Tennessee pre-game prayer unconstitutional?

[UmphreakDomer]

Thoughts?


Tennessee: Pregame prayer isn’t unconstitutional | Dr. Saturday - Yahoo! Sports

 

[irishfanjho15]

Thoughts?


Tennessee: Pregame prayer isn’t unconstitutional | Dr. Saturday - Yahoo! Sports

If you don't want to hear the prayer don't go to the game. I'm not a religious person per se but I'm not not going to the Indy 500 every year because of the invocation. Different strokes for different folks, is what I always say.

 

[ndfi78]

PC bullsheet

 

[Irish4Life09]

I've been to many Tennessee games...and I am very proud of them that they are taking a stance against this bigotry. I am sick to death of the religious intolerance some people in our country are trying to facilitate. Our country was founded on the principles that all religions and people are welcome and can be practiced.That is why we have such a great country. Or at least I thought we did.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

I've been to many Tennessee games...and I am very proud of them that they are taking a stance against this bigotry. I am sick to death of the religious intolerance some people in our country are trying to facilitate. Our country was founded on the principles that all religions and people are welcome and can be practiced.That is why we have such a great country. Or at least I thought we did.

While I agree with this people seem to forget US history class and the separation of church and state.

 

[ndcoltsfan2010]

I've been to many Tennessee games...and I am very proud of them that they are taking a stance against this bigotry. I am sick to death of the religious intolerance some people in our country are trying to facilitate. Our country was founded on the principles that all religions and people are welcome and can be practiced.That is why we have such a great country. Or at least I thought we did.

I agree. My home is in Tennessee and I follow the Vols. I don't see what the big issue is. If you don't like the prayer then either cover your ears or don't go to the game if it really bugs you that much! I respect Tennessee and hope they continue their pre-game prayer!

 

[RyCo1983]

While I agree with this people seem to forget US history class and the separation of church and state.

Just to go along with this...freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

But personally...I could care less if Tennessee has a prayer before gametime.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

It is unconstitutional though. Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe.

 

[UmphreakDomer]

While I agree with this people seem to forget US history class and the separation of church and state.

this is pretty much how i feel. but, i do understand that a prayer before a game is the same, to me, as national anthem or a crowd chant. it sort of goes hand in hand. and if this person with the problem is truly a tennessee fan, wouldnt this just be an ingrained part of the game-day experience?

this just feels icky and just trying to make noise. like suing mcdonalds for being burned by hot coffee.

you dont see manti or badger complaining about having to attend catholic mass.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

this is pretty much how i feel. but, i do understand that a prayer before a game is the same, to me, as national anthem or a crowd chant. it sort of goes hand in hand. and if this person with the problem is truly a tennessee fan, wouldnt this just be an ingrained part of the game-day experience?

this just feels icky and just trying to make noise. like suing mcdonalds for being burned by hot coffee.

you dont see manti or badger complaining about having to attend catholic mass.

Off-topic, but do you know about that court case? The coffee that was sued over wasn't just hot, it gave the woman 3rd degree burns in seconds. That was something completely worth suing over.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I've been to many Tennessee games...and I am very proud of them that they are taking a stance against this bigotry. I am sick to death of the religious intolerance some people in our country are trying to facilitate. Our country was founded on the principles that all religions and people are welcome and can be practiced.That is why we have such a great country. Or at least I thought we did.

That is a gross misuse of the word bigotry. Keeping prayer out of a state institution and a sport that has nothing to do with it isn't bigotry. It's just separation of church and state.

 

[Irish4Life09]

While I agree with this people seem to forget US history class and the separation of church and state.

Just as a devil's advocate, go look up any historical document of the term 'separation of church and state'...there are none. It is a term that was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Congress about the possibility of doing it.
This term is completely blown out of proportion. The whole idea of our country was to separate religion from running our government. Not to keep church and religion out of our schools,events,etc. It was simply to separate ourselves from the way England was run.

 

[ACamp1900]

Tennesse is a state school and nd is private, there is the difference. I do agree with your thoughts though and i do feel that church and state has been grossly misinterpreted lately. Law suits over people having crossses in work cubicles and on gov land, and students denied rights to pray at school. This was not the intent of seperation. Whatever, someone here will surely attempt to tell me we are all wrong and how somrone praying next to you at a football game is somehow some grand violation of rights.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Tennesse is a state school and nd is private, there is the difference. I do agree with your thoughts though and i do feel that church and state has been grossly misinterpreted lately. Law suits over people having crossses in work cubicles and on gov land, and students denied rights to pray at school. This was not the intent of seperation. Whatever, someone here will surely attempt to tell me we are all wrong and how somrone praying next to you at a football game is somehow some grand violation of rights.

It's not someone praying next to you that is unconstitutional, it's the fact that it is state school-sponsored addressing a large crowd which has been ruled unconstitutional. This has already gone to the Supreme Court and been ruled unconstitutional so there really isn't a debate on whether it is allowable or not, just if it should be. It would be like debating whether abortion is legal or not. Obviously it is but whether it should be is the debate.

 

[UmphreakDomer]

Off-topic, but do you know about that court case? The coffee that was sued over wasn't just hot, it gave the woman 3rd degree burns in seconds. That was something completely worth suing over.

to me, and apparently you and the judge in this case, differ in opinion, but i do not think this should have been a winnable case. it is the mindset of our culture to "sue first", and take zero responsibility for our actions. coffee is served hot, and can be close to boiling. you spill, you get burned, you....sue?

we bog down our justice system with s#!t like this.

on the flip side--i totally appreciate our ability of a society to have the freedom to right wrongs done to us. i just feel people look to get rich on the possibility of holding someone else accountable for their own transgressions, bad decisions, mistakes, and blunders.

having said all of this--i agree with the post about close your ears or dont go. i'd add--shut your mouth.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I won't say I'm the least religious person on this board, but I'm pretty sure there is nobody here that is less religious than I am. And still, I do not get offended at all when other people pray. It doesn't bother me in the least. Good for them. I am not comfortable with the idea of religious beliefs being taught in school, but I am as interested in Free Exercise rights as I am in Establishment Clause rights. As long as you're not making people feel as though they are being coerced into practicing your religion I don't have an issue. Saying a prayer at a public gathering doesn't rise to that level, IMO.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

to me, and apparently you and the judge in this case, differ in opinion, but i do not think this should have been a winnable case. it is the mindset of our culture to "sue first", and take zero responsibility for our actions. coffee is served hot, and can be close to boiling. you spill, you get burned, you....sue?

we bog down our justice system with s#!t like this.

on the flip side--i totally appreciate our ability of a society to have the freedom to right wrongs done to us. i just feel people look to get rich on the possibility of holding someone else accountable for their own transgressions, bad decisions, mistakes, and blunders.

having said all of this--i agree with the post about close your ears or dont go. i'd add--shut your mouth.

People just shouldn't get S.O.L.'d when they are given a dangerous product with no warning of danger on it.

 

[Domina Nostra]

It's not someone praying next to you that is unconstitutional, it's the fact that it is state school-sponsored addressing a large crowd which has been ruled unconstitutional. This has already gone to the Supreme Court and been ruled unconstitutional so there really isn't a debate on whether it is allowable or not, just if it should be. It would be like debating whether abortion is legal or not. Obviously it is but whether it should be is the debate.

The Supreme Court ussually issues pretty narrow holdings, so there is always some kind of distinction in these cases that allow a lower court to ignore them. In this case, a court could argue that the Santa Fe case was based on precedent which protects high school students from coersion. The court might then conclude that a college-age adult does not require the same level of message protection. If it went back up on this basis, are you sure there would be 5 votes to hold this activity unconsistutional?

People just shouldn't get S.O.L.'d when they are given a dangerous product with no warning of danger on it.

I have nothing against plainitff's attorneys, but the problem with the McDonald's example is that it is not a "dangerous product." Its a cup of really hot water that you bought and stuck between your legs in a car. Common sense has to prevail at some point. Every pair of scissors does not need to say: "DANGER: MAY PUNCTURE EYEBALLS."

. . . I do not get offended at all when other people pray. It doesn't bother me in the least. Good for them. I am not comfortable with the idea of religious beliefs being taught in school, but I am as interested in Free Exercise rights as I am in Establishment Clause rights. As long as you're not making people feel as though they are being coerced into practicing your religion I don't have an issue. Saying a prayer at a public gathering doesn't rise to that level, IMO.

I appreciate this point of view. But would it be different if you felt differntly? What if it did make you uncomfortable? Would that be enough to outlaw it?

 

[rikkitikki08]

Political correctness is ruining this country. I am in no ways religous but i believe anyone can pray to anyone they want at anytime. If you dont agree with it just dont follow the prayer

 

[UmphreakDomer]

People just shouldn't get S.O.L.'d when they are given a dangerous product with no warning of danger on it.

coffee is a dangerous product? and there should be a warning that a "hot cup of coffee" is in fact "hot" and could "burn". yes. that idiot probably needed that warning, but i dont think the company should have been found at fault.

seeing commercials with little "do not attempt" drive me up the wall. but a company has to do that now because if some idiot does try to drive their car off the brooklyn bridge, that person can sue the car company for not being warned? come on man.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Political correctness is ruining this country. I am in no ways religous but i believe anyone can pray to anyone they want at anytime. If you dont agree with it just dont follow the prayer[/QUOTE

Would you allow that for the other side? For example a large section of a fanbase get together and come up with a chant, shirt etc that states their unbelief in a god. Acceptable or not?

 

[woolybug25]

Title is dead on with every point he has made. I have nothing more to add.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The Supreme Court ussually issues pretty narrow holdings, so there is always some kind of distinction in these cases that allow a lower court to ignore them. In this case, a court could argue that the Santa Fe case was based on precedent which protects high school students from coersion. The court might then conclude that a college-age adult does not require the same level of message protection. If it went back up on this basis, are you sure there would be 5 votes to hold this activity unconsistutional?



I have nothing against plainitff's attorneys, but the problem with the McDonald's example is that it is not a "dangerous product." Its a cup of really hot water that you bought and stuck between your legs in a car. Common sense has to prevail at some point. Every pair of scissors does not need to say: "DANGER: MAY PUNCTURE EYEBALLS."



I appreciate this point of view. But would it be different if you felt differntly? What if it did make you uncomfortable? Would that be enough to outlaw it?

A lot of it is about time and place, but some of it is about intent, too. Are you saying prayers because it makes you feel better, or is it an attempt to indoctrinate me and others? Am I being forced to partake, or am I free to abstain? Am I also permitted to express my faith (or lack thereof) without fear of persecution or intimidation?

 

[KieltoNeal]

 

[Emcee77]

I won't say I'm the least religious person on this board, but I'm pretty sure there is nobody here that is less religious than I am. And still, I do not get offended at all when other people pray. It doesn't bother me in the least. Good for them. I am not comfortable with the idea of religious beliefs being taught in school, but I am as interested in Free Exercise rights as I am in Establishment Clause rights. As long as you're not making people feel as though they are being coerced into practicing your religion I don't have an issue. Saying a prayer at a public gathering doesn't rise to that level, IMO.

The Supreme Court says that a prayer at a public school football game is coercive:

Even if we regard every high school student's decision to attend a home football game as purely voluntary, we are nevertheless persuaded that the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship. For "the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means." Id., at 594. As in Lee, "[w]hat to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy." Id., at 592. The constitutional command will not permit the District "to exact religious conformity from a student as the price" of joining her classmates at a varsity football game.

Santa Fe, 530 U.S. 290, 312

The Supreme Court ussually issues pretty narrow holdings, so there is always some kind of distinction in these cases that allow a lower court to ignore them. In this case, a court could argue that the Santa Fe case was based on precedent which protects high school students from coersion. The court might then conclude that a college-age adult does not require the same level of message protection. If it went back up on this basis, are you sure there would be 5 votes to hold this activity unconsistutional?

I don't think there is any question that Santa Fe applies. The rationale of the case doesn't depend on the students being young and impressionable. It depends more on the idea that a public-school-sponsored prayer looks like government-endorsed orthodoxy. I think the rationale would apply all the more strongly to a university.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The Supreme Court says that a prayer at a public school football game is coercive:



Santa Fe, 530 U.S. 290, 312



I don't think there is any question that Santa Fe applies. The rationale of the case doesn't depend on the students being young and impressionable. It depends more on the idea that a public-school-sponsored prayer looks like government-endorsed orthodoxy. I think the rationale would apply all the more strongly to a university.

I don't necessarily disagree with your take on the jurisprudence. Considering the makeup of this court (and stipulating that I know next to nothing about this particular case), it would not shock me to see the court find narrow grounds to allow this kind of activity without openly violating stare decisis. In this thread I was just giving my personal opinion about what offends me and what doesn't as a non-religious person.

 

[GowerND11]

The coffee topic. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the whole case won because it was TOO hot. What I mean is that the coffee should never have given the woman third degree burns. Therefore the product was unsafe and dangerous.

 

[Grahambo]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

(In case some people were curious.)

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The coffee topic. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the whole case won because it was TOO hot. What I mean is that the coffee should never have given the woman third degree burns. Therefore the product was unsafe and dangerous.

She was in the hospital for over a week because of it and it was too hot.

 

[betecd]

to me, and apparently you and the judge in this case, differ in opinion, but i do not think this should have been a winnable case. it is the mindset of our culture to "sue first", and take zero responsibility for our actions. coffee is served hot, and can be close to boiling. you spill, you get burned, you....sue?

we bog down our justice system with s#!t like this.

on the flip side--i totally appreciate our ability of a society to have the freedom to right wrongs done to us. i just feel people look to get rich on the possibility of holding someone else accountable for their own transgressions, bad decisions, mistakes, and blunders.

having said all of this--i agree with the post about close your ears or dont go. i'd add--shut your mouth.

There is a documentary about this called Hot Coffee. It goes in to detail regarding tort laws. Trust me if you see the images of the 60 year old woman's burns it is tough to not see why she sued.

ON the Prayer side because it is a state school if you need prayer stop taking the states money and go private. Then you can pray all you want.