Football and prayer don't belong in the same backfield, says a Florida dad who wants his hometown to stop a Pee Wee football league from having kids perform voluntary pregame prayers. Louie Fromm, an assistant coach for the Holmes County Pee Wee Football Association, formally requested on Monday that the Vernon, Fla., City Council end the league's traditional 50-yard-line pregame prayer ritual, alleging that his and his son's First Amendment rights are being violated.

 

League officials say they are a private organization that takes no government money, and the city has no right to prevent them from saying prayers on the field before games. But Fromm says the league may be private, but the field on which it plays its games isn't. It's public property, Fromm says, and the city must order the pregame prayers to stop.

 

The case presents a conundrum for city officials, who say the prayers will continue as "business as usual" until the city's attorney delivers his opinion.

 

Debbie Gunter, the league's president, said a petition with nearly 500 signatures has been circulating in support of continuing the prayer.

 

"We have been saying prayers for four years and [Fromm] started complaining last year," Gunter told Fox News. "He has a problem with prayer, but while I don't have a problem with his non-beliefs, he shouldn't have a problem with ours."

 

But Fromm, who could not be reached for comment on Wednesday, told WJHG-TV that his son has been the target of isolation and ridicule from other players because he does not participate in the prayer.

 

He told the City Council:

 

"So those of you here tonight to hear the terms and conditions required to appease a single upset individual, I say to you that you have been grossly misinformed and blinded by a small group of religious fundamentalists who would like to convince you that a single individual is attempting to take away, of all phrases, your First Amendment rights -- when I am, in fact, here to make you aware that yours and your children's rights to religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution have already been hijacked by that very same group."

 

Gunter said the two-minute prayer is to stress good sportsmanship and faith in the 400-player league.

 

"We are Americans," she continued. "My husband and son have both served in the military and we stand for our beliefs."

 

Kerry Adkison, Vernon's city attorney, told NewsHerald.com that the matter was brought before the council because the city-funded Vernon Sportsplex is used for practice.

 

Council Chairman Trey Hawkins told attendees at Monday's meeting that "business as usual" would continue until a decision is finalized, the website reported.

 

"I apologize if most of you came thinking there was going to be a decision made tonight, but this is the first we’ve heard of this complaint," Hawkins told NewsHerald.com. "Until there is a decision made, it will be business as usual at the Sportsplex."

 

A Vernon city spokesman declined to comment further when contacted by FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.c...football-games/

 

*facepalm*

The sad thing is that legitimate questions become represented by clueless people who don't understand the issue. For example:

 

"Gunter said the two-minute prayer is to stress good sportsmanship and faith in the 400-player league.

'We are Americans," she continued. "My husband and son have both served in the military and we stand for our beliefs.' "

 

Sooooooo???? The 2nd line is especially irrelevant to the debate. I don't care if she comes from a long line of criminals; her rights are unrelated to her family history. The emotional appeals are annoying.

 

"But Fromm, who could not be reached for comment on Wednesday, told WJHG-TV that his son has been the target of isolation and ridicule from other players because he does not participate in the prayer."

 

Sooooooo???? The kid is free to participate or not, and it's the right of the other kids to treat him how they want to treat him. The emotional appeals are annoying.

 

Shut up about the emotional crap and deal with the substantive issue, and then move on with our lives.

wants his hometown to stop a Pee Wee football league from having kids perform voluntary pregame prayers

 

The word that I bolded shows, in my opinion, why this case should be thrown out.

If he doesn't like it, then he can leave. I doubt that's the only peewee football league in the city, but if it is, then live with it.

People these days...

 

[Off-topic, I think this is my first ever Bullpen post... Ha!]

wants his hometown to stop a Pee Wee football league from having kids perform voluntary pregame prayers

 

The word that I bolded shows, in my opinion, why this case should be thrown out.

If he doesn't like it, then he can leave. I doubt that's the only peewee football league in the city, but if it is, then live with it.

People these days...

 

[Off-topic, I think this is my first ever Bullpen post... Ha!]

 

No, it really doesn't. The voluntary nature of a group act, especially when conducted on public property, does not automatically and completely eliminate any possibility of illegality. There are still certain things that are prohibited in certain places, regardless of whether they are voluntary.

wants his hometown to stop a Pee Wee football league from having kids perform voluntary pregame prayers

 

The word that I bolded shows, in my opinion, why this case should be thrown out.

If he doesn't like it, then he can leave. I doubt that's the only peewee football league in the city, but if it is, then live with it.

People these days...

 

[Off-topic, I think this is my first ever Bullpen post... Ha!]

 

Exactly. Voluntary being the key word. As long as nobody is being forced to pray, then there isn't anything to discuss.

wants his hometown to stop a Pee Wee football league from having kids perform voluntary pregame prayers

 

The word that I bolded shows, in my opinion, why this case should be thrown out.

If he doesn't like it, then he can leave. I doubt that's the only peewee football league in the city, but if it is, then live with it.

People these days...

 

[Off-topic, I think this is my first ever Bullpen post... Ha!]

 

No, it really doesn't. The voluntary nature of a group act, especially when conducted on public property, does not automatically and completely eliminate any possibility of illegality. There are still certain things that are prohibited in certain places, regardless of whether they are voluntary.

Well, no where does it say that it's illegal.

 

I really think that this father should just talk to the coach of the team and get him to stop the other kids from ridiculing him, since that really seems to be the main problem [his son's feelings, not the prayer]. Just trying to read between the lines kind of.

Welcome to America: Where one person's First Amendment rights are more important than everyone else's.

 

 

Someone should tell that kid that maybe he isn't being ridiculed because he doesn't pray, but because he's dad's a hypersensitive pansy.

He's probably being ridiculed for not taking part in something that everyone else is, regardless of what that something is. Kids are f***ing cruel.

Welcome to America: Where one person's First Amendment rights are more important than everyone else's.

 

 

Someone should tell that kid that maybe he isn't being ridiculed because he doesn't pray, but because he's dad's a hypersensitive pansy.

 

Those sentences are funny back to back.

I'd be surprised if this lasted more than a few seconds in court before being thrown out.

Welcome to America: Where one person's First Amendment rights are more important than everyone else's.

 

 

Someone should tell that kid that maybe he isn't being ridiculed because he doesn't pray, but because he's dad's a hypersensitive pansy.

 

Those sentences are funny back to back.

 

 

Elaborate please. I mean, it's no big secret that people in this country seem to value their individual rights over others' rights. I can think of a few more examples that have occurred within the last month that made national headlines.

Welcome to America: Where one person's First Amendment rights are more important than everyone else's.

 

 

Someone should tell that kid that maybe he isn't being ridiculed because he doesn't pray, but because he's dad's a hypersensitive pansy.

 

Those sentences are funny back to back.

 

 

Elaborate please. I mean, it's no big secret that people in this country seem to value their individual rights over others' rights. I can think of a few more examples that have occurred within the last month that made national headlines.

Well, in the first sentence you seem to be criticizing people for thinking their rights are more important than others, then you say the kid is being made fun of because his dad is exercising that right, calling him a "hypersensitive pansy".

 

I get what you mean, I just think it's a funny two sentences.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

Doesn't sound like anyone who's posted so far.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

They do line up, because they are apples and oranges.

 

I couldn't give a crap less if it is offensive, so lets get rid of that right away.

 

In the case of the Lesbian girl bringing a date, that is silly because the chosen associations of a person should not be a disqualification for an activity.

 

In the case of the girl that wanted to wear a tuxedo to a school picture, the school should have the ability to enforce a dress code, and frankly gender impacts appropriate dress.

 

In this case it is a private organization that happens to make use of public land. Are persons in the military going to be prohibited from praying? Are military chaplains going to be abolished because they are paid by the taxpayer? Are religious groups going to be banned from holding events in parks? Is it going to be a 3rd degree felony to invoke God before a baseball game because Miami-Dade helped pay for the new Marlins park? The claim is frivolous and the potential precedent is dangerous.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

I'll take my best stab at something like this... because I fall in that group. Bringing a female date is fine, wearing a tuxedo for your photo is not (but lets not go there, please). Im not anti-LGBT in any way, I just think this girl was trying to make a scene. People should be able to pray whenever they want. Here is why I'd say that:

 

praying = religion. religion = something that someone believes in.

 

not praying = ?

 

What? I didnt read this article; I just saw your post. Do tell me... is this guy stating religious reasons or even moral reasons, or is he just complaining like a bitch because he thinks religion is stupid? If it's the latter, which I bet it is, he should just shut his trap and stop trying to make a scene .

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

 

Those are the exact opposite of each other. In the first one, the owners of the private organization didn't want to let one student do something, so they forbid her. In the other one, the owners of the private organization didn't see any fault at all with the prayers (or at least nothing was reported), so they allowed them to pray. It's a matter of the positions of the ones who are in charge.

 

The dumb thing about this though is that even if the league and everything else was public, why would people have a problem with VOLUNTARY prayer even then? No one has the authority to forbid someone to pray unless it is their own private organization.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

 

Those are the exact opposite of each other. In the first one, the owners of the private organization didn't want to let one student do something, so they forbid her. In the other one, the owners of the private organization didn't see any fault at all with the prayers (or at least nothing was reported), so they allowed them to pray. It's a matter of the positions of the ones who are in charge.

 

The dumb thing about this though is that even if the league and everything else was public, why would people have a problem with VOLUNTARY prayer even then? No one has the authority to forbid someone to pray unless it is their own private organization.

 

Which is why this guy is a jackass. He wants everyone to conform and change to his ideals, rather than letting them do their own thing religiously speaking.

yeah I'm an atheist and even I can't support a lot of these complaints. Pretty frivolous. Meanwhile I don't know how old his kid is, but you're really subjecting your kid to a lot of unnecessary attention. Like bob said, kids will be kids. Pick your battles there mister.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

 

Those are the exact opposite of each other. In the first one, the owners of the private organization didn't want to let one student do something, so they forbid her. In the other one, the owners of the private organization didn't see any fault at all with the prayers (or at least nothing was reported), so they allowed them to pray. It's a matter of the positions of the ones who are in charge.

 

The dumb thing about this though is that even if the league and everything else was public, why would people have a problem with VOLUNTARY prayer even then? No one has the authority to forbid someone to pray unless it is their own private organization.

 

Which is why this guy is a jackass. He wants everyone to conform and change to his ideals, rather than letting them do their own thing religiously speaking.

 

FTR, I don't think that the Dad should get his way in this situation. But I do want to be clear that "majority rule" is NOT the reason we let people do, or stop them from doing, certain things. It doesn't/shouldn't matter [in this particular claim] whether the U.S. is 6% atheist or 60% atheist, 9% religious or 90% religious.

It's interesting that some of the same people who didn't want to let a lesbian bring a girl as her date and didn't want to let a girl wear a tuxedo in a school picture, in part because these things are offensive in some way - to people, custom, etc.; but also want to let people be free to do what they want went it comes to praying, offense be damned.

 

I'm not saying either view is wrong, but they don't seem to line up. The law, and public/private concerns obviously play a role; what I'm referring to above is the arguments made from logic/emotion.

 

 

 

Those are the exact opposite of each other. In the first one, the owners of the private organization didn't want to let one student do something, so they forbid her. In the other one, the owners of the private organization didn't see any fault at all with the prayers (or at least nothing was reported), so they allowed them to pray. It's a matter of the positions of the ones who are in charge.

 

The dumb thing about this though is that even if the league and everything else was public, why would people have a problem with VOLUNTARY prayer even then? No one has the authority to forbid someone to pray unless it is their own private organization.

 

Which is why this guy is a jackass. He wants everyone to conform and change to his ideals, rather than letting them do their own thing religiously speaking.

 

FTR, I don't think that the Dad should get his way in this situation. But I do want to be clear that "majority rule" is NOT the reason we let people do, or stop them from doing, certain things. It doesn't/shouldn't matter [in this particular claim] whether the U.S. is 6% atheist or 60% atheist, 9% religious or 90% religious.

 

 

In this particular case, I think being the majority actually hurt them.

 

If it was just one kid that took a moment to pray by himself before the game, no one would have had any problem with it. The only reasn this complaint was filed though was because just one kid felt left out.

 

FTR, I happen to be an atheist also, but the level of close-mindedness and the sudden transformation of religion from being the savior of society to being thought of as a flawed evil is annoying.

FTR, I happen to be an atheist Agnostic also, but the level of close-mindedness and the sudden transformation of religion from being the savior of society to being thought of as a flawed evil is annoying.

 

 

 

Me.

FTR, I happen to be an atheist Agnostic also, but the level of close-mindedness and the sudden transformation of religion from being the savior of society to being thought of as a flawed evil is annoying.

 

 

 

Me.

 

It's not remotely as dramatic as you make it out to be. Living in South Florida, or in college towns, many of us are sheltered. This country is still pretty overwhelming religious if you look at poll data.

FTR, I happen to be an atheist Agnostic also, but the level of close-mindedness and the sudden transformation of religion from being the savior of society to being thought of as a flawed evil is annoying.

 

 

 

Me.

 

It's not remotely as dramatic as you make it out to be. Living in South Florida, or in college towns, many of us are sheltered. This country is still pretty overwhelming religious if you look at poll data.

 

 

Without a doubt this country is much more religious than just about every other developed nation.

 

The problem though is that we are basically headed down the road that Europe went down a few decades ago when religion started to die out there.

 

I have no problem whether someone practices a specific religion or if someone chooses not to, but many in this country don't agree with that philosophy and have decided to turn against religion in general (and others have turned against anyone who doesn't practice a religion, as it works both ways.) You can see it in daily life, whether it be in politics, small examples like this, etc. If someone is an Evangelical Christian is this country today, they have a good chance at being mocked constantly and called a loon, especially if they are someone in a high-profile position. That didn't used to happen here until very recently.

FTR, I happen to be an atheist Agnostic also, but the level of close-mindedness and the sudden transformation of religion from being the savior of society to being thought of as a flawed evil is annoying.

 

 

 

Me.

 

It's not remotely as dramatic as you make it out to be. Living in South Florida, or in college towns, many of us are sheltered. This country is still pretty overwhelming religious if you look at poll data.

 

 

Without a doubt this country is much more religious than just about every other developed nation.

 

The problem though is that we are basically headed down the road that Europe went down a few decades ago when religion started to die out there.

 

I have no problem whether someone practices a specific religion or if someone chooses not to, but many in this country don't agree with that philosophy and have decided to turn against religion in general (and others have turned against anyone who doesn't practice a religion, as it works both ways.) You can see it in daily life, whether it be in politics, small examples like this, etc. If someone is an Evangelical Christian is this country today, they have a good chance at being mocked constantly and called a loon, especially if they are someone in a high-profile position. That didn't used to happen here until very recently.

Well, a large part of that is because the face of Evangelical Christians are a bunch of loons. The powerful religious right in this country have painted themselves in such a negative light that what you're describing has grown as a counter-movement.

 

(For the record, I'm a Catholic.)