Then he'll complain about his right to freedom of expression of religion is being denied. — baker

Jesus said pray in private. We know the agenda of those who pray in public--nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus said pray in private. We know the agenda of those who pray in public--nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus. — Jackson

Irrelevant. Outsiders are not in the position to judge the contents of a religion or whether a particular religious person adheres to their professed religion. The secular constitution gives religious people the freedom to "practice their religion in accordance with their conscience" and this trumps every objection from outsiders.

Irrelevant. — baker

Absolutely relevant.

On the contrary. It was the Church who was in favor of the separation between Church and State. The Church had good foresight: this separation is actually in the Church's favor. It's because of this formal separation that the State (and outsiders to the Church) are not allowed to interfere in matters of religion.

On the contrary. It was the Church who was in favor of the separation between Church and State. The Church had good foresight: this separation is actually in the Church's favor. It's because of this formal separation that the State (and outsiders to the Church) are not allowed to interfere in matters of religion. — baker

I have no idea why you're posting that to me.

Because the whole world doesn't revolve around you ...

Gosh. Insightful.

I think you both have a good point. Indeed

Jesus said pray in private. We know the agenda of those who pray in public--nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus.

I think it's totally fair to say what the praying coach was doing had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, the legal system cannot (and perhaps should not) allow or disallow speech on the basis of its consistency or obedience to the religious teachings each member claims to represent.

I do think it is fair for outsiders (and insiders) to point out when people are being inconsistent with a specific political or religious doctrine (and sometimes, they can see it with a clearer eye than those inside the community). However

The secular constitution gives religious people the freedom to "practice their religion in accordance with their conscience" and this trumps every objection from outsiders

is the status of the law. And honestly, I think this is how it should be.

For instance, I personally abhor the Westboro Baptist Church; I think they totally misrepresent Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. But I will advocate for their right to speak, as I too would want to be free from censorship if I was in their position. I'd rather let them just go around and look like idiots (no offense to any WBC members) then allow the government to say what views people are allowed to express. I have yet to hear a good principle for why they should be legally silenced beyond me not liking what they have to say.

On the other hand, the legal system cannot (and perhaps should not) allow or disallow speech on the basis of its consistency or obedience to the religious teachings each member claims to represent. — Paulm12

I never said nor implied that.

On the contrary. It was the Church who was in favor of the separation between Church and State. The Church had good foresight: this separation is actually in the Church's favor. It's because of this formal separation that the State (and outsiders to the Church) are not allowed to interfere in matters of religion. — baker

No. The motive is to maintain peaceful relations between different religious groups. If one denomination is allowed to take public funds or use governmental power, discord will ensue.

More to the point, if a student's coach or mentor has strong religious inclinations, this can reflect in how he treats his students, — baker

The coach initially prayed alone on the field after the game. Over time people from both teams would join him. For reasons you might not understand, I find that to be touching and very appropriate, and I'm an atheist. I most definitely would have joined them because of the symbolism of it.