Supreme Court rules for former coach in public school prayer case

Why are you ignoring the fact the players don't have urgency in this equation, you continue to ignore the fact he is not doing this alone and he is not doing it privately.

Yes, we have seen pro players do it but it's not the entire team and pro players have a different type of power than high School kids.

I know you just like playing Devil's advocate but I can't engage when you leave out huge issues and act like all of these kids are doing this because they want to and can refuse without repercussions.

 

Anytime somebody is forced to do something they don't want either because of coercion or pressure it's a big deal if you are an atheist no it's not as simple as not joining, the coach can retaliate by playing time or just making your life hell.

We all know how coaches have power trips, why do they need to stand quietly and peacefully, if somebody did a prayer service at your job would you feel that you needed to participate?

 

Oh man, if they did it at my work, I'd loudly object and hope that they'd retaliate against me. Then I could cash in on the discrimination lawsuit. I can do stuff like that because I am a person of means. But, I suppose the irony of it is that I'd stand on my rights because I'd have confidence I had the authority of the judiciary on my side. If a kid on this football team felt as entitled as me and threw this prayer back in the coach's face and dared him to retaliate, he'd do it knowing the court would support him in the position that proselytizing under the school's authority isn't allowed. Now, that isn't clear anymore. Now the brash young atheist can't presume on a separation of church and state. He needs to document what retaliation was committed, and preferably get his coach to state his motivations for retaliating. Otherwise, he'll get the Kap treatment -- "he lost playing time because he's not that good" bs.

 

It might be!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/28/lauren-boebert-church-state-colorado/


Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who faces a primary election Tuesday, says she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Speaking at a religious service Sunday in Colorado, she told worshipers: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

She added: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”

 

Didn't read the thread and don't want to bother doing so. My self claim...I am not a Christian (Buddhist myself). I just find it baffling how the views on christianity (religions overall) can be taken so negatively by small vocal groups of people. Separation of church and state was designed to prevent the governing body from developing an official state religion(s) that'll cause bias and potential prosecution of other views/religions thus limiting the people's freedom. It does not mean that individuals can't express or practice their beliefs and religions, even if they are employed by the government and express their beliefs during work.

This whole thing shouldn't even been an issue in the first place. The coach shouldn't have been fired just because he prayed or whatever on the field due to claims of separation of church and state. That's a stupid reason and clearly political. If the school did not want someone praying in the field, then they need to create rules to explicitly state what coaches can't do in the field (before, during, and after the game) and lay out the consequences.

 

To follow-up... I understand that if schools or companies do make such rules that limits religious beliefs are illegal and against the Constitution itself. I just wanted to point out that expressing your religion shouldn't have consequences such as getting fired, even if you do such things at your company/school.

 

These crazies are stupid but smart because technically she is right, the term "separation of church and state" doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution. They will implement Christofascism if we let them. And it won't be in a fell swoop, it will be little by little erosion of obvious truths and rights until we find ourselves so far deep that it will be difficult to get out of it.

 

I'd be curious how the USSC would have ruled on this case if the coach was a Satanist doing a satanic ritual at midfield. Or even a Muslim praying using a prayer rug. And I'd be curious if the politicians that are praising this ruling would have been doing so if it were the same result.

 

SCOTUS will have the same ruling. Politicians will be politicians and voice the majority of what their constituency wants. Just like what the politicians are currently doing right now.

 

Not sure why I'm bothering to reply to someone who is out and out admitting their ignorance.

There is a huge difference between prayer (which the Bible even recommends doing privately and quietly - see Matthew 6:5-6) and evangelizing. At no point was this coach prevented from praying - whether in public quietly or privately in any way shape or form. What he was doing was evangelizing - inserting Christian faith into a wholly secular event (football*), making a public display of that and using the status of his government office (yes a coaching position is a government office) to compel participation.

*admittedly, football is a religion in parts of the country but it is not part of the Christian faith

Nothing about the practice of Christianity requires public displays of prayer. Jesus asked his followers to spread "the word" but Christian identity is not predicated on evangelism. At the very least, the Court should have considered whether insisting on public prayer at the 50 yard line was a bona-fide requirement of the individual's religion, but even if they had, this Court already showed a propensity for misrepresenting the facts (they'd probably cite some tele-evangelist broadcast as proof that Christianity requires prayer at sporting events). So the end result would probably have been the same. Likewise, if a similar challenge arises from a non-Christian religion, I fully expect this court to rule against that claim based on a misrepresentation of that religion's intent.

This case and the one about Maine school funding are the epitome of slippery-slope decisions - they are meant to chip away at separating secular and religious life so that eventually, non-Christians will be subjected to Christian proselytizing 24/7.

 

I think it was the compelling participation bit that was lacking in evidence. People keep saying compel participation, coach put on pressure, coercion, retaliation for non-participation, etc. Where is the evidence of that? Most specifically, after having discussions with the district, he conducted his prayers when the team was otherwise occupied and none of the students participated. How could that possibly be compelling participation? (I took that factual summary from Sotomayor's dissent, BTW).

 

It's the nature of the role as head coach and the nature of when (immediately after the game in front of everyone) and where(at the 50 yard line) he prayed that would compel participation.

The school at no point denied him his ability to pray - only to make a display of prayer at the 50 yard line in front of a huge crowd. To claim - as Gorsuch did - that this was hostility to his religion is ludicrous.

 

I think the difference is that people usually feel a lot more strongly about religions vs. things like pledge of allegiance/national anthem. Most truly religious people probably put the religion/faith as the #1 important thing in their life. So at this point it becomes a clear balance of power issue to me. The coach controls playing time, and how do you know whether he is including whether a student joins his prayer circle as one of the determining factors for how much playing time a student gets? It would be pretty easy for him to play favorites, and no one would be able to clearly prove one way or another unless he was a moron about it. If we lived in a world that was just and fair without any discrimination then it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately we live in a world where politics/religion/etc. are things that can cause violence.

I also wonder, what is the coach's purpose for the praying immediately after the game at the 50 yd line? Is he trying to evangelize/convert people? Is he just trying to get attention? Is he so devout that he has an irresistible compulsion to pray after games?

 

Peer pressure applies to a lot of things. Should we say that pressuring teammates to wear a certain shirt or listen to a certain music count as retribution. Further now you’re arguing that the other students are violating the establishment clause. Clearly they ar not in a position of authority.

Other than peer pressure is there any evidence that the coach used his official position to press students into praying. Did the coach take retribution on students who didn’t?

 

I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I agree with this ruling.

I’m not a Christian and I too find overt public displays of faith annoying. Just like I find overt public displays of affection annoying. That doesn’t mean that people don’t have a right to them.

 

Sure they might not and as a non Chiristian I expect that. That doesn’t change that I believe there is a principle.

As stated in the other thread I also have a personal interest in this case. In Judo we bow and in some dojos we have a shrine to the Founder and principles of Judo. There have been court cases saying that we shouldn’t have those things because they are quasi religious relating to Shintoism and that is an imposition on others. Further that as a referee I can actually kick someone out of a match for not bowing shows that there is actual consequences to it. USA judo and the International Judo Federation have so far won those cases. That said as a coach of a public institution I was required to allow any student who felt bowing violated their beliefs to still participate. Since the whole class and competition team were bowing one could say that there was peer pressure to conform.

 

It's not the students that are the issue. It's the pressure from the coach. I get you disagree with it, but I'm not crazy to say this when Anthony Kennedy said the exact same thing in a ruling in 1972 in a 5-4 decision. The very environment of pressure to conform to a religious activity is violation of the Establishment clause. The coach is in authority, he's doing it in a public way and has to be conscious of the fact many students are joining him. Did he ever say to them "Please don't join me as this is my own act and I don't want to push others?" No. Did he ever say, "I am going to do this in private or in the corner of the field where others may not see me?" No. The whole point of doing it right after the game and on the 50 yard line isn't to just practice his religion, but to use the school's forum - a gov't institution - to evangelize others.

 

You could make this argument about any “voluntary” team-building activity the coach tries to organize, couldn’t you?

I don’t see the threat here for an atheist. An atheist can join and focus on something else other than the prayer, if the prayer doesn’t do anything for him. It just seems like a big fuss over nothing. When you’re part of a team, you may feel pressured into engaging in all sorts of rituals, some maybe silly, that you aren’t into. And you do it, possibly suspending disbelief, to be “part of the team” and build team cohesion/chemistry. I would just lump this in the same category.

 

If bowing is considered a religious act, and the organization you work for is public, then there is no way you can require people to bow.

It's the same reason many Christians have pushed and succeeded to ban Yoga in schools (even though once you strip out the mantras, there's nothing really religious about it. Still I don't think kids should be doing yoga anyway).

The state or its actors can not endorse religious activities. It can't even show the appearance of favoring one religion over another. And I can't imagine how having your coach lead a prayer at the 50 yard line after games doesn't do that.

 

He is not legally allowed to discourage students from engaging in religious conduct. He said nothing to the kids initially. When they asked if they could join him, he said "You can do whatever you want, it's a free country". When the district first registered a complaint (after a coach from another school called his principal and said how nice it was that they allowed him to invite the other coach and team to join him if they wanted), he told all the students that there was no requirement to participate or not and there would be no consequences either way.