Previous 11 - 20 Next
Nope. Madison (aka, the Father of the Constitution) said "The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Government emplloyees don't have a right to freely express their religion as authority figures on a captive audience of other people's children.
You must think your religion is pretty frail if you hold that the government not giving it special treatment is so threatening.
Atheists are equally prohibited from encouraging other people's children to try atheism if they are government school employees.
The belief that the US government should be as neutral as possible in matters of religion is shared by tens of millions of Christians.
If a coach ever tells your kid there is no God, you'll be glad the exact same principles allow you recourse to have it stopped in Court (if school officials are stupid enough to let a case they're bound to lose get that far). There's a reason why, in a country that's at least 25% nonChristian, the nonChristians generally keep their mouths shut and try to keep their identities secret if they do complain about Christians violating the law in the name of their religion: the storm of abuse heaped on anyone who dares stand up to them. Government emloyees NOT leading your kids in Christian prayers isn't 'imposing atheism'. How desperate to feel persecuted ARE you guys?
Of course they do. Compulsion isn't a necessary component of establishing relgion, undue influence in favor (or against) a particular religion, particularly when targeting children is well-established in case law to be beyond the boundaries of what government employees are allowed to do with other people's children.
Prayers are allowed in schools, as long as they aren't disruptive. The only restriction is that government employees aren't allowed to tell other people's children when, where, or how to pray. It doesn't mean anything to say government has to stay out of religiion if government employees acting in their official capacities as authority figures are allowed to freely influence children on religious matters. I understand why they are greedy to access children who don't attend their church, children are vulnerable and want desperately to fit in, that makes them easy targets for conversion. Which is exactly why it's forbidden for government employees to treat school children as conversion targets.
I can't help but notice pretty much everyone defending this conflates 'public' as in 'out in public' with 'public' as in 'government sponsored, paid for with taxpayer money'. Your right to display your religion in public is uninfringed, your right to pay employees of government schools to tout your religion to a captive audience of children is a different matter. Have a Christian Pride parade if you think you're not getting enough attention. It's a free country, but that doesn't mean you get to use a public school for a church for free.
So coaches are children now?
In response to:

An Open Letter To Moderate Muslims

Dean197 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 10:06 AM
I can't speak for ZoeB2, but I'm an atheist and I cant' think of a single topic I agree with those men on except on a certain theological point. Communism was a horrible failure that relied on people being so malleable that they woudl forego their own self-interest to serve the collective. It was doomed from the start. That hippied-dippie stuff might work on a commune for awhile, but you can't make a whole society out of it.
Previous 11 - 20 Next