Supreme Court rules for coach whose prayers on football field raised questions about church-state se

I bolded it for you.

"They're two separate issues, and as such should be considered differently. One size doesn't fit all. One involves the Constitution (church and state.) One involves an aspirant to the presidency creating a legislative solution to a non-problem (also, doesn't involve the Constitution.) See the difference?"

 

Oh, it was not. I don't backtrack. You are being a ridiculous person.

 

No, the "theocratic disaster" is him doing it in a way that pressured his players to take part over their personal objections. The school didn't have a problem with Kennedy praying on the field AFTER the students and players left.

 

I knew a professor at UF (now retired) that held prayer sessions in which his grad students were STRONGLY encouraged to attend. Most did and the ones I knew, hated it.

 

When I was in school, the girl upstairs used to cry out for God and Jesus every time her boyfriend visited.

 

As evidenced by your post I quoted twice, it looks like you do/did.

 

So, young people praying after participating in a sporting event is now a bad thing, huh?

I have season tickets to UF football and each Saturday in the Swamp, you will see smaller groups of players and coaches praying on the field before the game. And when the game ends, you see members of both teams meet at midfield for a post game prayer. Some kids choose to not do so and that is fine but there is no downside to young athletes praying before or after a sporting event.

 

The issue is a coach essentially forcing them to. Not at all analogous to the player created prayer circles after Gator games.

 

You are missing the point. Prayer by participants is not the issue. Prayer initiated and encouraged by employees of public institutions is the issue.

The downside is not for the kids that decide to pray but for the ones that choose not to.

Lotsa of good commentary in this thread if you want to go back and read the prior 8 pages to catch up.

 

If it means nothing to you and is irrelevant to your life, then you support the right to gays to marry in NC?

Cheers to that!

 

That's not in fact what it says. It is summarizing Kennedy's arguments. Kennedy is the football coach. This is a direct quote from the fact section of the district court's opinion:
"Some students and parents expressed thanks for the District's directive that Kennedy cease praying after games, with some noting that their children had participated in the prayers to avoid being separated from the rest of the team or ensure playing time."

And guess what happened after Kennedy stopped leading the public prayer on the 50 yard line after the games? "After Kennedy changed his practices in September, no students were witnessed praying on the field independently." The students didn't continue the practice on their own.

Indeed, here's some of the lower court's analysis on the Establishment Clause issue:
But even more than the perception of school endorsement, the greatest threat posed by Kennedy's prayer is its potential to subtly coerce the behavior of students attending games voluntarily or by requirement. Players (sometimes via parents) reported feeling compelled to join Kennedy in prayer to stay connected with the team or ensure playing time, and there is no evidence of athletes praying in Kennedy's absence. Leavell Dec., Dkt. # 67, at 7; Barton Dep., Dkt. # 65, at 2; Polm Dep., Dkt. # 64-25, at 73-74; Saulsberry Dep., Dkt. # 64-26, at 19-20. Kennedy himself testified that, “[o]ver time, the number of players who gathered near [him] after the game grew to include the majority of the team.” Kennedy Dec., Dkt. # 71-4, at 3. This slow accumulation of players joining Kennedy suggests exactly the type of vulnerability to social pressure that makes the Establishment Clause vital in the high school context. As anyone who has passed through that fraught stage of life can confirm, there is no time when the urge to join majority trends is greater. But when it comes to religion, the Establishment Clause forbids government actors from using this pressure to promote conformity.

 

And to add to the district court's record, here's a brief that includes the perspective of a former player:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-418/219953/20220331162716763_Bremerton Community Members-Amicus Brief.PDF
Amici’s accounts make clear that Petitioner’s claim that his prayer was a private act is one far removed from the story’s true setting. As a player, F.P. “always thought [Petitioner’s] purpose on the team was to offer religious support [to the team] before and after games.” Indeed, Petitioner was in his role as an employee of the District at all times that his prayers occurred. F.P. explains that the Bremerton coaches did not go home immediately after the games ended, and the players were not free to leave at that point. After the final whistle, Petitioner would “hold up a helmet to rally students to mid-field,” and players were directed to attend “the coach’s prayer thing” at midfield, then proceed to the locker room as a team before they could go home. Until every player left, Petitioner was liable to ensuring all team members’ rights were respected. It was on this public stage, surrounded by players that “always . . . did as [they] were told,” that Petitioner carefully chose to pray. To the public, there was no obvious distinction between leading a team in prayer and private conduct. And to the players, there was no obvious choice. As F.P. explains, participation in Petitioner’s prayer was “expected.”
* * *
As F.P. confirms, there was no freedom of choice for the team members: “The only time a choice was given on the matter of praying with . . . Kennedy at the end of football games was at a team meeting Thursday the day before the game where the media attended and fans stormed the field.” Prior to that conversation, the “prayer circle . . . was something that was expected.” Petitioner even relied on students to recruit others: “Kennedy . . . encouraged players on our team to ask the other teams’ coaches and players to join us [in prayer].” . . . F.P. believed he had to make a choice between maintaining his rank as a starting player and keeping alive his chances of college recruitment or bowing out of prayer. . . . In the end, F.P. was persecuted for mustering the courage not to conform. The coaches were unfriendly towards him and only “tolerated [him] because [he] was a good player and had the respect of [his] team.”
* * *
Six years later, F.P. remains traumatized and believes additional players have declined to come forward with their stories because, like him, “they would rather forget about that time of their life.” “Coach Kennedy has crippled [his] love for the sport of football.” Petitioner’s conduct has also deprived F.P. of the lifelong friendships team sports are designed to encourage: “My relationship with [my former] teammates . . . is forever fractured[.] [W]hatever sense of legacy, love, pride, and enjoyment we felt playing together is left behind in Joe K. and his tireless tirade to prove he is right in continuing to pray among children.”
* * *
In the words of one of the players Petitioner was paid to lead: “Kennedy has used the Bremerton Knights Football for seven years to push his own religious agenda and lie to the American Public that he did so privately . . . and [for] four years I knelt for him in solidarity as he prayed so there would be no objection to me playing football.”
-------------------------------------------
This is why we have the Establishment Clause, to protect a young person like this from being coerced into participating in religious rituals by government employees. It is truly shameful the way Gorsuch and the majority misrepresented the record in this case to get to their preferred outcome.

 

So in other words, it was not some poor, misunderstood coach who only wanted to be able to pray silently on the 50 yard line--it was a coach who increasingly made it a group expectation for players to participate, with at least some of the players over multiple years having felt that pressure.

 

Correct. And he definitely wasn't praying silently. In fact, after the school district asked him to stop, he prayed silently on the field away from the players for a few games, decided he didn't like that, sent the district a letter telling them he wasn't going to comply with their rules, did a bunch of media about how he was fighting back, and then caused a stampede of people when he conducted the public prayer at the next game on the 50 yard line, resulting in students getting knocked over and unauthorized people hopping fences to get onto the field.

But if the Republicans in the majority had admitted what the record actually said, it would have gotten in the way of them coming to their desired outcome, so they lied about it. And as we saw in this thread, a bunch of people who aren't familiar with the record ate it up. Some of them, when shown the facts, decided to refuse to accept them and lash out, rather than reconsider if they were wrong. It is indisputable that the record shows that players felt coerced to join and that the prayer was both public and not silent or quiet.

There's one final thing. The school district never fired him. They put him on leave, and when his contract expired a few months later, he opted not to reapply for his job and left the state (moving to Florida). So there's a strong argument that the Supreme Court never should have taken this case up because it's moot. But again, recognizing that would have gotten in the way of the Republicans getting the outcome they so desired. (It's noteworthy that the EPA case they're about to rule on also should be moot.)

 

Soooo in reality it's the Constitution that really scares you.

 

That rather proves the point. Put another way, only two players felt comfortable expressing qualified objections. Either there was a pressure component, or his teams there over the years randomly drew an exceptionally faithful group.

In terms of both sides citing their freedom, again invokes Lincoln that when the shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, the wolf does not view the shepherd as liberator but oppressor.

 

He didnt pressure anyone. You are projecting.

Free exercise doesnt mean in secret when no one is watching.

 

You should read up thread a bit. This coach is into performative religion