Back to Top

Political Solution #29 - Let the Coach Pray!

Executive Summary:

Sponsor legislation to claw back our unalienable and constitutional rights of religious freedom.


Full Commentary:

I listened to the recent Supreme Court arguments on the rights of the coach to pray at midfield after a football game and I wanted to throw up! Disgusting! Scalia and Rehnquist are turning over in the graves! 

The very nature of the oral arguments themselves from conservative and progressive justices alike are bent toward an unconstitutional understanding of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The court bantered back and forth about the nature of religious coercion hinged on legal precedence that was also unconstitutional in nature. School districts oftentimes make these mistakes. Under our Constitution these school districts (The government) need to accommodate free exercise claims and not interfere!  There is no compelling state interest to interfere with the right of a coach to pray.

If government speech (by government employees) is infringing on the free exercise rights of its citizens and shutting them down, then that would be a problem under the establishment clause. But in this case, it is not. The coach (an American citizen) is exercising his religious freedom and the school district (government) has no authority under the original and textual understanding our Constitution to control or limit that expression.

Any court decision that doesn't support this notion is unconstitutional, legal precedence or not. If a person of faith exercises his/her beliefs, why does it now become coercion and not free exercise?

It has been said many times that a "Lemon" is a stubborn fruit. Lemon vs. Kurtzman is a thread that goes through many of the precedence setting cases.
The legal wrangling, the parsing of legal rhetoric, the intellectualization and the hyper-secularization of our society, has chipped away and moved our moral compass to a place that doesn't resemble a traditional and time-honored American way of life. The entanglement objective in Lemon has constrained the expression of free speech and has redrawn the traditional boundaries of our Founding Fathers beliefs relating to religious freedom in general.

Redefining the free exercise clause in a way that puts it at odds with the establishment clause is a problem in my book. The two clauses were meant to be compatible. The establishment clause simply informs government of what they CANNOT do. They cannot establish a national religion. End of story.

The free exercise clause simply informs American citizens what they CAN do. They can freely exercise without restrictions. End of story. Supreme Court legal precedence has conflated and redefined an original, traditional, and textual understanding of the role of church and state and how they interrelate.

As American citizens, we must remain outraged EVERY TIME the government tries to shut down the free expression of our religious beliefs. Under the RFRA of 1993, we must hold the government accountable to have a compelling state interest to deny someone their religious freedom and remind them of their constitutional duty to remain flexible and to provide religious accommodations.

Bottom line, we have allowed the court system to manipulate and change the meaning of the First Amendment to fit a cultural narrative INSTEAD of fighting to preserve the original meaning.

VOTE Mike LaPierre for Congress
SC District 4 - Greenville and Spartanburg Counties


A leader who will fight for our religious freedoms and someone who will write legislation to protect them!

Committee to Elect Michael LaPierre
Powered by - Political Websites
Close Menu