On Friday, Bob said he wants a high school football coach to be able to say a Christian prayer with his players. I'm presuming he means a a high school football coach at a public school (because I don't particularly care what they do at private schools).
This is yet another example of Bob's desire to use the power and authority of the government to impose his religion on people (and their minor children) who don't share his beliefs. Have you noticed that Bob lacks empathy towards anyone who doesn't share his beliefs?
Why can't Bob understand what it would be like to be a young non-Christian high school boy in that locker room with that Christian coach?
Let's take an example: Let's assume that the non-Christian boy was brought up in the Jewish faith, i.e., he was taught that Jesus of Nazareth was not the son of God. Also assume that the Christian coach prays in the name of Jesus or Christ. Would this cause a conflict in this boy's life?
Basically, the coach, as representative of the school is a representative of government. The government is telling the boy that his parents and his belief system are wrong. And think about the enormous peer pressure that this boy would be under to conform with his peers, to "fit in" with his teammates, to get playing time in the games, and to be treated fairly. Why should the coach, ergo, the government be attempting to interfere with this boy's religious upbringing? Shouldn't that be up to the boy's parents?
To further elaborate, imagine that Bob lived in Dearborn and that the population of Dearborn is 80% Islamic. Let's say that one of Bob's kids started playing Varsity football at Fordson High School. Imagine that the football coach and the majority of the team are practicing Muslims. The coach leads a prayer before the game saying, "there is only one God and his name is Allah and Mohammed was his prophet."
Would Bob, a fundamentalist Christian, object to the government imposing a different belief system on his son? You bet your ass he would.
But this is exactly the type of situation that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution aims to prevent: The government attempting to impose a set of religious beliefs on someone. The best part about the Establishment Clause is that it protects everyone from being pressured to conform to a particular religious belief. It protects Muslims from Christians, it protects atheists from Jews, and it protects me from Bob.
4 comments:
Nutjob thinks that Congress shall not respect an establishment of religon simply means that the government can't establish a national church. First off, Dutko, it says religion, not church. Second, it means that the govt. can't promote an establishment of religion, not the govt. can't establish a religion.
Whenever the tables are turned, Bob always backs the Government.
For example, a few weeks ago a Muslim woman was in a small claims court and the judge ordered her to remove her headdress. She refused so the judge dismissed the case. Bob defended the judge.
Then he mentioned Muslims who are angry about being portrayed as terrorists in movies. He responded by saying that because most terrorists are Muslims, it's an accurate portrayl.
And yet if a serial killer is played as a Christian in a movie, he cries persecution. He's a total hypocrite.
I am a Christian, and I wouldn't like a muslim coach praying with my child. I agree with you.
kdog,
I'm glad to hear that you agree with the Separation of Church and State that is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
But do me a favor, please. Next time you hear Dutko complaining about the poor public school coaches who can't lead their team in prayer, kindly call in and tell him that as a practicing Christian, you disagree because you wouldn't like it if the tables were turned.
Thanks in advance.
Post a Comment