The very people whose heads would explode at the mere suggestion Islam be forced on their children by a coach, seem to think it’s perfectly okay to force their particular brand of Christianity on a captive audience of teenagers. If there is an upside here it is that this fool of a coach has probably driven a fair number of his players away from Christianity by his behavior. Now . . . why does this man still have a job?
One of the biggest problems here is that the nonreligious are forced into the closet. If they are in any way open about their lack of religion, christians feel they can castigate them and carve them out of the group.. HS kids need to feel like they are part of their group - jocks probably more so than others. Reichwing christianity is a parasitic process - much like those parasitic fungi which take over ants' brains.
Muslim parents, like most other religious parents, do force that faith on their own children. As do Muslim schools in the USA and here in the UK (1 in 20 Brits follows Islam) - some of which are funded by the taxpayer just like Christian and Jewish schools. There's nothing so terrible about this coach's actions that any religious parent or religious school doesn't impose on children all around the world, mostly to a much harsher degree.
Are parents not authority figures with a responsibility to raise children free of faith until adulthood when they can choose for themselves? American Christians would indeed, as you suggest, be outraged if a coach in school demanded kids do something Muslim/Hindu/Scientologist et al... but I do not see how especially dreadful that is when we objectively compare it to how parents and faith schools ram delusions of faith into children's minds at the most receptive point in their lives.
Remember, teenagers often rebel more against their parents, but are still influenced by other authority figures in their lives. This still includes those at schools, and coaches (and PE teachers, art teachers, music teachers, etc - you know, the ‘cool’ members of staff) are often huge influences on their formative years. That’s why so many churches have youth clubs and sports teams - indoctrination by the back door. This was just more open about it, and also ILLEGAL.
You are engaging in the fallacy of whataboutism. Just because parents are doing the thing that is wrong, is irrelevant to tax paid individuals in a position of authority, breaking the law to do it.
Under the First Amendment, teachers and staff cannot lead prayer or proselytize, or force any other religious woo-woo they like, but students retain the right to voluntary prayer and religious expression.
In other words, it is about opting in, not forced under duress.
The difference here in the US is that rights of conscience are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' The First Amendment has been incorporated to the states, which means that employees of the state, such as public school sports coaches, cannot force their religious beliefs on students in their charge. It's a violation of the students' First Amendment rights. PRIVATE schools are allowed to indoctrinate students; public schools are not.
Please remember that we (in Britain) have different laws about this. If it’s a religious school (which are part funded by the state) then it is allowed within certain guidelines. If it’s not, then there is a default of “assembly” which is generally presumed to be Anglican Christian, whatever the prevailing religion of the catchment area is, or non-denominational (but ‘spiritual’) in nature.
In US, none of this is acceptable under law. End of, no discussion, do not pass go, do not collect £200.
Either you are ignorant, or lying about the rules here in the UK.
Parents have a statutory right to withdraw their children from RE lessons without having to provide a reason. Schools must accommodate these requests, and students can choose to withdraw themselves once they reach 18 years of age. More information on your child's statutory rights and exemptions can be found in the GOV.UK National Curriculum Guidelines.
Those rights are in addition to. I was stating what the schools are allowed to provide, not that the students have to partake. Please don’t call me ignorant. I have taught in both voluntary-aided and state secondary schools, so do have some awareness of this. There have always been the right to withdraw from assemblies, usually taken up by those with strong religious views against them, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. People from those groups don’t tend to apply for religious schools.
Kathlyn's assertion about the bullshit rules in the UK, are bullshit. The issue is far more nuanced than being made out. The bottom line is, parents can opt their children out of Religious Education and any extra curricular religious assembly.
RE is compulsory in schools up to the age of 18. Parents can ask to withdraw their child from parts or all of the lessons.
Local councils are responsible for deciding the RE syllabus, but faith schools and academies can set their own.
Both my children went to integrated schools.
“Educating together, Catholics and Protestants, and those of other religions, or none, in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, to the highest possible academic standards.”
Taking RE is still useful, regardless. It gives a child perspectives on the major religions.
I taught in UK state primary schools from 1970. The opt out was allowed for RE lessons, but also for the mandatory act of x-tian worship that started every school day. The only pupils to opt out,back then, were the one or two whose parents ran the local indian or chinese restaurants. There were few foreigners, or practitioners of other religions in many parts of the UK. I then voluteered in retirement in my local CofE primary school. I was still a x-tian till 2013. Now I observed many more children not attending morning assembly. In fact, parents complained their opted-out children were just 'childminded' by a teaching assistant, so schools had to put on something educational for them during that time. I'd just trained to tell bible stories to 5-7yos, using a trendy new approach. I began the first one....and was almost immdiately interrupted by the piercing voice of a 5yo pupil, in her 1st year at full time school.'But I don't believe in a god,' she said.....and said repeatedly. First time I'd been heckled like that....and secretly was beginning to agree with her. I deconverted soon afterwards.
Families choose to enroll their children in religious schools, knowing that they will receive religious education. Public schools are supposed to be secular, and inclusive for children of all faith traditions, or none. Elevating one faith tradition over all others, and punishing students who do not comply, is entirely inappropriate in a public school.
Uh, the First Amendment is about what GOVERNMENTS can do; parents are not covered. That said, I DEPLORE government funding of private religious schools--or any private schools that have any agenda but improving learning opportunities for people with various special needs. But particularly religious schools. If a church or other religious institution is going to get public funding, it should also be liable for the taxes that provide the money.
First of all, if a pupil is attending a religious structured school, then it is highly likely that they belong to that religion, so your point is moot. Your parent/child point is irrelevant.
Brits are taught religion in school as part of the curriculum. Parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from all or part of RE lessons, and they are not obliged to give a reason.
A teacher forcing a pupil to engage in a religious practice against their will, under penalty of punishment, is illegal. That you can't see that, is flabbergasting.
Should atheists, or other children of other faiths, be compelled to participate in that moron coaches religious force feeding? Or is it okay for them to abstain and just accept the punishment?
My contribution is “Imporve”, “imporved”, and “imporvement”.
An imporvement is when something is changed, ostensibly for the better, but which in fact does not improve the thing in any way. This is commonly found in updates to software. A perfect example from a few years ago was when the download document button was moved from the bottom left of the screen to the upper right of the screen.
I coined this term about 15 years ago and I definitely want people to use it.
A colleague and I used to shout to each other “Microsoft has imporved Excel again!” followed by “goddammit!”
ETA: I think some of us regard the substack penalty box as an imporvement.
My guess is that a few of the kids were Christian and went along willingly. Most thought it was BS and went along to get along. And 3 big cheers for the kid/family that stood up for what was right.
Just making this coach stop violating students' constitutional rights isn't nearly enough. Because coaches wield such influence over young minds, he should have been required to APOLOGIZE to the students on his team and to EXPLAIN why forcing them to fill out christian journals was wrong and violated their First Amendment rights. And he should have been suspended. Unless we start treating constitutional violations with the seriousness they deserve, he'll just find some other way to push his religion on these student athletes or those he coaches in the future.
There's another aspect to this that no one has mentioned, and that is the looseness with which the whole Church / State separation thing has been treated under the Trump administration. It's entirely possible that Ramirez thought, "Hey, things are opening up. I'll bet I can do this and not have any repercussions."
The fact that he hasn't made any statements shows that he probably hasn't learned his lesson. Watch this space for news of his lawsuit filed by either "Liberty" Counsel or Alliance Defending "Freedom".
Thing is, this isn't Alabama or Tennessee. It's CALIFORNIA, fer petesake, and if Ramirez has a brain in his head, he should have known better. He damned well should have been called on the carpet for this business, and a record of this incident put in his permanent file.
I'm not wild for being a hard-ass, but sometimes, and example must be made.
Keep in mind: Redding and Shasta County are a conservative bastion in an otherwise liberal California. The Shasta County Elections Department shows 60,000 registered Republican voters compared to 24,000 Democratic ones.
Have I misunderstood this? Registered party voters? If electors have/want to register their party membership how does this square with secrecy of the ballot? Is this information available on the public record, the Register of Electors. In the UK these data are withheld and electors can even have their names withheld from the public register without having to give a reason.
It's a mixed bag. Since States run elections, they each have their own rules. In most States voters register and indicate a party preference but that also includes a no preference option. There are a few States that do not register party preference. Of the ones that do, some have open primaries (you only vote once but you can cross party lines) and some have closed primaries ( you only vote in the party primary you are registered for). In the general election you are free to "split your ticket" across the various offices being contested. Bottom line, knowing which party someone is affiliated with doesn't mean they voted for the candidates from that party.
In this country, each state (with the exception of North Dakota) requires its citizens to register with state/local elections office prior before participating in voting.
The secrecy of the ballot isn't compromised because the voter's decision who to vote for is private. Voter files never include private information about who a person voted for in any election.
We will likely hear that a student athlete was unable to make the team next year because reasons, and wouldn’t you know it, it just so happens to be the student whose parent called FFRF. But he was not performing, he didn’t earn his position on team, despite being in the top scorers this year, or some bs. I can almost guarantee this isn’t the end of it.
Why you could knock me over with a feather! Rural North California is a hot bed for the state of Jefferson, a separatist movement that seeks to withdraw from California and become its own private Idaho, without the gay bit. In Shasta County is Redding. Redding is also infamous for Bethel Church. Bethel Church is Led by Senior Pastor Bill Johnson, it is a highly influential, non-denominational charismatic megachurch with a massive global presence, known for its focus on modern worship music, miraculous healing, and the supernatural. They even have a school of supernatural ministry— that’s what they call it.
Redding is at the very top of the Okie paradise known as the Central Valley. Except for some spillover from the Bay Area in the Sacramento area, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valleys are pretty red all the way down to Bakersfield.
Again, if your magical beliefs had any inherent value or merit, people would seek them out. The need to indoctrinate young minds, with undeveloped critical thinking skills, illustrates the bankruptcy of your ‘faith.’
The only thing more obnoxious than a high school sportsball coach with delusions of grandeur is a god-bothering high school sportsball coach with delusions of grandeur.
I made a snide comment recently at CP about a youth pastor and the few people who responded to me were oblivious about why I did so. Which was morbidly hilarious in itself.
Doesn't need to. Every player praises him when they do it. But when they miss or lose, The Lord is never mentioned. That's Christianity: the delusion that keeps on giving.
"...failure to complete the assignment came with punishments."
That's reason enough to fire Ramirez (and I notice that the district's statement doesn't actually mention this aspect of his behavior here, just that the journal was used).
The very people whose heads would explode at the mere suggestion Islam be forced on their children by a coach, seem to think it’s perfectly okay to force their particular brand of Christianity on a captive audience of teenagers. If there is an upside here it is that this fool of a coach has probably driven a fair number of his players away from Christianity by his behavior. Now . . . why does this man still have a job?
One of the biggest problems here is that the nonreligious are forced into the closet. If they are in any way open about their lack of religion, christians feel they can castigate them and carve them out of the group.. HS kids need to feel like they are part of their group - jocks probably more so than others. Reichwing christianity is a parasitic process - much like those parasitic fungi which take over ants' brains.
Muslim parents, like most other religious parents, do force that faith on their own children. As do Muslim schools in the USA and here in the UK (1 in 20 Brits follows Islam) - some of which are funded by the taxpayer just like Christian and Jewish schools. There's nothing so terrible about this coach's actions that any religious parent or religious school doesn't impose on children all around the world, mostly to a much harsher degree.
I'm sorry you can't see the difference between parents and an authority figure working in the public schools.
Are parents not authority figures with a responsibility to raise children free of faith until adulthood when they can choose for themselves? American Christians would indeed, as you suggest, be outraged if a coach in school demanded kids do something Muslim/Hindu/Scientologist et al... but I do not see how especially dreadful that is when we objectively compare it to how parents and faith schools ram delusions of faith into children's minds at the most receptive point in their lives.
Remember, teenagers often rebel more against their parents, but are still influenced by other authority figures in their lives. This still includes those at schools, and coaches (and PE teachers, art teachers, music teachers, etc - you know, the ‘cool’ members of staff) are often huge influences on their formative years. That’s why so many churches have youth clubs and sports teams - indoctrination by the back door. This was just more open about it, and also ILLEGAL.
You are engaging in the fallacy of whataboutism. Just because parents are doing the thing that is wrong, is irrelevant to tax paid individuals in a position of authority, breaking the law to do it.
Under the First Amendment, teachers and staff cannot lead prayer or proselytize, or force any other religious woo-woo they like, but students retain the right to voluntary prayer and religious expression.
In other words, it is about opting in, not forced under duress.
Sorry, so you're cool with a rando pushing *their* religion on kids because parents push religion on their kids?
The difference here in the US is that rights of conscience are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' The First Amendment has been incorporated to the states, which means that employees of the state, such as public school sports coaches, cannot force their religious beliefs on students in their charge. It's a violation of the students' First Amendment rights. PRIVATE schools are allowed to indoctrinate students; public schools are not.
Please remember that we (in Britain) have different laws about this. If it’s a religious school (which are part funded by the state) then it is allowed within certain guidelines. If it’s not, then there is a default of “assembly” which is generally presumed to be Anglican Christian, whatever the prevailing religion of the catchment area is, or non-denominational (but ‘spiritual’) in nature.
In US, none of this is acceptable under law. End of, no discussion, do not pass go, do not collect £200.
Either you are ignorant, or lying about the rules here in the UK.
Parents have a statutory right to withdraw their children from RE lessons without having to provide a reason. Schools must accommodate these requests, and students can choose to withdraw themselves once they reach 18 years of age. More information on your child's statutory rights and exemptions can be found in the GOV.UK National Curriculum Guidelines.
Those rights are in addition to. I was stating what the schools are allowed to provide, not that the students have to partake. Please don’t call me ignorant. I have taught in both voluntary-aided and state secondary schools, so do have some awareness of this. There have always been the right to withdraw from assemblies, usually taken up by those with strong religious views against them, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses. People from those groups don’t tend to apply for religious schools.
Nope. This isn't the UK, we don't do that bullshit here.
Kathlyn's assertion about the bullshit rules in the UK, are bullshit. The issue is far more nuanced than being made out. The bottom line is, parents can opt their children out of Religious Education and any extra curricular religious assembly.
RE is compulsory in schools up to the age of 18. Parents can ask to withdraw their child from parts or all of the lessons.
Local councils are responsible for deciding the RE syllabus, but faith schools and academies can set their own.
Both my children went to integrated schools.
“Educating together, Catholics and Protestants, and those of other religions, or none, in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, to the highest possible academic standards.”
Taking RE is still useful, regardless. It gives a child perspectives on the major religions.
I taught in UK state primary schools from 1970. The opt out was allowed for RE lessons, but also for the mandatory act of x-tian worship that started every school day. The only pupils to opt out,back then, were the one or two whose parents ran the local indian or chinese restaurants. There were few foreigners, or practitioners of other religions in many parts of the UK. I then voluteered in retirement in my local CofE primary school. I was still a x-tian till 2013. Now I observed many more children not attending morning assembly. In fact, parents complained their opted-out children were just 'childminded' by a teaching assistant, so schools had to put on something educational for them during that time. I'd just trained to tell bible stories to 5-7yos, using a trendy new approach. I began the first one....and was almost immdiately interrupted by the piercing voice of a 5yo pupil, in her 1st year at full time school.'But I don't believe in a god,' she said.....and said repeatedly. First time I'd been heckled like that....and secretly was beginning to agree with her. I deconverted soon afterwards.
"But Tommy does it, too!" said no adult ever.
"But Tommy doesn't know what day it is"
it's almost as if religion itself is the cancer and this coach is just a resultant tumor
Families choose to enroll their children in religious schools, knowing that they will receive religious education. Public schools are supposed to be secular, and inclusive for children of all faith traditions, or none. Elevating one faith tradition over all others, and punishing students who do not comply, is entirely inappropriate in a public school.
Uh, the First Amendment is about what GOVERNMENTS can do; parents are not covered. That said, I DEPLORE government funding of private religious schools--or any private schools that have any agenda but improving learning opportunities for people with various special needs. But particularly religious schools. If a church or other religious institution is going to get public funding, it should also be liable for the taxes that provide the money.
First of all, if a pupil is attending a religious structured school, then it is highly likely that they belong to that religion, so your point is moot. Your parent/child point is irrelevant.
Brits are taught religion in school as part of the curriculum. Parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from all or part of RE lessons, and they are not obliged to give a reason.
A teacher forcing a pupil to engage in a religious practice against their will, under penalty of punishment, is illegal. That you can't see that, is flabbergasting.
Should atheists, or other children of other faiths, be compelled to participate in that moron coaches religious force feeding? Or is it okay for them to abstain and just accept the punishment?
Try some rational and critical thinking.
The scumbag is waiting to be fired so he can martyrbate and cash in.
“Martyrbate” is my new favorite word!
I claim ownership of the word. I coined it about 10 or 12 years ago. But I let other people use it without charge because I’m a really nice guy.
Really!
We could have a barter system for good words, we take one and in exchange we offer a different one?
My offering would be 'omnishambles' - I think it's an absolute cracker!
Would that be “another fine mess you’ve got us into?”
Or
“ look! The president is walking.”
My contribution is “Imporve”, “imporved”, and “imporvement”.
An imporvement is when something is changed, ostensibly for the better, but which in fact does not improve the thing in any way. This is commonly found in updates to software. A perfect example from a few years ago was when the download document button was moved from the bottom left of the screen to the upper right of the screen.
I coined this term about 15 years ago and I definitely want people to use it.
A colleague and I used to shout to each other “Microsoft has imporved Excel again!” followed by “goddammit!”
ETA: I think some of us regard the substack penalty box as an imporvement.
And butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, either, now would it??? 😁
Sure it would. I used to be the official butter melter for popcorn at Fox Theatres. That’s why it tasted so good
Probably had Liberty Counsel on speed dial.
Well, this is all kinds of inappropriate.
And what a surprise to find that xtains continue to be bullies preying on younger people.
Religious people of most faiths prey on children - through parenting and schools. It's the main way faith continues to exist.
Seth Andrews has been on this topic practically from the moment he came out as an atheist: Get Them While They're Young.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEUqWKfdLeM
My guess is that a few of the kids were Christian and went along willingly. Most thought it was BS and went along to get along. And 3 big cheers for the kid/family that stood up for what was right.
Sadly, I am sure you are right. This is Redding, California, a city where 10% of the population belong to the infamous Bethel Church.
Probably including the coach.
Just making this coach stop violating students' constitutional rights isn't nearly enough. Because coaches wield such influence over young minds, he should have been required to APOLOGIZE to the students on his team and to EXPLAIN why forcing them to fill out christian journals was wrong and violated their First Amendment rights. And he should have been suspended. Unless we start treating constitutional violations with the seriousness they deserve, he'll just find some other way to push his religion on these student athletes or those he coaches in the future.
Abso-Freaking-LUTELY!!!
There's another aspect to this that no one has mentioned, and that is the looseness with which the whole Church / State separation thing has been treated under the Trump administration. It's entirely possible that Ramirez thought, "Hey, things are opening up. I'll bet I can do this and not have any repercussions."
Sorry-not-sorry, Abie, NOT HAPPENING!
𝑊𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑅𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑧 ℎ𝑖𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓 𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒. 𝑁𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑦 ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ.
...
𝐼 ℎ𝑜𝑝𝑒 ℎ𝑒’𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛, 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ.
The fact that he hasn't made any statements shows that he probably hasn't learned his lesson. Watch this space for news of his lawsuit filed by either "Liberty" Counsel or Alliance Defending "Freedom".
Thing is, this isn't Alabama or Tennessee. It's CALIFORNIA, fer petesake, and if Ramirez has a brain in his head, he should have known better. He damned well should have been called on the carpet for this business, and a record of this incident put in his permanent file.
I'm not wild for being a hard-ass, but sometimes, and example must be made.
Keep in mind: Redding and Shasta County are a conservative bastion in an otherwise liberal California. The Shasta County Elections Department shows 60,000 registered Republican voters compared to 24,000 Democratic ones.
Wasn't aware of that, and just commented to Ben when he brought it to my attention. Learn something new every day, I guess. 🤷♂️
I barely beat him to it by a minute or less. :)
He writes good stuff.
Yep. Once you get north of Sacramento it's rural and red.
Central San Joaquin Valley, too. I know because I was stationed at Castle AFB (now closed and reopened as an air museum).
That place is Jesusland.
HELP NEEDED.
Have I misunderstood this? Registered party voters? If electors have/want to register their party membership how does this square with secrecy of the ballot? Is this information available on the public record, the Register of Electors. In the UK these data are withheld and electors can even have their names withheld from the public register without having to give a reason.
It's a mixed bag. Since States run elections, they each have their own rules. In most States voters register and indicate a party preference but that also includes a no preference option. There are a few States that do not register party preference. Of the ones that do, some have open primaries (you only vote once but you can cross party lines) and some have closed primaries ( you only vote in the party primary you are registered for). In the general election you are free to "split your ticket" across the various offices being contested. Bottom line, knowing which party someone is affiliated with doesn't mean they voted for the candidates from that party.
Your party affiliation and your home address are not considered private. That's how our candidates target people with mailers and other such rot.
voterrecords.com
Just now seeing this.
In this country, each state (with the exception of North Dakota) requires its citizens to register with state/local elections office prior before participating in voting.
The secrecy of the ballot isn't compromised because the voter's decision who to vote for is private. Voter files never include private information about who a person voted for in any election.
The lesson he may very well have learned is that he can get away with it for a while and not have to apologize afterwards.
I wonder what kind of behavior that might encourage?
It's a total mystery, completely no way to know at all.
One-a-them Mysterious Things.
How long before Ramirez's name bcomes a headline involving child sexual abuse?
Probably not too long.
I don't know. Do you? If you don't why mention it?
Someone hasn't been paying attention to the correlation between pushing religion and sexually abusing vulnerable people.
How many stories have we seen at FA about xtian school coaches diddling their students? Far too many (one would be too many).
And if they weren't diddling them, they were forcing them to pray before and/or after games. For a public school system, this is intolerable.
And I'm still waiting on an apology from Ramirez.
The Religion of Love once again punishing those who won't submit to its fantasies.
Coach is a walking advertisement about why young people are fleeing religion.
We will likely hear that a student athlete was unable to make the team next year because reasons, and wouldn’t you know it, it just so happens to be the student whose parent called FFRF. But he was not performing, he didn’t earn his position on team, despite being in the top scorers this year, or some bs. I can almost guarantee this isn’t the end of it.
Hello? FFRF? They're at it AGAIN...
Shasta? really?
Why you could knock me over with a feather! Rural North California is a hot bed for the state of Jefferson, a separatist movement that seeks to withdraw from California and become its own private Idaho, without the gay bit. In Shasta County is Redding. Redding is also infamous for Bethel Church. Bethel Church is Led by Senior Pastor Bill Johnson, it is a highly influential, non-denominational charismatic megachurch with a massive global presence, known for its focus on modern worship music, miraculous healing, and the supernatural. They even have a school of supernatural ministry— that’s what they call it.
BOO!
I like Orange Shasta. The root beer is pretty good too.
I'm old enough to remember this
youtu.be/Y_cZUzK_dqY
And you just had to share it with us? Thanks.
Anything for friends.
That "foam" looks suspiciously like whipped cream. : )
I'm more of a Sunkist guy, myself, but if it's orange, it'll at least get a tryout.
Black cherry.
So, you’re saying “it hasta be shasta” for our next mass.
I'll float the idea around.
Keep that idea bubbling.
Wow. That's a point on this curve I had no idea about. Thanks for that, Ben!
You’re welcome. I have a very long memory for stuff like this. Unfortunately, where did I put my wallet an hour ago?
Oh, it's right over there ... 👉
Thanks. I knew it had to be somewhere.
Redding is at the very top of the Okie paradise known as the Central Valley. Except for some spillover from the Bay Area in the Sacramento area, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valleys are pretty red all the way down to Bakersfield.
Again, if your magical beliefs had any inherent value or merit, people would seek them out. The need to indoctrinate young minds, with undeveloped critical thinking skills, illustrates the bankruptcy of your ‘faith.’
Xtians luvz a captive audience.
The prayer stance comes from slaves waiting to be shackled.
The only thing more obnoxious than a high school sportsball coach with delusions of grandeur is a god-bothering high school sportsball coach with delusions of grandeur.
If the man can't do the actual job he's supposed to be doing, then he needs to be booted.
Maybe he can become a minister (just not a youth pastor).
I would not be surprised to find out he was a sexual abuser. It's always the most sanctimonious ones.
I made a snide comment recently at CP about a youth pastor and the few people who responded to me were oblivious about why I did so. Which was morbidly hilarious in itself.
Could Jesus do a hook shot from half-court?
Did Jesus dribble right- or left-handed? And don’t give me the BS that he was equally good with both hands.
Can't dribble. The ball goes right through his hand. (Too soon?)
I thought that was why he didn’t juggle or eat M&Ms.
A basketball isn't THAT big. Not a football, either! 😝
Imaginary holes can be as big as you want them to be.
That's either a very small ball or his holes have really stretched out.
Little-known fact: Jesus' cross had a hoop and net attached to it before it was repurposed.
You don't dribble with your hand - it's football!
He had to be to take care of all twelve apostles.
Doesn't need to. Every player praises him when they do it. But when they miss or lose, The Lord is never mentioned. That's Christianity: the delusion that keeps on giving.
Only at halftime and only if there's a few million in it.
Ramirez should have been fired.
Or lost his head.
"...failure to complete the assignment came with punishments."
That's reason enough to fire Ramirez (and I notice that the district's statement doesn't actually mention this aspect of his behavior here, just that the journal was used).
Is that you dammit?