What I don’t understand is why. Why would their coach do this? What does it have to do with football? Fire the coach for incompetence; sprinkling kids with water does not a winning team make.
I actually wrote a line about Mormons doing this, but erased it before hitting submit, since they seem to do this kind of nonsense only to the dead.
Bolding mine. Do you have a cite for this assertion?
And why would you question the parent’s word (and commitment to raising their son as they see fit)?
Based on what goes on in other places, even parents who think it is wrong might think twice about complaining.
“Objecting to your son being baptized? You some kind of Athiest?” <misspelling intentional.>
But it is wrong in any case. Do they not have enough churches around there that they need a bus trip to get baptized?
I think its pretty clear that this is a strict violation of the first amendment. The coach used school time and school resources to promote religion. Saying that it wasn’t an official school trip is a cop out, and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. (I assume) The trip was organized during football time and used a resource not available to the general public. That makes it school sponsored even if they want to use weasel words.
That being said, I don’t think this is a case to get your panties in a bunch over. It doesn’t seem coercive and there doesn’t seem to be any negative repercussions for not going on the trip. Ammons (the parent) comes off completely ridiculous and as a moronic tool. We live in a religious country with religious people in it. Its fine if you aren’t, but you can’t insist on not being exposed to religion.
I’ve always maintained that religion is a subset of politics.
I hope for the school’s sake that this was a dividing issue for them in the past. Because if the kid felt coerced, the school is going to have a much harder time in the courts.
(And, btw, me)…
You’re absolutely right, and the coach knows it.
That’s why they went someplace that does complete immersion. It doesn’t work if you only do the job halfway!
Say, you wouldn’t happen to be Christian, would you?
I am (suddenly) a high school coach and I’m going to take all the kids who want to come along out drinking. Sure, it’s illegal for me to do this, but if you protest, you’re ridiculous and a moronic tool - we don’t live in a prohibitionist country and while it’s fine if you don’t drink, you can’t insist on your kids being kept dry.
I’m not. Did you bother to read the rest of my post? It’s simple logical inference.
Prior to the baptism, there are 4 possibilities here:
- Son was not religious, Parents are not religious
- Son was not religious, Parents are religious
- Son was religious, Parents are not religous
- Son was religious, Parents are religous
Given the quote from the parents in the article “they wanted their son to wait until he was 18 to make religious decisions for himself.”, I think we can safely assume that 2 and 4 are excluded. Besides, if the parents were religious, they would have probably either already baptized him, or else rejoiced in his baptism and the story would be mute. That leaves 1 and 3. Now, if the son was following in the footsteps of the parents, do you think they would have sat down and told him they want him to ‘wait until he was 18’? No. Of course not. That leaves us with the 3. The son was already inclined towards religion, and the parents weren’t. That is the only combination that is compatible with the facts we know:
- Parents wanted him to wait until he was 18 to make ‘religious decisions’
- Parents think he was brain washed.
- The kid sneaks off to evangelical event without telling his parents. All the other parents knew, except the one kid whose parents disapproved. IE, the kid knew they wouldn’t let him go, so he didn’t tell them about it.
- The kid evidentally had a great time at the event.
They probably wouldn’t discuss it at all, because they wouldn’t think they would need to. Kind of like how my parents didn’t discuss tattoos with me when I was a teenager, since I never showed any interest in getting one.
Then the kid feels pressured by the coach and the other kids to go and get baptized, and does it.
I don’t know if this is what happened, but it certainly seems plausible.
Don’t see the relevance of that.
Ah yes because joining a religion is just like underage drinking. By the way, it isn’t “illegal” for the coach to do what he did. It is “unconstitutional”. There is a difference.
The issue isn’t being exposed to religion. High schools teach about religion in an even-handed way. The issue is with a member of the faculty organizing a partisan religious excursion on school time. I suspect if he had brought them to a mosque the panties of the Christians would be in a big bunch - even if no one converted.
but they did discuss it. Hence the ‘wait until your 18’ quote.
I have no respect for when the person saying “pshaw, your piffling little beliefs and preferences don’t matter; everyone should go with the status quo” just happens to the one benefiting from the status quo. That is nothing more than marginalization of the minority or dissenting perspective - casual oppression.
In what relevent way is it different? Other than you approving of the religion and disapproving of the drinking?
Yes - being unconstitutinal is worse.
Feel what way?
Yes, I understand why its an issue. I just don’t think it is a big deal.
Yes, well they seem to get their panties in bunches over a lot of things that aren’t logical or consistent.
The “wait until you’re 18” was something you made up, in the little thing you wrote lampooning the idea. There’s nothing in the article, to indicate whether this desire of the parents’ was something they actually discussed with their child, or if it was something that they just wanted to happen.
And I have no respect for someone who judges an argument based on the person making that argument instead of its merits.
Underage drinking is objectively damaging to teenagers health whereas the detriments to religion are largely subjective.
Then why did you bring up something illegal instead of unconstitutional?
Your argument, such as it was, was “people who don’t think that schools should break the rules and induct their kids into religion without their consent are stupid 'cause everybody’s doing it.” This argument only has merit if you agree with the status quo, becuase if you don’t, then it’s retarded. Realistically it’s a completely crappy argument regardless of who would be presenting it - the only possibly way you could pretend it isn’t one is if it happens to tell you what you want to hear. (It’s a lot like the birther nonsense in that regard.)
So what? Why you like one unpermitted activity more than the other is completely irrelevent to whether it’s stupid to be annoyed at one activity and not the other.
Because that difference is completely irrelevent.
The point I was hoping to make was was that your argument was just “People who don’t believe like me should just shut up about illegal acts that I like”, loosely wrapped in maintaining-the-status-quo clothing. I was hoping to get you to notice how poor of an argument that was by swapping out the thing you liked happening for one you didn’t.
I’m still waiting for you to get the point.
If it were such a crappy argument then you should have no problem providing a response to it instead of attacking me.
Again, it’s not a matter of what I like. It’s a matter of harm. There is easily provable objective harm to teenage drinking. There is none of that for listening to a preacher or getting baptised. I don’t think anyone should be coerced to doing the second, but it’s hardly comparable to teenagers drinking.
I find it interesting that you can tell me what I like and don’t like without knowing the first thing about me. Regardless, the point is that there doesn’t appear to be any harm to anyone here. There isn’t any evidence of coercion or consequences for not attending the service. It was wrong, unconstitutional, but just not a big deal.