losing team wants ref apology

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

You really don't get it? This guy is spouting religion in his official capacity as a principal of a public HS (if it is public - that's why I asked).

I agree with scrappy. There's nothing in "God Bless You" that "establishes" any religion over another. It's extremely generic; not isolated to any particular faith or denomination. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even an atheist who's offended by it unless they were trolling for a lawsuit.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

You really don't get it? This guy is spouting religion in his official capacity as a principal of a public HS (if it is public - that's why I asked).

See below.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree with scrappy. There's nothing in "God Bless You" that "establishes" any religion over another. It's extremely generic; not isolated to any particular faith or denomination. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even an atheist who's offended by it unless they were trolling for a lawsuit.

Exactly. I'm the biggest church/state separationist you'll meet and that didn't even register on my radar. He's not broadcasting it school-wide, he's not saying anything in the presence of students. I see nothing wrong with it.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree with scrappy. There's nothing in "God Bless You" that "establishes" any religion over another. It's extremely generic; not isolated to any particular faith or denomination. I think you'd be hard pressed to find even an atheist who's offended by it unless they were trolling for a lawsuit.

Gee, the kids pay for lunch with "in God we trust" money. I don't think a God bless you is cause for a demonstration.

[JugglingReferee]

Wasn't the country built on a Christian understanding?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Wasn't the country built on a Christian understanding?

I fear this is opening up another huge can of worms....but....

No, it was built on religious freedom, whether that means being religious in some way or being free from religion altogether.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I fear this is opening up another huge can of worms....but....

No, it was built on religious freedom, whether that means being religious in some way or being free from religion altogether.

I won't say another word.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I fear this is opening up another huge can of worms....but....

No, it was built on religious freedom, whether that means being religious in some way or being free from religion altogether.

Something tells me when Principal Cox's team lost He said "God %$#@*^"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I fear this is opening up another huge can of worms....but....

No, it was built on religious freedom, whether that means being religious in some way or being free from religion altogether.

You would do well to read more of the writings of the founding fathers; it very much was a Christian ideal at the base of our founding.
Personally, I'm all for enforcing the anti-establishment clause, but I think it's gone a bit far when we would even discuss the use of "God Bless You" in an email signature.

It's not as if he used, "In Jesus' Name." He used a statement 95% of Americans use when someone nearby sneezes.

[mutantducky]

no....... there were framers and many others at the time who wanted religion out which is why we have the establishment clause. but just like then and today there were Christians and those who weren't so some Christian influence but no way should Christianity be considered some sort of founding base for our country.


I wonder if he had wrote that to a single student. School wide yes, but one student...mmm. I think I would still take issue with that but not as big of deal as going on the intercom or something like that. Email outside the school it is fine because most would see it as a generic term.
anyhoo enough about that even though religion, the law and schools are fun to talk about. lots of interesting cases

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I fear this is opening up another huge can of worms....but....

No, it was built on religious freedom, whether that means being religious in some way or being free from religion altogether.

No, it was built (not founded, see Native Americans) by Puritans. They were quite intolerable to other religions in case you forgot. So I would say, "Founded by religious freedom," would be incorrect.

[BillyMac]

View this link as "for your consideration", or "fuel for the fire":

Case could bar coaches from praying with players | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean

Disclaimer: See my signature below.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

No, it was built (not founded, see Native Americans) by Puritans. They were quite intolerable to other religions in case you forgot. So I would say, "Founded by religious freedom," would be incorrect.

Oh good grief...the Puritans founded one small settlement that grew into one of the original 13 colonies. By that time, the majority of the people living in the colony were not Puritans.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Oh good grief...the Puritans founded one small settlement that grew into one of the original 13 colonies. By that time, the majority of the people living in the colony were not Puritans.

Thank you for clearing that up before I got back here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Oh good grief...the Puritans founded one small settlement that grew into one of the original 13 colonies. By that time, the majority of the people living in the colony were not Puritans.

Agreed.