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

There was evidence of coercion in the docs lawyer posted upthread. No assumptions there.

 

Praying in public is not coercion. If he used it to mistreat or discriminate, then we'll talk.

 

The performances started long before. That’s why they became a problem after years. Went from what appeared to be legitimate “sincerity” of a guy doing his own thing, fully in public on all of our land, to Showtime. When they asked him to dial it back so that all citizens could go back to enjoying this NotChurch event performed by children via the mandates of grown-ass men, he just couldn’t because his feelings wouldn’t allow it.

Now you call it a “protest” and also add an arbitrary time limiter. And then mock the audacity to disagree with this paper thin perspective.

That first one is at least accidentally coming around. A sincere person wouldn’t insist on turning what is an event for every person into an extreme display of personal opinion, and most certainly wouldn’t put even a single child in an entirely contrived bind, and wouldn’t do any of that for even a single second.

Sincerity left the building a while ago.

 

A few thoughts after reading the Opinions:

Putting aside the factual details and whether the Court should have considered his prior behavior or the disruptions created given that those issues were apparently not preserved (bad lawyering or not?), the Court seems to abolish an endorsement element and instead will now require evidence of direct and provable coercion to find an Establishment Clause violation. What will be sufficient to meet that test? A quid pro quo - a coach promising more playing time to players who pray with him? Will the case law addressing the use of loud speakers stand over time? The Court noted that the student complaints about coercion in this case were hearsay, so I'm inferring that those students did not testify. Would that have made a difference to the majority? I doubt it, but seems odd to me if such testimony existed but was not offered in the trial court. Might that be a basis for circuit courts to distinguish cases going forward?

The Court seems to have shifted to an analysis which is heavily reliant on history. I think that's interesting given that this same Court was apparently not convinced that past examples of gun control laws really mattered because maybe those laws were not challenged, maybe they were not uniform ("those were just mainly out West"), or maybe they were always unconstitutional despite being in place for long periods of time. Yet here, we're going to give a very high level of deference with respect to the Establishment Clause to the way things were at the founding or maybe some other period in history - times when the country was significantly more religious and far less diverse. That seems convenient to me, as social conservatives will almost always benefit from an analysis which evaluates public sentiments from decades or even centuries ago.

I have a difficult time accepting that these prayers were either private or quiet or that they were analogous to a teacher bowing her head before eating her lunch. The coach was actively leading prayers until he got called out. He scaled back what he was doing and lawyered up, perhaps to be in a grey area and/or to create a better appellate record. He then got the media and social media involved. According to the dissent, even then he demanded that he at least be able to run out to the 50 yard line for his prayers and demanded that players be able to join him. If we are going to go with the teacher eating lunch analogy, I think this might more analogous if a teacher (and presumably every teacher could do it) demanded that they be able to run over to the middle of the cafeteria each day to pray, perform some "private" religious ritual, or to exercise their Free Speech right to express their sincerely-held political take of the day so that it got the maximum amount of exposure and so that students could join in - voluntarily of course.

The majority suggests that the coach was willing to simply do his prayer alone after the players left and were on the way to the locker room or bus. I was thinking that doesn't sound that unreasonable; maybe the District over-reached here and refused to try to work it out. The dissent, however, pushes back against that narrative and says that the coach merely responded to a deposition question that such a compromise might be possible. The dissent says that, in actuality, the coach refused to respond to the District's requests to discuss a resolution and instead wanted to deal only with the media. I'm not going to spend the time to try to find and read through the actual record, but I feel like one side is probably mischaracterizing the factual record on these points. At the very least, they paint a very different picture.

I do think there is a tension in these cases that can be complex. I don't think public school teachers who are Christian should have to hide their crosses, for example, any more than a Muslim or Jewish teacher should been prohibited from wearing articles of clothing reflecting their faith. As I read this case, however, this sounds like a pretty dramatic change in the law. Many conservative Christians have said for decades that we are going to have bad things happen if we don't put God back into the public schools. Many of them see secularism as the same as being anti-Christian. Many are seeing fewer Americans identify as religiously affiliated and believe educational institutions are one of America's greatest enemies. They are seeing younger people who are more accepting of things like homosexuality and embracing multiculturalism. This coach may be a good man and entirely sincere. But in the larger scheme of things, I see this as another example of efforts to chip away at the separation of church and state.

 

The only evidence i saw was a few kids saying they "felt" that. Is that really evidence? What if their parents put them up to it? If its that easy to quiet free speech and free exercise than we could all shut it down just by saying we "felt" this or that. Free speech will often make other feel a certain way and not always positive. Until that speech flatly violates another right via ACTUAL discrimination, then we cant silence the speech.

I cant say a boy wearing a dress to school has to stop because my kid feels yucky about it. I can however say it IF my kid is being treated different if they dont wear a dress or because the other kid does.

Feelings are as varied as the number of people present. Since when did liberals want speech squashed because it made the other side feel bad?

 

The coach didn't even have to say anything for pressure to be applied and felt. Though he did by making it an expectation as part of every game. Clearly there was a problem with it and probably much bigger than was found in the lower courts (and ignored by SCOTUS majority) since at that age, kids are far less likely to come forward or rock the boat for fear of reprisal. Some here see this as evidence that nothing is amiss because deep down, they want that boat steered by Christians and want others to acquiesce to that power.

 

Yes, the cooked-up concept of originalism has two baked-in advantages for practitioners: many of their current perspectives align nicely with those from centuries ago, and also there is such little clarity on intent from hundreds of years ago that it can be molded to any shape.

Any legitimate form of “originalism” requires a PhD level knowledge of almost all history and a commitment to use it honestly, neither of which practitioners have ever approached.

In practice it is merely a way to prevent the only sane perspective of law, which is that it has to evolve along with reality.

 

No you can't, but the other school boy wearing a dress isn't in power over your child and thus cannot punish your child for not complying with their will. The coach's "feelings" that led him to freely express his religion ends where they impinge upon student's rights who don't want to participate since those others have every right to be free from the coach's religion. The way you'd have it, there's no harm with that impingement.

 

How is this coach different from the classroom teacher who'd like to say a prayer before class?

 

No one kept this coach from wearing his dress, although as Mutz points out he does indeed have a different dress code than students. He wore his dress for years. Once he insisted that there be a fashion show every night that starred him performing cabaret, it’s a brave new world.

Just go back to wearing the dress and stop insisting that everyone else wants to also.

 

I apologize if I incorrectly positioned your approach. I took your admission that your religion should be performative as meaning to show it to other people as a form of evangelizing. My mind went straight to the Great Commission.

I don't like being asked to stand, bow my head and pray before football games. I don't like to be asked to stand for God Bless America. I didn't like it when my football coach gathered us after practice for prayer.

 

Feelings (fueled by assumptions) are not evidence. Until he actually punishes a kid for not toeing the line then there is no case. You think this guy is benching good players because they dont share his faith?
If so, then fire him, but "feelings" arent proof.

We all could shut down speech based on feelings if that were the case.

 

Here is what you’re up against.

 

I do believe in the great commission but I also take Jesus approach of not forcing it on anyone. People know my faith and I try my best to live it.

I do always wonder why unbelievers are so offended by standing for God Bless America etc though. Its your right, but certainly it doesnt force you to believe or practice anything and you can sit if you wish

 

And how would this “proof” of coercion ever materialize? Absent a ludicrous Perry Mason on-the-stand breakdown, it is not possible.

The RW has essentially erased the word from their ever-dwindling vocabulary.

 

Right!

 

Actually, their depositions are evidence and the courts accepted them as evidence. The coach need not actually punish. The problem is setting up a situation where student athletes felt pressured to join in otherwise be on the outside. It doesn't matter if he would have benched or not, although that would def make it worse.

Dude wants to pray, go for it. Just don't involve students who lack the agency to say no and are much more vulnerable to the social pressures to comply than adults are. You have children. You know this is true.

 

Yes, the RW has never had use for an inclusive concept, including the mediocre document that halfass enshrined it and they often confuse with an appendix to the Bible.

 

You just made my earlier point about you not having to experiencing it. When the "God Bless America" christian nationalism part of the sports program occurs, I stay seated. And boy do I stick out. That action often results in sidewise looks of condemnation from those around me. I've grown to not give a crap but those high school football players probably don't have the mettle, yet.

 

Not related to *god* but for several years, I stayed seated during the NA at ball games. This was in protest of the Iraq war and way before CK. My wife always used to ask me why I was such an anarchist

Anyway, point is, I def stood out (or sat out, as it were lol) though no one ever said anything to me.