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

A deep understanding of a concept you reject is likely not possible, and also not required.

We agree to conduct our unthinkable-to-the-other rituals in our own spaces with other fans, and forgo those rituals at places of common interests that we can both empathize with the other in, like children playing sports.

It’s a pretty easy lift.

 

Praying?

Deputies: Central Florida pastor performed sex act on himself on Starbucks patio

 

Religious freedom also means freedom from religion and freedom from the majority's religion. It means freedom from government employees coercing you into participating in their religious rituals. You are overstating the Constitution's protections.

That's not entirely correct.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
"There can be no doubt that New York's state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents' prayer. The respondents' argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents' prayer is 'nondenominational' and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not."
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
"We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions’ significance. But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment. . . . School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
“The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which ‘establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.’”
----------------------
Indeed, that is why Gorsuch had to lie about the facts of the case.

 

To address this point, if you read the district court and circuit opinions, the coach started doing something similar to that after the school district told him to stop with the prayers with students. The school district didn't punish him. In fact, they were apparently content with him doing that. He changed his mind, insisted on being able to do the prayer the way he wanted with the players, and then defied the school.

 

None of this is correct. And it's not how the Establishment Clause has worked. But now, we have right-wing zealots who are gutting the Establishment Clause, just like they've been doing with other rights and laws they disfavor.

 

They have essentially introduced into canon an Impossible Expectation typical of climate change denialism. Coercion has to be “proven” to an extent that the word ceases to have meaning.

What they are requiring now is nothing short of abject confession. Even if the coach benches the devil spawn, so? Don’t players get benched routinely, for all manner of reasons (including, btw, petty personal grievances.)? You can rationalize a subjective choice in a nearly limitless manner.

Absent the coach just blurting it out, how would this expectation ever be met?

 

Somehow its free exercise to "punish" a person by not providing them a service like baking a cake, but if a coach "punishes" someone by benching them for not praying, its the trigger for being problematic in a school setting. Somehow I dont think Christians are going to see a distinction and act accordingly!

 

So feelings are the end all? Thats the burden. It makes me feel bad?

 

Private vs public. Pretty simple really.
A person can deny certain content in a private business, but a public school coach cant bench you based on religion

 

What other evidence is there when people want to cite their religious convictions? That is a feeling.

 

Lol. Do you have teenagers? Mine would probably do it just to go against the flow.

 

A feeling that you would say should not be enough to silence someone who I disagree with. Exactly.

 

But that is a restraint to your free exercise, and at some point it wont be enough just to bench someone without telling them its because they didn't pray to Jesus hard enough

 

Apparently its enough to silence the people who dont want to pray to Jesus after the big game

 

Who said they have to be silent. The whole stadium could boo him if the wish. It's called freedom. And no one feelings really take precedent. Join in or dont. When he starts benching players let me know.

 

Perform sharing a faith that brings me hope and joy while loving my neighbor, feeding the poor, supporting underserved communities by taking less money to work for this non profit?

Yeah. My religion requires that performance.

 

As I see it, a student's attire does not trigger an Establish Clause concern, so I'm not sure I get the analogy unless you're just generally pointing out that people can be inconsistent.

For one thing, I don't see how merely wearing a dress versus wearing pants is an expression of an inherently religious viewpoint - although I suppose people can claim anything they believe or do is religious in nature. Pretty hard to disprove, and we generally don't want courts deciding whether people who claim religious motives are operating in good faith or deciding what the religion "really" teaches. More importantly, though, students are neither public employees nor in a position of power over other students.

To continue that comparison, no student should be precluded from praying in a public school so long as they're not creating a disruption or breaking some rule that applies to non religious expression. I don't think the dissent would disagree with that at all. From my recollection, any schools or districts in the past that wrongfully interpreted the Establishment Clause line of cases as banning students from praying were correctly shot down. I absolutely think that would be a violation of students' rights and would be with you 100% in that case.

In contrast, the question with the Establishment Clause is about what the government says or does and the extent to which the government may reasonably be seen as endorsing and/or compelling with respect to religious viewpoints. I think it would be facially unreasonable for anyone to believe that the government is endorsing a religious viewpoint simply because it allowed students to pray on their own initiative in a non disruptive way. On the other hand, if the school provides a platform such as loud speakers for or allows a teacher or coach to lead a prayer, I think that's at least a different analysis. I'm sure as with everything else, there may be grey areas we could find and debate.

If your view of the Establishment Clause is that government endorsement of religious viewpoints is constitutionally permissible so long as carrots or sticks are not used to directly coerce students to agree or participate, then your view seems to be largely in line with the current Court. But I don't think that's been the legal standard - at least not for decades - until now.

Personally, I think government should aim to be neutral with respect to religious viewpoints. Neither for or against. I would oppose an atheist teacher being allowed to mock or criticize God or religion at a public school whether there was any provable coercion or punishment. I would consider that a form of religious proselytizing just in the other direction and therefore not permissible. I don't consider those inherently religious messages to be the same as the fact that, for example, a teacher explaining evolution may genuinely offend a parent who has religious objections to evolution. IMO, there is nothing inherently religious about the theory of evolution. Similarly, if a liberal parent is offended because they think math is racist, they can argue that point all they want - but it's not an Establishment Clause issue IMO. There's no general constitutional prohibition about generally disliking something expressed. The Establishment Clause has to be more specific than that and means something or it doesn't. I'm sure like with everything else, we will be able to argue about some grey areas, but I think an endorsement test makes much more sense than the requirement that a direct harm to a specific student be proven.

Just my opinion. Seems like the Court agrees with you.

 

What? A human did something stupid?
What? A Human displayed hypocrisy??

What is your point here?

 

Of course you cant see that you are mostly just annoying your neighbor

 

How would this benching prove retaliation?

So? A lot of people do all that with no public ritual. What does that have to do with all the unnecessary show?