Working it out meant getting the approval of school and district administrators and the blessings of players, parents and police. How exactly was this forced on anyone, again? And extracurriculars are totally voluntary to begin with.
I don't know what point you are trying to make. I didn't see any outrage about the scheduling of the football practice. But as I said, I can see how people say it is not that much different from cases like the one with the 10 commandments.
I was responding to Steve_Francis_rules' post in which he explained that because they will fast, no matter what, there is basically no other choice than to reschedule. The logical conclusion would be that everyone else has to adapt because of a choice the Muslim students (and the Muslim coach) make. I don't think it is a problem or big deal, but as Steve_Francis_rules explained it, that is the reality of the situation. The other players and the parents and police and school and district administrators appear to be tolerant about it.
And I'm just saying it's not much different than how school breaks are scheduled. In fact, it's much closer to those examples (which are commonly accepted and established) than it is to the ten commandments or nativity scene example. I'm not denying that the question is valid (about what the difference is between school scheduling and religious displays). I'm just trying to point out that the question already existed before this situation. The differences are not related to the religions involved.
I see your point, but in one case, you have something that has been standard practice for ages (school holidays), and in the other case, you have a new deviation from what has been standard practice for ages (which requires people to adapt). Again, I see no problem with it. I don't think it is a big deal, and it is good to see that the others are willing to adapt to accomodate their Muslim teammates. I hope they don't take it for granted, but appreciate the fact that they go out of their way for them.
No, the Muslim students are fasting. The coaches are changing the practice schedule because they don't want to cut the players and they don't want the players to get hurt practicing during the day.
I didn't say there was no other choice than to reschedule. I said that was the choice the coaches would favor because the alternatives were to put the Muslim players at risk or not allow them to be part of the team.
Again, this is clearly not separation of religion and state. The "there was a choice" argument doesn't fly imo. The same can be said of a monument of the 10 commandments. Nobody has to read them or look at the monument. There is a choice but people still file suits to have the statues removed (and for good reason). This situation is very similar to the 10 commandments debate except for one thing.....nobody minds the practice times being changed due to a religious observance. But if someone were to complain about it, I would have to agree that they have merit in their complaint.
So does this mean you think that winter and spring breaks should no longer be scheduled around Christian holidays? It's a valid position to have, I just want to clarify. And note one difference between the ten commandments and scheduling changes is that the scheduling changes are done to accommodate the schedules of individuals, whereas a display promotes the beliefs of a religion.
I agree that school holidays shouldn't coincide with religious holidays. But I personally wouldn't complain. In general, schools have changed it to "winter" break instead of Christmas break. So now nobody can say "look they are making me take time off school so I can celebrate Christmas". Now it's more like "It's cold and midterms just got over, might as well take a break" type of break. I agree with your statement. But the issue occurs when religion interferes with the public sector no matter how good the reason. In the case of the 10 commandment, the monument symbolizes that this govt institution has close ties with religion (i.e. no separation of religion and state). In the case of the practice schedules, non-Muslims are being forced to change on account of a religious reason (i.e. no separation of religion and state). Fortunately for the student's safety and the school's chance of football success, nobody has made a formal complaint.
i don't find this to be a 'religious' reason at all. a religious reason would be if the school thought it was forbidden to practice in the day time and thus started practicing at night time. this is simply to accommodate folks who may be doing things for religion. if the SATs (and presume they were done by the gov't) were only on monday, to ensure sabbath wasn't an issue, would that be a 'religious reason'? because from what i recall even my hs teachers would try to make sure they didn't have exams on yom kippur and such.
look this many seem petty with what I did but that's the core argument here. Was the reason based on religion? If yes, then the decision to change practice times violates the 'separation of religion and state' concept. I will yield that this is such a small issue that nobody cares. Everyone in that school wants their team to do great and are completely willing to overlook it. Is that a bad thing? Not at all. All I'm saying is that if someone did decide to make a big deal out of it, they could probably overturn the decision.
and im saying there's no way this would be overturned. it doesn't violate that concept. its decent accommodation and not an establishment clause issue.
Note that many schools move spring break each year to coincide with Easter which does not fall on the same date each time. But religion interfacing with the public does not in and of itself violate the separation of church and state. It's not that strict. The government needs to be aware of and sensitive to the needs of all of its citizens and their religions. What it must not do is establish a particular religion as the official or sanctioned religion, provide the appearance of establishing a religion as the official or sanctioned religion, or favor certain religions over others specifically because of the religion itself. Putting up a religious display provides the appearance of favoring a particular religion, whereas the scheduling changes are one step removed because they react to the individuals' scheduling needs which just happen to have been influenced by religion.
We need to differentiate between endorsement and accommodation. A judge displaying the Ten Commandments in court is an endorsement of religion. Moving practices is an accommodation.
