Christi McEntyre
To the two of you out there still reading after that first sentence, thank you. It means a lot that you didn’t immediately run away screaming or rip this page out of the paper and set it afire.
To those who know me, who see me at community meetings and events, you’ve probably noticed that I don’t participate in the ritual invocation that takes place before every city council and county commissioner meeting. I don’t stand. I don’t pray. I don’t mean to offend, but because I am myself offended, I don’t want to participate.
You see, technically, those prayers are illegal. The Supreme Court has made countless rulings to this effect in the past decade alone. The Freedom From Religion Foundation specializes in reminding local governments of this, many of whom never realized, or never cared, or never had anyone complain about it.
But just because something is tradition, just because it’s always been done and no one has complained, doesn’t mean it should continue.
The same with the alleged prayers and sermons that Ridgeland High School football coach Mark Mariakis is either leading or allowing to happen in front of his team, on school ground, and while operating as a school official.
You want to have a prayer before a game? Fine. You feel the need to invoke a higher power before making official government decisions? Knock yourself out. Just not after the gavel has banged. Not on government time, and not on government property. Not led by a government official.
Because, technically speaking, that’s what public school teachers and coaches are: government officials. The moment that bell rings, the moment that a teacher steps through the threshold of the school, the moment that a coach calls his team together – at that moment, that individual ceases to be. There is no Mark Mariakis. There is just a coach. An adult, entrusted with a high school football team. No matter what his or her personal beliefs, a teacher must mentally and emotionally shed the robe of the personal and put on the robe of the public whenever acting in his or her position.
That is the inherent trust that parents put on public school teachers and coaches – that they will treat every student equally and work hard to give them all the best possible instruction in the task at hand, without any unnecessary interference from personal bias or beliefs.
If Mr. Mariakis is taking his team to a pre-game dinner at a local church, and that dinner includes a planned, expected sermon from a church leader, he is violating that trust.
If Mr. Mariakis is praying in front of his team before a game, expecting the students to join in, he is violating that trust.
If Mr. Mariakis is using bible verses on public school team apparel and as supposedly motivational tools in pre-game speeches, he is violating that trust.
If Mr. Mariakis is pressuring his team members to attend a Christian football camp, he is violating that trust.
Because no matter what the local majority opinion on faith may be, no matter if it may be the same as Mr. Mariakis, it does not make it right to espouse it in that setting.
Because there will always be the differing opinion. You may not see it. You may not hear it spoken. But that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
There will always be the student who feels pressured to conform religiously. The one who doesn’t take comfort in the pre-game prayers, but is made uncomfortable by them. The one who hears teachers speak of heaven and hell on school time and feels his or her stomach drop in confusion and shame. The one who may be a bit different, bullied, strange. The one who is afraid to speak up, afraid of the comments from teachers, coaches, peers. The one who goes through the motions every day, every practice, every Sunday, who has no one to turn to, because between preaching teachers and preaching parents and preaching preachers, there is no one left who might understand. Who might listen and not judge.
As much as any one person feels deeply in his or her heart that their own prayer and faith is right and comforting and good, there will always be someone else of a different religion or of no religion that feels just as deeply, upon hearing those prayers in a public setting, that it is wrong, personally, for him or her.
Is that really so hard to accept?
In a conservative area like Walker County, the ostracism endured by a non-Christian or non-religious student in cases like these is staggeringly reminiscent of that which a GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) teen must experience when struggling with people who can't accept his or her identity. How devastating that must feel, being constantly told that what your body and your heart know to be right is inherently wrong, and needs correcting. That you need to be “brought back into the fold” just for being who you are. Using the fear of an eternal punishment to discourage certain behaviors and beliefs is just plain manipulative. It smacks of the same persecution that this country's founding fathers were trying to escape when they drafted the Constitution of the United States, ensuring that every person had the inalienable right to freedom of religion.
And that includes freedom from religion.
As an atheist, I personally don’t care what you believe. I’m not trying to convert anybody. I just don’t want the law broken, and I don’t want anyone to feel ostracized for his or her belief, or lack thereof.
Students who want to pray before a football game are free to do so – privately, or in small, student-led groups. Not with their coach.
Local city and county officials are free to pray for guidance before a meeting if they feel they need it, but not during the meeting itself. Not scheduled on the agenda.
Maybe now other people will speak up. Maybe some teachers and government officials will search their own hearts and motivations and realize that they, in perhaps the best of intentions, have been less than equalizing and fair to their students and constituents.
Diversity makes a biological community strong. It can do the same for a social one, if we let it.
The French writer Alexis de Toqueville visited America in its infancy to report back to a monarchy-controlled Europe his impressions of the new, experimental democratic republic form of government. What struck him most was the potential for majority public opinion to become oppressive, a condition he called “tyranny of the majority.”
“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them... in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: "You shall think as I do or you shall die"; but he says: "You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn.”
Sad to see that the old Frenchman was right.
Christi McEntyre is a reporter with the Walker County messenger. She can be reached at cmcentyre@walkermessenger.com or (706) 638-1859.
1st. Contrary to the myth, Atheists do have self-proclaimed deity and they have their articles of faith.
The deity in atheism is mankind. Man is the sum of intellectual reason and truth. So, you do worship something.
2nd. Atheists do have a systematic system of belief. The gospel atheists proclaim with evangelistic zeal is secular humanism. It is proclaimed in the educational system from Pre-K through High School.
3rd. Atheists want no debate is the forum of the public forum. The reason is because the flaws of a system of situational ethics and relative truth cannot stand on its on merit.
So contrary to your article, you want to deny the Ridgeland coach his matrix of belief to cross into position of being a coach while openly allowing yours to color your whole thought processes. You make the statement, you do not stand or participate in counsel meetings prayers. Thus you are violating the public trust by allowing your own personal beliefs (atheism) to cross the Rubicon because the gavel has dropped and you are on public time.
It is illogical and philosophically inconsistent to deny that personal beliefs do not impact us in our daily interactions. You mention that atheist students are maligned and made to feel uncomfortable. I have seen the opposite. In my undergraduate work, I experienced the scorn or more than one professor who was a secularist. I spoke with the in private, and he heaped the scorn upon my belief system openly in the class. What did I do? I did not seek out some nanny group to take up my cause. The reason, I believe in personal freedom of conscience. My biology professor had the philosophical right to be an atheist, while I have that self-same right to be a Bible Believing Christian.
In your list of accusations against the coach, you cross the threshold and begin to indict him on what you perceive his thoughts are. Are we now an Orwellian Police state where we have to fear the "Thought Police"? Organizations like the FFR invent causes to be offended at so they can raise money and gain publicity. In a Free Society, they do have the right to exist, but they do not want an open forum for healthy debate. Anymore, conformity is demanded by the government and state to what they decree. Well, the problem is that in a free society where Freedom of Speech and Religion exist, anyone has the right to rise up and debate the merits of any system of belief. But again, Atheists do not want that. Their cry is "Secularism today, Secularism forever".
The 1st governmental document that established a system of practices and procedures was the Mayflower Compact. It decreed "In the name of God, Amen". The Declaration of Rights of 1765 states, "The members of this Congress, sincerely devoted with the warmest affection and duty to His Majesty's person and government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession...",Patrick Henry stated at the 2nd Virginia Convention,"...It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings...Is life so dear, peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" Thomas Jefferson (at best a Deist) stated in the Declaration of Independence, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..." Thomas Paine (an atheist) wrote in Common Sense, "...we claim brotherhood with every European Christian..." The Articles of Confederation state, "...Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the 15th day of November,in the year of our Lord 1777...". Lastly, the Bill of Rights states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . The Founders meant by that statement, that the Federal Government can never establish a state church (like the Anglican Church in England and the Catholic Church is in Germany and Italy).
The Supreme Court in the Everson vs. the Board of Education, pulled a statement from a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson and made it law. That is legislating from the bench which is very dangerous. That is one of many dubious ruling by the Supreme Court.
The FFR should be consistent in their "crusade" to purge God from the public forum. The Supreme Court begins its session with a declaration of "God save this honorable court" as well as the front of the building depicts Moses and the Decalogue. The House and Senate have Chaplains as well as the Military. So, are they the next targets? When will this cycle of of threats and lawsuits ever stop?
In conclusion, I do not fear open debate in a free society. But I fear an Orwellian Thought Police agent, acting in unison with a like-minded agency, shutting off the Free expression of Faith in exchange for the submission to conformity of thought that does not allow anyone to offer an alternate way or view. As for me, Give me Liberty!
I am sure the school system will buckle and force the coach to violate his beliefs and submit. Then the FFR will gallop off, laughing that they have forced another school and or government to violate their beliefs in the name of their gospel of secularism. Yet, they do err, not knowing their history.
Prof. Chris Davidson
Eccl.3:1
1. America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
2. The Americans combine the notions of Religion and Liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.
3. Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith".
Yes indeed, the Frenchman was right in the matter of faith in the Public square as well.
I don't have the time to waste replying to your amateurish diatribe above, but I can point out your mistake in using the de Toqueville quotes.
1. America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.
You are implying (and if not, I apologize) that America cannot be "good" without religion - or Christ. As an atheist, I can assure you I can be "good" without the carrot of heaven or the threat of hell to guide me. I hope all humans could say this.
2. The Americans combine the notions of Religion and Liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.
Isn't this the root of the problem here? And since we are in NO WISE a theocracy, It is quite the negative observation of the country then and now? Do you really want to use it here to help your case?
3. Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.
Religion has no exclusive claim on morality. But here you can define morality as any code you want. And if genocide, rape, slavery, and self-righteousness are "moral" to you and your religion, then we differ on our definitions. I would take the "faith" part of that quote to mean faith in your fellow man to be as "good" as you.
I'm not sure what trauma could have made an atheist turn to religion unless you were not indoctrinated into it like most Americans. I suppose to the tribesman who has never seen a missionary, Christ can be quite attractive. All glittery and omniscient. Able to cure anything, provide untold wealth and power, defeat all enemies etc. Enjoy your journey, where ever it may take you.
The Mayflower Compact (1620) has no connection, on this issue, to the later government of the United States (1791); the Plymouth Colony founded from it was, in fact, a theocracy, with no religious freedom at all. It and the even-more repressive theocracy in Massachusetts Bay subsequently drove Roger Williams into the wilderness, where he founded Rhode Island, the first government in the world founded upon the separation of church from state.
The long section of the speech allegedly given by Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention was actually the invention of Henry biographer William Wirt, who, 41 years after the fact (and 17 years after Henry's death), simply made it up. Only the line "give me liberty or give me death" has any real historical basis. The quote doesn't comment upon the matter of religious liberty, nor could Henry be quoted on that subject, as he didn't believe in religious liberty--he tried to impose a tax for the support of churches in Virginia, and opposed the U.S. Constitution.
James Madison--later the author of the 1st Amendment--led the charge against Henry's effort to tax Virginians for the support of churches. Madison would eventually press through the legislature the Jefferson-authored Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, separating chruch and state there, and providing the model for the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson's statute outlines his views on the subject at some length and with great eloquence, whereas the references he included in the Declaration to his Deistic concept of god don't even touch on them.
Thomas Paine was NOT an "atheist," but was, as he described at length in his writings, a Deist, like most of the other important founders.
And so on.
"Amendment I
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: this prohibits the very notion of the govenrment from making any law, or rule that would stop prayer in school, or in any setting both public and private. No govenrment official, or group, can therefore make any rule, or law, to stop any religious group from excercising this right to be free of oppression with regards to expressing their beliefs in any setting, including government buildings and property.
That being said. Good article, and I fully respect your views.
"Perhaps if we all understood the text of the constitution, we would not look so stupid when addressing this issue."
Perhaps if we actually read for comprehension, understand that the U.S. Constitution is not a static document but constantly changing and looked to supporting case law, we would not look so stupid when addressing this issue.
"First of all, there is no separation of church and state clause listed in the constitution."
Read Article III, which expressly allows the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.
Specifically Article III, Section 1 "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
and
Article III, Seciton 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
Therefore, applying Article III, the 1st Amendment and case law, the Supreme Court has OVERWHELMINGLY supported a separation between church and state.
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Specifically of interest is Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
"NOTE: this prohibits the very notion of the govenrment from making any law, or rule that would stop prayer in school, or in any setting both public and private."
Your interpretation is one-sided - in fact, the 1st Amendment only allows the government or any government agent to be neutral on religion, neither endorsing any particular sect or inhibit.
Private citizens have the right to pray or not as they wish. Once a private citizen becomes a government agent, then they must remain neutral on religion.
"No govenrment official, or group, can therefore make any rule, or law, to stop any religious group from excercising this right to be free of oppression with regards to expressing their beliefs in any setting, including government buildings and property."
Again, only half right. Neither can the government endorse any particular religion. And the government agent cannot lead the prayer in the public space. Once the government agent (in this case, the coach) endorses one religion over any other, then that agent has violated the Constitution.
I do not dispute your rebuttal. However I must point out a couple of issues I have with what you have provided.
First, In each of the cases mentioned below. Do you suppose any witnesses, were asked to place their hand on a bible, and swear to tell the truth?
Second, The issue of a separation of Church and state, is presumed from the first amendment. and specifically states that the state (government) has no power to regulate matters of the Church. Every one of the decisions that you have listed, does the very thing that is prohibited by the first amendment. The criteria you listed as a test:
"Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:"
"1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion"
Section two in particular, does apply here, and in many of the cases you listed. If the government prohibits the free excercise of your religion.
As for your first comment regarding the constitution being static, That is the very reason it was written down on paper. So that it may not be changed without going thru appropriate methods, and be ratified by the states. The supreme court is a body, who is empowered by this very document, to clarify how it applies to any particular case. They are not given the power to change it, or rewrite it as they deem fit.
Finally, I do agree that a government should not endorse any particular religion, and I conceed your point regarding offical, verses private exression of those beliefs. However this one size fits all, zero tolerance stance is foolish, and will only serve to harm our freedoms. People are put into the roles of Teacher, or Government positions for a reason. They can think. They can look at a situation, and decide the best course of action regarding any issue that arrises. We hire the best minds for those positions. When you apply "zero Tolerance" you take away the very reasons we put those capible people in that position. We need people with common intelligence to come up with proper solutions to issues such as this. Not some faceless rule that must be followed, regardless of who is hurt, or how it might affect their lives or the society that it was meant to protect.
|
"First, In each of the cases mentioned below. Do you suppose any witnesses, were asked to place their hand on a bible, and swear to tell the truth?"
Then that, too, would be a violation of church/state separation. In fact in most courts, witnesses are able to affirm without use of the bible.
"Second, The issue of a separation of Church and state, is presumed from the first amendment. and specifically states that the state (government) has no power to regulate matters of the Church."
Yes, the 1st amendment, with support from case law.
"Every one of the decisions that you have listed, does the very thing that is prohibited by the first amendment."
No, every single decicion were specific to keeping a wall between the government and church, preventing the violation.
And those decisions were not made by you or by me. They were made by the Supreme Court under their authority per the Constitution.
"The criteria you listed as a test:"
"Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:"
This is called the Lemon Test. And it applies totally in this case.
"1) the government action must have a secular purpose;"
Did the coach's actions have a secular purpose? No.
"2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;"
Did the coach's act inhibit or advance religion? It advanced his religion.
"3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion"
Was there an excessive entanglement between government and religion? Yes.
Q.E.D.
"Section two in particular, does apply here, and in many of the cases you listed. If the government prohibits the free excercise of your religion."
Or endorses, which is what the coach was doing. While an employee of the state.
"As for your first comment regarding the constitution being static, That is the very reason it was written down on paper. So that it may not be changed without going thru appropriate methods, and be ratified by the states."
Firstly, the Constitution is not static. It has been changed a variety of ways, literally and by actions that amend it just the same, all appropriate methods.
Amendments are just one way to change the Constitution. The others are case law as handed down by the Supreme Court as well laws passed by the Congress and treaties made with other countries.
Like I said, while Amendments change the actual text of the Constitution, the others amend it just the same. One cannot simply say that the Constitution must be the only criteria because that is simply not true.
"The supreme court is a body, who is empowered by this very document, to clarify how it applies to any particular case. They are not given the power to change it, or rewrite it as they deem fit."
Exactly, they are not changing it, but interpreting the law. And when they make their decision, the constitutionality of that law is determined FOR ALL TIME. It is the provenance of Congress to change/re-write laws.
The Supreme Court merely says this law does not match the Constitution. The law is not re-written, it is abandoned and ruled unconstitutional and therefore void. Drawing a red line through a sentence does not re-write the sentence, but voids the sentence. That is what the ruling does.
"Finally, I do agree that a government should not endorse any particular religion, and I conceed your point regarding offical, verses private exression of those beliefs. However this one size fits all, zero tolerance stance is foolish, and will only serve to harm our freedoms."
And there we disagree. I am perfectly fine with zero tolerance to a goverment official using his position to endorse his religious beliefs. What freedom does that harm? Please be specific because I believe that it protects our freedoms, not harms them.
"People are put into the roles of Teacher, or Government positions for a reason. They can think. They can look at a situation, and decide the best course of action regarding any issue that arrises. We hire the best minds for those positions. When you apply "zero Tolerance" you take away the very reasons we put those capible people in that position. We need people with common intelligence to come up with proper solutions to issues such as this. Not some faceless rule that must be followed, regardless of who is hurt, or how it might affect their lives or the society that it was meant to protect."
The best course of action is for a goverment agent (in this case, the coach) to NOT endorse his religious beliefs on students. Would you argue this way for a Muslim or Hindu coach leading the football team in prayer to Allah or Vishnu?
And which is it? The Constitution or a "faceless rule?" It can't be both, it's either one or the other. By arguing against this "faceless rule," you are arguing against the Constitution, something that you were just arguing for!
Specifically, the state (in the person of a goverment official or school teacher) cannot endorse one religion over any other religion, no matter what the good intentions are of the official.
Instead, you bring up everything but the topic - Nazis, how Christians are persecuted, how bad the government is, Muslems killing girls, how you don't care what I think & etc.
Everything but actually the point - The US Constitution, Article III empowers the Supreme Court to make decisions on the separate of church and state and the case law of the Supreme Court does indeed support separation between the two.
Would you please stay on topic?
Because that's the issue in this case that I am interested in.
Do you have any evidence that supports your interpretation of this issue?
I'd like to hear it.
I expect, however, that you can't stay on topic and so your response will be about something other than church-state separation.
Feel free to show me I've understood you wrong.
Specifically, the state (in the person of a goverment official or school teacher) cannot endorse one religion over any other religion, no matter what the good intentions are of the official.
Instead, you bring up everything but the topic - Nazis, how Christians are persecuted, how bad the government is, Muslems killing girls, how you don't care what I think & etc.
Everything but actually the point - The US Constitution, Article III empowers the Supreme Court to make decisions on the separate of church and state and the case law of the Supreme Court does indeed support separation between the two.
Would you please stay on topic?
Because that's the issue in this case that I am interested in.
Do you have any evidence that supports your interpretation of this issue?
I'd like to hear it.
I expect, however, that you can't stay on topic and so your response will be about something other than church-state separation.
Feel free to show me I've understood you wrong.
And I can't help how the constitution has been warped and misinterpreted by politicians and so-called judges and folks like you. Bottom line- I don't care what you think. I just wish you didn't care so very, very much about what I think that you have to work to suppress it.
Again the old canard.
Educate yourself and read Mein Kampf. Hitler believed he was doing the lords work. He was a Catholic in good standing and he was never excommunicated. The Nazis first treaty was with the Catholic Church and German soldiers wore Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) on their belt buckles.
Atheists have no reason at all to be anti- semetic, while Christians have every reason to be. Germany is mostly Lutheran. Read Martin Luther's book Of the Jews and Their Lies and note the anti-semetism therein. Anti-semitism is the result of Christianity because the mythology blames the Jews for Jesus' death and 2000 years of bloody history supports this.
"And yes, I'm well aware of religious fanatics. I also recognize that fanaticism can come form the other direction, too, those who want to shut Christians up"
Who's trying to shut you up? I certainly am not and, while I think you are wrong, you have every right to say so AND I have every right to criticize your position.
Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Criticism.
"But where are these pro-religious "fanatics" in the US? .... You need to distinguish between what you mean. "
The religious Christian Right, passing laws that impose their religious beliefs on me and others like me.
"And I can't help how the constitution has been warped and misinterpreted by politicians and so-called judges and folks like you."
So you discount the Constitution and the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not because you actually have any evidence to support your position, but because you believe they are wrong? You don't have the authority to make that decision - the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to do so.
Too bad for you reality is so hard for you to take.
"Bottom line- I don't care what you think."
I don't care whether you care or not. The Supreme Court has decided on this issue and no matter how much you rail against it, your side lost and my side won. How do you like them apples?
"I just wish you didn't care so very, very much about what I think that you have to work to suppress it."
So you are being persecuted because Christians in a goverment capacity can't endorse your religion on other people? Boo hoo.
If you are hitting someone over the head with the stick of your religion, me taking that stick away from you is not persecution! I'm helping the person you are attacking!
And I will care very, very much when you behave that way, when you believe it's your right to bully others.
Get used to it.
I just love it when people site (incorrectly, I might add) the Constitution when it suits their purpose but could care less about it when they are getting what they want.
All the Constitution actually says is that the government can't establish a state sponsored religion. That you don't ever have to hear a prayer by a group of people who want to pray just isn't in there. Anywhere. I know. I've actually read it.
But whine loudly enough and the adults sometimes just give in to shut you up so they don't have to listen to the inane ravings any longer of children.
Don't worry, though- once we've finished building the "Holy Land" reeducation camp we'll start herding all you non-believers in there to force you to love your neighbor and respect their beliefs whether you like it or not!
Alert- that's a joke, so don't start spazzing out into fits of silly fear like you do at so much else that "fightens," "concerns," or "worries" you.
Pot-kettle-black.
"All the Constitution actually says is that the government can't establish a state sponsored religion. That you don't ever have to hear a prayer by a group of people who want to pray just isn't in there. Anywhere. I know. I've actually read it."
Then you really need to re-read the Constitution for comprehension.
The Constitution (Article III) allows the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and make rulings on that interpretation that become the law of the land.
And the OVERWHELMING case law that the Supreme Court has ruled on in the separation of church and state issue has been that the government, in effect, all government officials, teachers and representatives, cannot endorse one religion over the other.
"But whine loudly enough and the adults sometimes just give in to shut you up so they don't have to listen to the inane ravings any longer of children."
Child rearden1, you better stop whining. Or Mama Constitution is gonna smack you!
"Don't worry, though- once we've finished building the "Holy Land" reeducation camp we'll start herding all you non-believers in there to force you to love your neighbor and respect their beliefs whether you like it or not!"
Is this your neighborly love? What a joke! And why should I respect an idea that has no basis in fact? Ridicule is the only response to your baseless and unlearned assertions that you will ever get.
"Alert- that's a joke, so don't start spazzing out into fits of silly fear like you do at so much else that "fightens," "concerns," or "worries" you.""
[sarcasm] Nice joke. [/sarcasm] Do you also make jokes about ovens and Jews? You do realize, in 2012, that people are murdered by religious fanatics simply because they don't believe the same way the fanatics believe?
But your Christian privilege is large and wide and you cannot see past it.
So first, you need to re-read the Constitution (specifically Article III and the role of the Supreme Court in making case law), then you need to read the supporting case law that clearly defines the separation of church and state, THEN you need to overcome that Christian privilege and stop whining that "those mean ole atheists are ruining my country!" and grow up.
The problem is he's using his position as coach to endorse one religion over all others.
And the U.S. Constitution, as well as case law from the Supreme Court, has overwhelmingly ruled that behavior is unconstitutional.
His motivations are not at issue here and they may well be honorable, but his actions are what we're talking about today.
His actions are criminal.
You obviously must not see the lawlessness our society is exposed to on a daily basis. Look at the junk on Tv, the internet, magazines, video games etc etc.. Tell me our kids are just fine?!
Why do you feel free to poison the well (look it up) with issues that don't have anything to do with this issue?
This is a clear case of church-state separation violation. The coach, even if he had the best of intentions, used his position to endorse one religious belief over all others.
What lawlessness are you talking about? Every day, I drive my car and people obey the traffic laws. TV is not illegal, neither are magazines or video games. In fact, the majority of people obey the law, just like the majority of people obeyed the law back in the day.
If your kids aren't fine, then why are you here when you should be spending time with them?
It seems... and I truly mean no offence, whiney to me to worry about this. Perhaps many really believe Christians are out to force others to go to church, pray, whatever. What I wonder, though, is why the discomfort the author mentions for those who do not believe ranks as important enough to write an entire column about when there are real threats to our liberty. If you want freedom from religion should I not have freedom from being forced to participate in government programs that require me to contribute my hard-earned money to things like Welfare, Social Security, and Medicare - that I do not believe in?
Hearing a Muslim pray, or someone of any other religion than my own, would not hurt, offend, or bother me in the least. Perhaps it is because I am a man and those kinds of things just don't register as bothersome. I would do what I would hope others would have the tact to do were I praying- keep my mouth shut and remain respectful of other peoples beliefs.
I will add here, however, that, say, having money take out of my paycheck produces more than mere discomfort. It lowers my quality of life and reduces my ability to provide the most I possibly can for my family.
So, in my opinion at least, if you want to worry about something- worry about the real coercive power in America today- the government.
Again, no offence is meant to the author. I just feel there are are lot more hostel forces to freedom in Washington, DC alone than all the Christian Church's across the US combined.
And yet, this coach is coercing and intimidating anyone on the football team to kowtow to his god.
"Liberty is, in my view, a God given right to ALL, whether they believe in Him or not."
How kind of you. I'd rather have liberty without your god.
"Those who truly understand Jesus' message, therefore, know that it is not only foolish but wrong to try and force their beliefs on others."
And yet there are many Christians who would disagree with you.
"One has to come to God freely of their own will."
And if they don't, then your god will burn them in hell forever. Some choice.
"Christians, sadly all to often, fail to offer a good example, to point the way to God. But I know of none outside of historical horror stories like the Inquisition where, today at least, anyone is trying to force anyone else to to participate in religion."
Yeah, just because that coach isn't burning anyone at the stake, it's OK to implement some soft of theocracy on the football team.
"It seems... and I truly mean no offence, whiney to me to worry about this."
And here's that Christian privilege that we've been waiting for. It's not whiney, it's the Constitution of the United States that prevents any government official from forcing their religious beliefs on anyone while on the job as a government official. What is so hard with understanding that? Re-read the 1st Amendment and all the case law handed down by the Supreme Court that supports the separation of church and state.
"Perhaps many really believe Christians are out to force others to go to church, pray, whatever."
Look at the GOP, "God's Own Party," and all the laws they want to implement around the country for "Christian Familiy Values" and try to convince yourself of that.
"What I wonder, though, is why the discomfort the author mentions for those who do not believe ranks as important enough to write an entire column about when there are real threats to our liberty."
Because we don't believe what you believe and want to be left alone. Your side trying to get us to believe as you do IS a real threat to our liberty.
"If you want freedom from religion should I not have freedom from being forced to participate in government programs that require me to contribute my hard-earned money to things like Welfare, Social Security, and Medicare - that I do not believe in?"
Apples/Oranges. Freedom from/for religion is a basic right, written in the Constitution.
What your taxes are spent on is determined not by your rights but by the government representatives the country elects. If you are so against any sort of government program, then stop using roads (paid for by government programs), clean water (again, paid for by the government programs), emergency rooms, the FDIC, libraries, parks, clean air, and, yes, Social Security, Medicare and Welfare (all paid for by government programs). You don't get to pick-and-choose which taxes you pay and what they get spent on. Grow up. No one gets that choice, even if your favorite politicians get rid of stuff you hate.
"Hearing a Muslim pray, or someone of any other religion than my own, would not hurt, offend, or bother me in the least."
And if they passed laws based upon their religion? That directly impacted you?
"Perhaps it is because I am a man and those kinds of things just don't register as bothersome."
Or perhaps, it's because you have a great feeling of Christian privilege.
"I would do what I would hope others would have the tact to do were I praying- keep my mouth shut and remain respectful of other peoples beliefs."
And when they force you to participate, under peer pressure or threat of not starting in the game? Would you then keep your mouth shut?
"I will add here, however, that, say, having money take out of my paycheck produces more than mere discomfort. It lowers my quality of life and reduces my ability to provide the most I possibly can for my family."
Where would your quality of life be without the commons (clean air, water, libraries, roads, secure banks, & etc)?
So when Christian politicians make laws that impact my life, using my taxes for their pet religious projects, you can understand my problem with it.
"So, in my opinion at least, if you want to worry about something- worry about the real coercive power in America today- the government."
And the Christian Right has no plans to take it over? Or use the government to impose their religion on me and others like me who aren't Christian?
"Again, no offence is meant to the author. I just feel there are are lot more hostel forces to freedom in Washington, DC alone than all the Christian Church's across the US combined."
Yes, because we all know that Christian churches are democracies - um, no, not really, they're theocracies.
At least I can vote for those "hostile forces to freedom in Washington D.C," as opposed to no vote in the churches.
I'd choose a democracy over a theocracy any day of the week. Even one democracy such as you've described.
And so, no offense, but I'll fight against your Christian privilege and your Christian theocracy and any attempts by Christians in government to ignore the Constitution and impose their beliefs upon me.
I'd like to take a moment to answer your questions. I am a atheist. My family never practiced any particular form of religion, and I can't say I ever had any strong feelings for any particular religion. How can I have a moral code?
Have you ever looked around and noticed people behaving badly? I have. I notice it all the time. You do too I'm sure. When you look at what you would call immoral behavior do you think about God every time? Maybe you do but I'd bet you don't. You know what is right from wrong and you don't need a lot of lessons to learn the difference.
Most atheists follow a moral code that identifies with Humanism. Like you, we have a string belief in the practical application of the Golden Rule. My particular brand of belief is "Do on to others as you would have a supreme leader do on to you".
I have a strong moral code. I believe in Altuism and compassion. I do not need religion to adhere to these beliefs. I adhere because I strive to be a good person because it's the only way I see to sensibly live life. Not because I'm scared of an all powerful deity (no offense intended)
As an theist and assure you that as a teenager I was in a constant state of discomfort with being thought of a disgusting deviant because I don't believe the words written in a 2-3K year old book for which there is no evidence of anything written in it. That might be a point of contention to many people, but it isn't to me. I have no issue with your religion. I really wish I could have not had it pushed down my throat at school.
What if this were a Muslim or Atheist coach preaching, would you feel differently? I wouldn't stand for it. Just because I agree with something doesn't mean I think we should be endorsing it in the public arena.
Here's the full college course on atheism: atheists lack belief in any and all supernatural god(s). That's it. Whatever supernatural claim one can make, an atheist simply says "I don't believe you."
"what moral compass do atheists use?"
The same one everyone else uses, even Christians - their own rational thought processes aka the Golden Rule (which is much older than the bible)
Yet when a theist claims that they need a supernatural creature to tell them how to behave or face eternal punishment, then the theist is only doing "what's right" by threat of violence.
"Where do you draw the line between right and wrong."
Same way everyone else does - using rationality aka the Golden Rule.
"Who do you have to answer to if it's wrong?"
Ourselves first then society. Atheists are responsible for their own actions. They do not suffer the delusion that they'll be punished by some man in the sky or forgiven by the same.
If you robbed my house and prayed to your god, you'd say he forgives you WITHOUT you ever having to ask me for forgiveness. No one, not even a god, can wash clean your guilt for robbing me. You are responsible for it all. To say otherwise is carte blanche to misbehave and not take responsibility to the person you wronged.
Society will hold you responsible as well. You will be tried for robbery and, if found guilty, sent to jail.
"Seems you can just make up your own moral rules as you please."
And how is that different from you making up your moral rules based on your interpretation of a 2000 year old book that has been translated from foreign tongues?
At least with me taking responsibility for my own actions, I'm more moral than you because you ignore your own responsibility and give it up to something written 2000 years ago without actually using rational thought.
"Enlighten me."
Think for yourself, first. And take responsibility for yourself.
"The fact is that our country's moral compass is going down the tube."
Funny you say that, especially when the majority of Americans are Christian.
"It's a free for all where everything goes."
Funny, when New York City lost power a couple of years ago, nearly everyone behaved themselves. In fact, people were very friendly to each other. Amazing!
Where is the free-for-all? Do we see that every day, every hour, every single person on the planet is involved in one-non-stop orgy of robbery, murder and rape? NO!
"And our liberal media supports it."
Lift that "liberal media" canard just one more time.
"I see nothing wrong with good men & women trying to instill some type of character in our young people through prayer and religious guidance."
But you are aware that they can do that at a church, not in school, right? A school that is run by the government. A school whose teachers are representing that government, that must adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
"What they do with it, is up to the kids."
So if those same kids were forced to participate in Muslim or Hindu prayers, you'd probably not have a problem with it?
"Prayer is needed for our teachers, for our administrators, politicians."
Then pray for them in church all you want. Not in a school, lead by school teachers.
"Maybe a life will be changed."
Yeah, some poor kid is forced to participate for fear of peer mockery or coach denying him play time. How's that for a life changed?
"Sorry, but don't see that happening without something to believe in."
So is it OK to believe in UFOs, especially if a life is changed? What about Allah? How about Bigfoot? Or the Loch Ness Monster?
See, belief is worthless without evidence to back it up. You can believe anything you want, but unless you actually have evidence, you are just glorifying your ignorance and worshiping that ignorance.
"Peace"
Can only be had when school teachers obey the Constitution.
That being said, In some of my searches on the topic I came across the article below on the "Friendly Athiest" blog. The article calls for support of Christi's article, and I quote: " I’m sure there will be tons of backlash when that happens, so if you agree with Christi, leave her some supportive comments before the onslaught of “Christian love”!
Just thought folks might like to know that. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it's always good to understand the context from which some folks post.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/27/local-columnist-in-georgia-blasts-proselytizing-public-high-school-football-coach/
Then why is it being said?
Look up that phrase in Urban Dictionary (http://tiny.cc/0udqjw)
"A phrase used when a man is talking about homosexuals when they are not around and do not want to sound offensive. Or when someone is in danger of being thought of as gay, they will fervently object, then use this phrase.
Yo man, I'm not gay! Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Yes, it's always good to understand the context from which some folk post.
I have family in Walker County. I read Hemant's blog. What's your point other than to dismiss the opinions that differ from yours just because someone links to the story? It doesn't make the coach's violations any less wrong.
If none of the athletes object, then they are free to form their own christian athlete club and meet after practice. They are free to go to church together on sunday, and they are free to meet for a prayer in the locker room before a game. Nobody is stopping the players from doing any of this on their own. But if the coach is leading these activities, the very same coach who will make the decisions of who makes the team and who qualifies to play, then it's coercive and has to stop. And if the coach can't understand and comply with this, then he has no business working at a public school. If he can't coach without proselytizing, he should go coach at a religious school.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/sep/30/rally-lfo-cheerleaders-draws-huge-crowd/