“The dogma lives loudly in you”
In all fairness, Feinstein may have thought she was talking to an actual dog.
Task force to eradicate anti-Christian bias
- Thread starter Ohio Guy
- Start date
In all fairness, Feinstein may have thought she was talking to an actual dog.
And if she doesn’t last in her new role, maybe Jerry (Jr.) and Becki Falwell - - and the pool boy - - would be interested.
likely due to some Christian Nationals giving the group a bad name.
kind of like how republicans use woke as a pejorative.
Your post suggests you think most Christian Nationalists are good as a group. Not sure I believe you.
So what if the coach had a ritual of taking players to a bar after a win to celebrate and some players don't feel comfortable going to a bar. Should that be illegal also?
So many people have expanded that to mean any mention of religion is trying to establish one.
In the case heard by the court, the prayers were being done at a football game after it was over.
If this was being done during class hours or otherwise interfering with other activities, I'd agree with you.
My theory on this is that some people believe that the legal standard is "separation of church and State" -- as per Jefferson's letter, which has been referenced a number of times by the courts.
I've found that those who do pay little, if any, attention to the actual text and the inherent balance between the two operative clauses. The upshot of their approach is an expansive view of the Establishment Clause (and thus a restrictive view of the Free Exercise Clause).
The individuals are not the point. I’m commenting about Christian Nationalism as a group thing.
So you agree that limitations on when and where can be appropriate (which means a simple it's protected by the First Amendment reasoning is invalid) but just not how far those limitations can go.
I think a coach leading prayer with his team could put pressure on players of other religions to either be uncomfortable and join in or feel excluded if they stay out. Even if pressure is unintentional or only in the player's mind.
All through high school, from through JV freshman year to varsity the rest of the years, we always said the lords prayer before a game.
I'm not overly religious and I don't think the majority of my teammates were either, but it didn't bother us in the least. We were gonna take all the help we could get. 🤣
I'm not overly religious and I don't think the majority of my teammates were either, but it didn't bother us in the least. We were gonna take all the help we could get. 🤣
Last edited:
Well, IMO, somebody's feelings about other people exercising their right of free exercise are irrelevant -- or, at least, don't outweigh the latter's right of free exercise.
This argument ("implied coercion") was raised by the defendants in Bremerton. And Justice Sotomayor referenced it in her dissent, which was joined by two other justices.
So your view has certainly been argued. It just didn't prevail.
Some people feeling uncomfortable because of pressure is not part of the constitutional analysis.
I agree. This gets brought up a lot -- and it just puzzles me. Imagine if we weighed somebody's right to free speech by the discomfort registered by others as a result of the speech.
FWIW, one of the school district's arguments was that the prayers amounted to "implied coercion" -- which is another way of saying that kids felt pressured to join in order to please the coach in order to get favorable treatment (or avoid unfavorable treatment) from him. The context was that, this being a public school environment, the prayers amounted to a de facto establishment of religion.
It's not a very compelling argument, IMO -- especially when considered through a lens of what an establishment of religion was to the framers. But it did win the support of 3 of the court's justices.
So...it's a view. Just a minority view.
I don't think the constitution says prayers needs to be allowed in every venue and situation. I am stating my opinion that it shouldn't be coach-led at a sporting venue
Right of free exercise as in not to go to jail, not in there not being repercussions or limitations for that exercise
You have the right to say "F" you to your boss and you will likely be walking out the door with your stuff and your enjoyment of using your right.
And it's my right to disagree with the prevailing choice. Prevailing doesn't necessarily make it the right or correct choice and we all know the justices have political bias (some worse than others).
The assistant coach who led these prayers was put on leave from his job. And, yes, this was a violation of his right of free exercise.
Can there be reasonable limitations? Of course -- but they basically have to do with interference of the execution of his duties. As I said, if he wasn't doing his job because he was praying while he was supposed to be doing it, then that would be a different situation. But that would be true of any activity that took him away from his duties...he could be playing video games, or whatever.
And I agree that he couldn't compel players to take part in this. It has to be of their own volition.
However, making somebody else feel uncomfortable just isn't part of the calculus.
Well, every person has political bias -- not just every judge. What's important is that they properly interpret and apply the text of the Constitution.
Of course it's your right to disagree with the court's interpretation. But their interpretation of the law becomes what the law is. What any of us think about any of their opinions is of no consequence. It doesn't change that it's the law.
Ok then i disagree with their politically motivated interpretation of the law.
You can dismiss is as politically motivated. But doing so doesn't make it any less binding.
I'd guess that Madison and the other framers (along with Jefferson, who coined the term "separation of church and State" but was not, himself, a framer) would think it absurd that a public official praying in a public space would constitute an establishment of religion. Just my guess -- all we can do is speculate.
A lot of people don't know this. But the day after Thomas Jefferson posted his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended a Christian worship service. And it was held in the House of Representatives.
If, say, Franklin Graham was invited to the House chambers to lead a full-fledged Christian worship service, would you consider this a violation of the Establishment Clause? Because the guy who coined the term "separation of church and State" apparently didn't.
Unfortunately, Project 2025, Trump, and Repub Party do not agree with this calculus.
