• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Alabama attorney general defends public university (Auburn) baseball team prayers, Christian uniforms

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
49,167
51,521
Los Angeles Area
✟1,145,961.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall on Monday defended coach-led prayers on Auburn University’s men’s baseball team and Christian imagery on some new team uniforms.

Marshall sent a letter to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit that earlier this month criticized the university for allowing men’s baseball coach Butch Thompson to lead the team in prayer before practices and games and for adopting new uniforms featuring Christian imagery.

Current team practice uniforms feature the phrase “Jesus Won” on the front and a Christian cross on the back.

Former Auburn outfielder Mason Maners also serves as the team’s chaplain, a position Marshall’s office said includes “offering Bible studies and praying with the team.”

“Freedom From Religion’s latest crusade is a swing and a miss. Coaches and athletes don’t lose their religious rights just because they attend a public school,” Marshall said in a written statement released Monday.

[What about an athlete's religious right to not advertise Christianity on a jersey?]

“The Supreme Court has offered several ways to measure state action against the Nation’s historical tradition,” Marshall wrote. “Your vague fear that prayer might ‘marginalize’ the religiously unaffiliated is not one of them.”

[Oh, well okay then.]

“It is important to note that this situation is readily distinguishable from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,” FFRF wrote. “In Bremerton, the Court held that a high school football coach’s quiet [sic], private [sic] post-game prayer was constitutional.”
 

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,521
21,631
Finger Lakes
✟382,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Auburn is a public land grant university, not a Christian university.

The Auburn Creed:

I believe that this is a practical world and that I can count only on what I earn. Therefore, I believe in work, hard work.

I believe in education, which gives me the knowledge to work wisely and trains my mind and my hands to work skillfully.

I believe in honesty and truthfulness, without which I cannot win the respect and confidence of my fellow men.

I believe in a sound mind, in a sound body and a spirit that is not afraid, and in clean sports that develop these qualities.

I believe in obedience to law because it protects the rights of all.

I believe in the human touch, which cultivates sympathy with my fellow men and mutual helpfulness and brings happiness for all.

I believe in my Country, because it is a land of freedom and because it is my own home, and that I can best serve that country by "doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my God."

And because Auburn men and women believe in these things, I believe in Auburn and love it.

George Petrie (1943)
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,521
21,631
Finger Lakes
✟382,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
29,290
20,789
Colorado
✟587,191.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No. They are not.
How would you feel if to play baseball at your public school you had to wear a uniform that endorses the Prophet Muhammad?

Same thing.
 
Upvote 0

High Fidelity

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2014
24,666
10,656
✟1,175,351.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
How would you feel if to play baseball at your public school you had to wear a uniform that endorses the Prophet Muhammad?

Same thing.
Then I'd find another place to play.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
29,290
20,789
Colorado
✟587,191.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Then I'd find another place to play.
Its a public school. Its yours. Why should you have to leave to avoid endorsing a faith you dont believe?

Plus theres the issue of the state requiring anyone to wear an endorsement of Islam to participate in one of its benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iluvatar5150
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
10,084
6,802
61
Saint James, Missouri
✟570,036.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How would you feel if to play baseball at your public school you had to wear a uniform that endorses the Prophet Muhammad?

Same thing.
They ain't being forced to wear that uniform.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
29,290
20,789
Colorado
✟587,191.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
They ain't being forced to wear that uniform.
"Current team practice uniforms feature the phrase “Jesus Won” on the front and a Christian cross on the back."

Do you mean they arent forced because they can elect to not play their sport at the public U they attend?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
8,540
5,932
NW
✟322,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Praise God that there are some who are willing and practicing their 1st amendment rights.
This is a violation of the 1st amendment. Tax dollars are being used to promote religion, which violates the establishment clause.
 
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,867
1,780
WI
✟95,571.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall on Monday defended coach-led prayers on Auburn University’s men’s baseball team and Christian imagery on some new team uniforms.

Marshall sent a letter to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit that earlier this month criticized the university for allowing men’s baseball coach Butch Thompson to lead the team in prayer before practices and games and for adopting new uniforms featuring Christian imagery.

Current team practice uniforms feature the phrase “Jesus Won” on the front and a Christian cross on the back.

Former Auburn outfielder Mason Maners also serves as the team’s chaplain, a position Marshall’s office said includes “offering Bible studies and praying with the team.”

“Freedom From Religion’s latest crusade is a swing and a miss. Coaches and athletes don’t lose their religious rights just because they attend a public school,” Marshall said in a written statement released Monday.

[What about an athlete's religious right to not advertise Christianity on a jersey?]

“The Supreme Court has offered several ways to measure state action against the Nation’s historical tradition,” Marshall wrote. “Your vague fear that prayer might ‘marginalize’ the religiously unaffiliated is not one of them.”

[Oh, well okay then.]

“It is important to note that this situation is readily distinguishable from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,” FFRF wrote. “In Bremerton, the Court held that a high school football coach’s quiet [sic], private [sic] post-game prayer was constitutional.”

Interesting idea about athletes’ rights. An atheist athlete must have the right not to be forced to wear a jersey promoting Christianity. I think I can agree with that. That athlete has rights under the Constitution.

Can we apply those same rights to nine 19-year-old girls at a university who do not want to participate in a sport with a man who dresses like a woman? After all, those nine women should have the right not to compete against a man who dresses like a woman. Is that fair?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
29,290
20,789
Colorado
✟587,191.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Interesting idea about athletes’ rights. An atheist athlete must have the right not to be forced to wear a jersey promoting Christianity. I think I can agree with that. That athlete has rights under the Constitution.

Can we apply those same rights to nine 19-year-old girls at a university who do not want to participate in a sport with a man who dresses like a woman? After all, those nine women should have the right not to compete against a man who dresses like a woman. Is that fair?
I dont see how you "balance" one issue against the other. While I'm not inclined to open womens sports up to trans women generally, its just such a different matter from religious liberty.
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,556
10,138
49
UK
✟1,459,363.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Praise God that there are some who are willing and practicing their 1st amendment rights.
Sorry but this a public university. The first amended is about ensuring govt bodies(such as public universities) do not impose a particular faith on citizens.
 
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,867
1,780
WI
✟95,571.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I dont see how you "balance" one issue against the other. While I'm not inclined to open womens sports up to trans women generally, its just such a different matter from religious liberty.

I understand that the legal issues are different in each case. One involves the First Amendment and religious rights. The other is a completely different issue, and I am not even sure exactly where the question of transgender athletes in college sports falls legally.

But the underlying concept feels similar. In one case, an atheist athlete is saying, “Do not force me to participate in something I disagree with,” and many liberals point to that as an example of the need for separation of church and state. In the other case, nine women are saying, “Do not force us to compete in a situation we believe is unfair or violates our boundaries.” Yet some of the same people who defend the atheist athlete’s right to object seem to argue that those nine women have no similar right to object, and that they must simply accept the situation and compete. That is the contradiction I am pointing out. I am not saying liberals are the only ones who do this; conservatives often use the same kind of selective logic when it suits their argument and reject it when it does not.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
49,167
51,521
Los Angeles Area
✟1,145,961.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Interesting idea about athletes’ rights. An atheist athlete must have the right not to be forced to wear a jersey promoting Christianity. I think I can agree with that. That athlete has rights under the Constitution.

Can we apply those same rights to nine 19-year-old girls at a university who do not want to participate in a sport with a man who dresses like a woman?
What is the basis of this 'right'? It wouldn't seem to be freedom of speech or religion. Anyway, stepping back a second, look at another difference in the two cases.

A lone person (an atheist) can be granted an exception to a condition (wearing a religious jersey) even if the whole rest of the team wants to [or possibly the entire condition is unconstitutional, and the religious reference should be removed from all jerseys].

In your case, it is the whole rest of the team who wants to prevent a lone person from being granted an exception to the usual condition.

After all, those nine women should have the right not to compete against a man who dresses like a woman.
The current status of things appears to be that if a state agrees that they should have this 'right', the state can pass a law to make it so. In actuality it is not about rights... the state passes a law making transwomen ineligible for women's sports. Again going back to the actual OP, there is no constitutional way to pass a law forbidding atheists from playing college sports.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
29,290
20,789
Colorado
✟587,191.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I understand that the legal issues are different in each case. One involves the First Amendment and religious rights. The other is a completely different issue, and I am not even sure exactly where the question of transgender athletes in college sports falls legally.

But the underlying concept feels similar. In one case, an atheist athlete is saying, “Do not force me to participate in something I disagree with,” and many liberals point to that as an example of the need for separation of church and state. In the other case, nine women are saying, “Do not force us to compete in a situation we believe is unfair or violates our boundaries.” Yet some of the same people who defend the atheist athlete’s right to object seem to argue that those nine women have no similar right to object, and that they must simply accept the situation and compete. That is the contradiction I am pointing out. I am not saying liberals are the only ones who do this; conservatives often use the same kind of selective logic when it suits their argument and reject it when it does not.
"I disagree with..." is not really all that powerful, nor should it be. We cant cater to everyones various disagreements on every single thing. If you can make an excellent case, then you should get your way.

Religious liberty (not having the state impose religious participation on you) otoh is much more powerful and specifically protected in our constitution. Religious liberty positions are privileged by constitutional default - until we amend it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0