Org asks for Utes to stop teaching LDS religion class

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37028894&nid=635&title=organization-asks-u-to-stop-football-coaches-from-teaching-lds-religion-classes-to-players&s_cid=queue-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent a letter to university Pres. David Pershing Monday requesting that graduate assistant and former NFL player Sione Pouha and Utah safeties coach Morgan Scalley stop teaching an LDS Institute class meant for players on the football team.



"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars public-university employees from teaching religious classes to university students," the letter states. "The Establishment Clause prohibits governmental bodies from taking any action that communicates 'endorsement of religion.' "



Basically they are saying if they want religion classes go to institute. U of U employees (including football coaches) shouldn't be teaching religion classes on school property or time.

I agree with separation of state and religion. I don't want the state telling me how I can worship. My first thought is that this should not be done in any public university/school. It should be done in an LDS owned institute building. However, I don't really see the harm in this...

So they are volunteering on their own time to teach an institute class at the institute building that is completely voluntary to attend...is there a problem?

I guess I somehow thought it was being done on the school campus. Absolutely nothing wrong with doing it at in Institute building. It's not mandatory and all indications are that the coaches are not being paid for it.

billbillbillbill wrote:
So they are volunteering on their own time to teach an institute class at the institute building that is completely voluntary to attend...is there a problem?

They're teaching it in the team rooms of the football facility--that's the crux of the issue here.

snoscythe wrote:
They're teaching it in the team rooms of the football facility--that's the crux of the issue here.

OK, yeah, that changes things a bit. In general, I am frustrated with the interpretation of the constitution that the government be free from all religion vs the intended freedom of religion protections, but in today's climate, I could see this hard to justify.

If the class happened after hours at the institute I don't think it would be a problem. But if it is during the day in school facilities then I definitely see the conflict.

The other issue is having a "voluntary" class taught by your state-paid superior. This is the guy who determines depth-charts, playing time, interview availabilty etc. etc. etc., so even if they are truly voluntary, there is nevertheless an implied pressure to participate for the everyday brown-nosers looking for any advantage with the coach/boss/superior, so making these things "voluntary" is not a cure-all.



If you worked in a highly competitive job environment and your boss offered Tuesday Night Discussions on the Spaghetti Monster at his home, many would feel added pressure to learn more about the Spaghetti Monster simply because of the hierarchical relationship. When that happens in government employment, the courts have had problems with it. Even the perception that there might be pressure to participate can get you in trouble.

Kind of like when my employer had a "leadership club" where they met and discussed leadership or motivation books during the lunch hour--led by the guy in charge of the division (several management levels above me). It was optional--but I was coached that you would not want to miss if you had ambitions to advance there.

snoscythe wrote:
The other issue is having a "voluntary" class taught by your state-paid superior. This is the guy who determines depth-charts, playing time, interview availabilty etc. etc. etc., so even if they are truly voluntary, there is nevertheless an implied pressure to participate for the everyday brown-nosers looking for any advantage with the coach/boss/superior, so making these things "voluntary" is not a cure-all.



If you worked in a highly competitive job environment and your boss offered Tuesday Night Discussions on the Spaghetti Monster at his home, many would feel added pressure to learn more about the Spaghetti Monster simply because of the hierarchical relationship. When that happens in government employment, the courts have had problems with it. Even the perception that there might be pressure to participate can get you in trouble.

The difference here is that the coach is most likely to play the best player. Win or you lose your job. And I think we have seen enough examples of players getting a pass so they can play because they give their team a better chance of winning. Sports may be similar to business in some respects but brown nosers rarely get ahead of top performers.

I don't know--Mendenhall is accused of playing "gritty" players above more talented players sometimes. Although the accusation is usually made by those who believe they are the more talented players.

imuakahuku wrote:
The difference here is that the coach is most likely to play the best player. Win or you lose your job. And I think we have seen enough examples of players getting a pass so they can play because they give their team a better chance of winning. Sports may be similar to business in some respects but brown nosers rarely get ahead of top performers.

In a perfect world, maybe. I've seen enough players in Robert Anae's doghouse to know that is not always the case. Nick Kurtz is just starting to emerge from his game one trip to the doghouse for chuckling in the presence of Anae after losing a ball. Brown-nosers in football get attention, and sometimes that can make all the difference in a close call between fairly even candidates.

I've dealt with these guys before. I know that Heavenly Father loves them, but I don't. Their reasoning is almost non-existent. They see no irony in telling Morgan Scalley exactly what he cannot do on his own time, and who he can associate with based solely on his beliefs. I hope that Utah has the backbone to tell them that they need to bother themselves elsewhere.



If Utah ever runs into a situation where it is alleged that he discriminated against a player based on the player's beliefs, then there are remedies for that. But that's not the case here - they are thought police who want to eliminate any and all thought that they disagree with, and that bugs me.

Fido wrote:
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37028894&nid=635&title=organization-asks-u-to-stop-football-coaches-from-teaching-lds-religion-classes-to-players&s_cid=queue-2



Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent a letter to university Pres. David Pershing Monday requesting that graduate assistant and former NFL player Sione Pouha and Utah safeties coach Morgan Scalley stop teaching an LDS Institute class meant for players on the football team.



"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars public-university employees from teaching religious classes to university students," the letter states. "The Establishment Clause prohibits governmental bodies from taking any action that communicates 'endorsement of religion.' "



Basically they are saying if they want religion classes go to institute. U of U employees (including football coaches) shouldn't be teaching religion classes on school property or time.

The constitution says nothing about separation of church and state.

Article 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That is it.

Liberals have grabbed a hold of a letter from Jefferson to the Danubury Baptists and perverted it. Article 1 was a direct response to the Church of England, that there should not be any state religion.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

But too many people have been confused by this and most people actually believe that separation of church and state are in the constitution. There is not and there never was any such "separation" intended by our forefathers. Liberals have taken the term out of context and have perverted it in an effort to destroy Christian Judeo religion - the actual foundation of our country's laws. Hmmm.

Also, in the university setting, unlike high school, classes are held day and night. So if you think it would be wrong to teach it during the day then you must also agree that it is wrong to teach it at night. My thought would be that if the person would not be expected to be teaching anything (or available for student consultation - office hours) then they should be fine to teach institute regardless of time of day.

We need to stand up to those idiots that continue to warp the truth for their own ends (atheism by the way is technically a religion). Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the U is going to bend over backwards for these evil people and they will be putting another feather in Satan's cap. Sorry but this crap is totally bogus and I just wish for once someone in education would stand up to them.

imuakahuku wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So the state takes my money by force (through laws) to pay for someone's salary and the land and buildings which they use. Using those things to teach (or establish) religion is prohibited by the constitution. That isn't a reach, that's the plain language of the constitution.



You're right that the government overreaches in many instances prohibiting the free exercise of religion by those who are not the government, but that is not the case here.



There is an easy fix to this problem if you feel the government is prohibiting your free exercise of religion in government offices: stop being a leech on society "working" for the government.

jvquarterback wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So the state takes my money by force (through laws) to pay for someone's salary and the land and buildings which they use. Using those things to teach (or establish) religion is prohibited by the constitution. That isn't a reach, that's the plain language of the constitution.



You're right that the government overreaches in many instances prohibiting the free exercise of religion by those who are not the government, but that is not the case here.



There is an easy fix to this problem if you feel the government is prohibiting your free exercise of religion in government offices: stop being a leech on society "working" for the government.

You can either worship your Heavenly Father, or have a job, but you can't do both... Ironically a private employer cannot demand that he stop having these meetings on HIS time, but a Public Employer apparently can because it’s not “discrimination” it’s now “establishment”…. Again absolutely zero intellectual honesty here.

snoscythe wrote:

The difference here is that the coach is most likely to play the best player. Win or you lose your job. And I think we have seen enough examples of players getting a pass so they can play because they give their team a better chance of winning. Sports may be similar to business in some respects but brown nosers rarely get ahead of top performers.

In a perfect world, maybe. I've seen enough players in Robert Anae's doghouse to know that is not always the case. Nick Kurtz is just starting to emerge from his game one trip to the doghouse for chuckling in the presence of Anae after losing a ball. Brown-nosers in football get attention, and sometimes that can make all the difference in a close call between fairly even candidates.

Kurtz has well over 300 yards (third on the team), 23 catches (fourth on the team), 2 TD's (second on the team), third-highest average-per-catch, more receptions than Houk, more touchdowns than Blackmon and Houk, more yards than Juergens, how exactly is he in the doghouse? Is he head and shoulders better than Matthews, Juergens, Houk, and Blackmon and it's just Anae keeping the man down?

Schmoe wrote:
Is he head and shoulders better than Matthews, Juergens, Houk, and Blackmon and it's just Anae keeping the man down?

Yes.

snoscythe wrote:

Is he head and shoulders better than Matthews, Juergens, Houk, and Blackmon and it's just Anae keeping the man down?

Yes.

Wow, okay. Didn't realize that this dude, who can't outrun defensive backs in the open field, is far and away the best we've got.

jvquarterback wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So the state takes my money by force (through laws) to pay for someone's salary and the land and buildings which they use. Using those things to teach (or establish) religion is prohibited by the constitution. That isn't a reach, that's the plain language of the constitution.



You're right that the government overreaches in many instances prohibiting the free exercise of religion by those who are not the government, but that is not the case here.



There is an easy fix to this problem if you feel the government is prohibiting your free exercise of religion in government offices: stop being a leech on society "working" for the government.

Someone teaching religion on federal or state land does not establish that religion as the state (federal) religion. You need to go back and smack your poly sci or am history high school teacher for filling your head with their personal interpretations instead of the truth.

BTW - the next time a liberal mentions separation of church and state ask them why no liberal organization protests the hand and foot washing stations found in municipal airports, in public buildings, and found in public universities. I wonder why they go silent? (actually I don't wonder ;) )