the prayers on state owned school property. He was paid to be there by taxpayers of Washington state.

It was on our dime and on our property.

He was paid to be there by taxpayers of Washington state.

He was paid to be there AFTER the function was over?

anyone with a brain would consider him
off the clock.

The function doesn't end immediately after the game is finish.

As long as he was on school grounds and at a school function, he's being paid by the taxpayers.

There's a rule that no teacher is allowed to leave the grounds until all students are gone. They are being paid while they are on school grounds and there's students. So at all school functions the teacher who is there can't leave school grounds and is still being paid until every single student has left.

How do you know he was off the clock? Do you know the laws in Washington state? I do.I live here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Constitutionality
The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[11] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[11]

Madison
President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[11] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress

consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.



The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the

minor.[11]"

And hence an example, at the federal level, of what happens when people become politically correct.

This is another one of those pnuembras of light !

There is nothing in this argument that supports the firing of the coach over 1st amendment principles.

His pregame prayer, that he led, was an establishment. He was told to knock it off and then he came up with a new plan, which also isn't allowed. He works for the state, not the church. He can pray on his own damn time in his own home and church, not our schools.

And there is nothing PC about obeying our laws in this secular nation.

There is nothing established when he prays.

My guess is that he works for a school district.

Get back to me when you have an argument.

He used to work for a school district, now they are just paying off his contract after kicking him out of the program, which he can now have nothing official to do with. And the school, the Supreme Court, and I all agree on him breaking the law, which means, both you and he are fucked.

I am not anything of the sort.

I don't agree with what he did.

I am more prone to ask people to back up their assertions.

Saying that the SCOTUS said so really is like hiding under their robes.

You posited it had to do with the 1st amendment (and again hide under the robes of the SCOTUS) which it doesn't.

Like I said, you should attempt to get a refund from whoever gave you your education. You were totally gypped.

When the Supreme Court says that's what the problem is, that's what the problem is. I deal in reality and obey the laws. What's the law, no establishment of religion by the state. I don't need to defend what is so obvious, church and state are separate here....