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

Aldebaran · Jul 6, 2026

DaisyDay said:
Leaning towards #1 now. This isn't about "offending" atheists. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practicing or not practicing his religion. The other atheists in your scenario are neither the government nor government agents.

But it does indicate the practice of a religion (even though religion still lacks any legal definition, no matter how many times I ask for one). That was the question.

DaisyDay · Jul 6, 2026

Aldebaran said:
But it does indicate the practice of a religion (even though religion still lacks any legal definition, no matter how many times I ask for one). That was the question.

It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment that people are allowed to practice their religion while governments are not to interfere.

The government is not to establish religion nor to favor any particular religion. The people are free to establish religions (see H. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith).

Is your difficulty understanding the difference between governments and people? You keep confusing who is allowed to do what. For instance, kindergartners are allowed to wear hijabs to their graduation ceremonies* at public schools, while the schools can neither require nor forbid that they do so.

I haven't seen where you asked anyone, let alone me, for the legal definition of religion, but for personal definitions. Also you have not answered any question that I have asked you, such as this, this or this, but:

Cornell Law Review: Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach

Have at it.

Pommer · Jul 6, 2026

Aldebaran said:
Answering a question with a question indicates lack of an answer.

\

As does ignoring a query altogether.

Aldebaran · Jul 7, 2026

DaisyDay said:
It is enshrined in the 1st Amendment that people are allowed to practice their religion while governments are not to interfere.

The government is not to establish religion nor to favor any particular religion. The people are free to establish religions (see H. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith).

Is your difficulty understanding the difference between governments and people? You keep confusing who is allowed to do what. For instance, kindergartners are allowed to wear hijabs to their graduation ceremonies* at public schools, while the schools can neither require nor forbid that they do so.

I haven't seen where you asked anyone, let alone me, for the legal definition of religion, but for personal definitions. Also you have not answered any question that I have asked you, such as this, this or this, but:

Cornell Law Review: Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach

Have at it.

With pleasure!
Mainly though, when you referenced the 1st Amendment, why did you give me an inaccurate version of what it says rather than simply quoting word-for-word what it says? The actual text doesn't say what you claimed it says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The University isn't making any law about anything, or prohibiting anyone from exercising their faith.

Aldebaran · Jul 7, 2026

Pommer said:
As does ignoring a query altogether.

Exactly! So answer my question rather than dodging it with your own.

DaisyDay · Jul 7, 2026

Aldebaran said:
With pleasure!
Mainly though, when you referenced the 1st Amendment, why did you give me an inaccurate version of what it says rather than simply quoting word-for-word what it says?

I assumed that you had read the Constitution by now.

Do you understand the concept of paraphrasing?

Aldebaran said:
The actual text doesn't say what you claimed it says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The University isn't making any law about anything, or prohibiting anyone from exercising their faith.

All the rules and regulations concerning freedom of religion stem from the 1st Amendment. There have been a plethora of court decisions in the years since.

Governments and their agents, public school officials are considered government agents, are not allowed to apply coercive pressure on students to wear religious symbols; neither are they allowed to prohibit students from wearing religious symbols or garb. Furthermore, forcing the religious symbols on the students' uniforms counts as compelled speech which goes to "abridging the freedom of speech". See Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Aldebaran · Jul 7, 2026

DaisyDay said:
I assumed that you had read the Constitution by now.

Do you understand the concept of paraphrasing?

All the rules and regulations concerning freedom of religion stem from the 1st Amendment. There have been a plethora of court decisions in the years since.

I'm familiar with paraphrasing, but it only works when it's done accurately. "Congress shall make no law regarding respecting the establishment of religion..." indicates that Congress isn't allowed to do anything either way. The Auburn University and its baseball team aren't Congress. By trying to take away whatever "free exercise thereof" they have, certain people are actually trying to do the very thing Congress is prohibited from doing, and wish to use the legal system to do it. If no law exists to prohibit that free exercise of religious expression, then the SCOTUS would have to dismiss the case. If such a law did exist, it would be unconstitutional by definition.

essentialsaltes · Jul 7, 2026

Aldebaran said:
I'm familiar with paraphrasing, but it only works when it's done accurately. "Congress shall make no law regarding respecting the establishment of religion..." indicates that Congress isn't allowed to do anything either way. The Auburn University and its baseball team aren't Congress.

For almost 80 years, SCOTUS has held that a consequence of the Civil War Amendments is that the States are also bound by the First Amendment.

Aldebaran said:
By trying to take away whatever "free exercise thereof" they have

Are you suggesting Auburn University has a religion it wants to practice freely?

DaisyDay · Jul 7, 2026

Aldebaran said:
I'm familiar with paraphrasing, but it only works when it's done accurately.

I was paraphrasing not just the 1st Amendment but the subsequent laws and decisions that followed from it, accurately.

Aldebaran said:
"Congress shall make no law regarding respecting the establishment of religion..." indicates that Congress isn't allowed to do anything either way.

What do you mean by "anything either way"? Add this to the list of questions I've asked.

Aldebaran said:
The Auburn University and its baseball team aren't Congress.

Auburn University is a public - read government - institution. The 1st A has been determined to apply to all US governments (including state and municipal), their agencies and their institutions.

Private universities and institutions are NOT bound by this; many require their students and faculty to sign a declaration of faith.

Aldebaran said:
By trying to take away whatever "free exercise thereof" they have, certain people are actually trying to do the very thing Congress is prohibited from doing, and wish to use the legal system to do it.

Once again, public schools are considered agents of the government (acting on behalf of the government). The "free exercise thereof" goes to the people (i.e. students) not the government (i.e. public university). This, the rights of the people vs the rights and prohibitions of the government, is basic civics.

Auburn University = government
Students = the people

I'm leaning towards #3 again.

Aldebaran said:
If no law exists to prohibit that free exercise of religious expression, then the SCOTUS would have to dismiss the case.

The students are allowed the free exercise of religious expression. Private schools are allowed the free exercise of religious expression. Public schools are prohibited from interfering (or compelling) the religious expression of their students. If a student does not want to wear the words "Jesus Won" then the school cannot coerce them.

Aldebaran said:
If such a law did exist, it would be unconstitutional by definition.

The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. See Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

chilehed · Jul 7, 2026

NxNW said:
This is a violation of the 1st amendment. Tax dollars are being used to promote religion, which violates the establishment clause.

You have no clue what you're talking about. None.

Pommer · Jul 7, 2026

Aldebaran said:
Does that mean an atheist is practicing a religion when he gets mad and yells the name of Jesus Christ?

If mere verbal expressions of this or that deity are “practicing a religion”, then “yes”.
Every time a poster types “Allah” in these forums, they’d be “practicing Islam”.

Pommer said:
Are the people who festooned the Auburn players in Cross & “Jesus wins” shirts, atheists?

Hans Blaster · Jul 7, 2026

DaisyDay said:
I assumed that you had read the Constitution by now.

I think they stop after the 2nd Amend.

DaisyDay said:
Do you understand the concept of paraphrasing?

All the rules and regulations concerning freedom of religion stem from the 1st Amendment. There have been a plethora of court decisions in the years since.

Governments and their agents, public school officials are considered government agents, are not allowed to apply coercive pressure on students to wear religious symbols; neither are they allowed to prohibit students from wearing religious symbols or garb. Furthermore, forcing the religious symbols on the students' uniforms counts as compelled speech which goes to "abridging the freedom of speech". See Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

If the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th amendment doesn't mean anything any more why should the second sentence:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

essentialsaltes · Jul 12, 2026

essentialsaltes said:
There are two pieces to the freedom of religion. The free exercise of religion. And the ban on government establishment of religion, which is more implicated here.

A few people seem to be having an inexplicably difficult time distinguishing these two things, so here's a helpful example of what a potential threat to free exercise might look like.

Indiana Lt. Gov. Beckwith wants to ban Muslim call to prayer

"If you're a mosque and you want to have a loudspeaker and you want to start pumping these out five times a day locally, the state can say, 'You're not going to do that,'" he said. "We're not allowing that. We're not going to let you put these words of death and destruction throughout the city streets in any of our cities."

Beckwith's comments clash with the First Amendment's free exercise clause, which establishes the right of citizens to freely practice their faith without government intrusion. The government can step in if a faith practice violates laws, but a state generally can't pass laws that directly burden religious practice, according to the Freedom Forum.

NxNW · Jul 12, 2026

Aldebaran said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The University isn't making any law about anything, or prohibiting anyone from exercising their faith.

Universities don't make laws; Congress does. Taxation, used to fund universities, is a law passed by Congress. When that funding promotes religion, you have a violation.

Seems to me that someone who is a moderator on a religious forum should know what a religion is.

Aldebaran · Jul 13, 2026

NxNW said:
Universities don't make laws; Congress does. Taxation, used to fund universities, is a law passed by Congress. When that funding promotes religion, you have a violation.

Seems to me that someone who is a moderator on a religious forum should know what a religion is.

I like seeing it defined by those who keep using it to say that it's violating someone's rights. Since those I asked couldn't define it, it became clear that they knew not what they were talking about.

essentialsaltes · Jul 13, 2026

Aldebaran said:
I like seeing it defined by those who keep using it to say that it's violating someone's rights.

essentialsaltes said:
There are two pieces to the freedom of religion. The free exercise of religion. And the ban on government establishment of religion, which is more implicated here.

essentialsaltes said:
A few people seem to be having an inexplicably difficult time distinguishing these two things, so here's a helpful example of what a potential threat to free exercise might look like.

Indiana Lt. Gov. Beckwith wants to ban Muslim call to prayer

You are among the people having an inexplicably difficult time understanding that this is not about the free exercise clause, but about the establishment clause.

NxNW · Jul 14, 2026

Aldebaran said:
I like seeing it defined by those who keep using it to say that it's violating someone's rights. Since those I asked couldn't define it, it became clear that they knew not what they were talking about.

You're just wasting their time. I explained why it's a violation -- tax dollars are being used, which are appropriated by laws.

DaisyDay · Jul 14, 2026

Aldebaran said:
I like seeing it defined by those who keep using it to say that it's violating someone's rights. Since those I asked couldn't define it, it became clear that they knew not what they were talking about.

So how have you defined "religion", for the purposes of this discussion?

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

NCC-1701-A

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Future History Slab Carver

NCC-1701-A

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”​

NCC-1701-A

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”​

NCC-1701-A

Fact-Based Lifeform

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Veteran

Future History Slab Carver

Your turn, Atlanta!

Fact-Based Lifeform

Indiana Lt. Gov. Beckwith wants to ban Muslim call to prayer​

Well-Known Member

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”​

NCC-1701-A

Fact-Based Lifeform

Indiana Lt. Gov. Beckwith wants to ban Muslim call to prayer​

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Similar threads

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Indiana Lt. Gov. Beckwith wants to ban Muslim call to prayer

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Indiana Lt. Gov. Beckwith wants to ban Muslim call to prayer