Game Prayers

[The Hammer]

"In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional a statute must have “a secular legislative purpose,” it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” "

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So we don't have a seperation of church and state in the US?

Not according to the Constitution. You have the right to pray anywhere and anytime as you please under the law. The President could break out into a prayer to Shiva during an address and that's protected under the Constitution. As long as Congress isn't saying that we all must be Hindus.

 

[The Hammer]

Not according to the Constitution. You have the right to pray anywhere and anytime as you please under the law. The President could break out into a prayer to Shiva during an address and that's protected under the Constitution. As long as Congress isn't saying that we all must be Hindus.

Nope read my post above. Any ruling has to be "secular in nature". This was not a secular made decision.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nope read my post above. Any ruling has to be "secular in nature". This was not a secular made decision.

It says "a secular legislative purpose". Which means what, in legalese?

Regardless, the Constitution is quite clear. His actions were legal under the First Amendment.

 

[The Hammer]

Regardless, the Constitution is quite clear. His actions were legal under the First Amendment.

I'll agree when they let me sacrifice a goat on the field.

Don't worry it will be "humane"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'll agree when they let me sacrifice a goat on the field.

Don't worry it will be "humane"

Animal sacrifice is legal under the Constitution (or at least not prohibited) but the local laws, and the regulations and owners of the field, may not allow it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Coach: I want to pray publicly.
Supreme Court: ok
Jesus: I specifically said not to?

 

[The Hammer]

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it really doesn't. That's where the disagreement lies.

The relevant part of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Plainly speaking, that's just saying that Congress cannot make a law to establish a state religion or restrict the practice of religion. There's nothing that coach did that violated the First Amendment, especially if no one was forced to partake.

Peer pressure is force.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 64064

I would have given it a "Winner" but there was no mention of Colanders.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not according to the Constitution. You have the right to pray anywhere and anytime as you please under the law. The President could break out into a prayer to Shiva during an address and that's protected under the Constitution. As long as Congress isn't saying that we all must be Hindus.

The authors of the Constitution disagree with you.

 

[The Hammer]

I would have given it a "Winner" but there was no mention of Colanders.

Yeah, those pesky pastafarians always get skipped over.

 

[The Hammer]

The President could break out into a prayer to Shiva during an address and that's protected under the Constitution. As long as Congress isn't saying that we all must be Hindus.

This falls under coercion imo. Due to a power imbalance between him and the rest of the populace he is praying around. Signalling that Hinduism is nationally supported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This falls under coercion. Due to a power imbalance between him and the rest of the populace he is praying around. Signalling that Hinduism is nationally supported.

And do not forget about the peer pressure of the team as a whole. I don't think there is any high school sport with a higher level of peer pressure than football.

 

[The Hammer]

It says "a secular legislative purpose". Which means what, in legalese?

It explains what it means throughout the rest of that sentence, in non-legalese.

" it must have principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”