Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Supreme Court to hear coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Amused to Death
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
“Come join us if you want to, all are welcome.”
That’s not a direct quote. But if somebody said this would you view it as asking? (I wouldn’t.)
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Whether it's my own religion or not is a completely different discussion. As I understand it, the issue is religion. It's not "Religions I agree with or don't agree with". To be consistent, the religion should not make any difference at all.
If I believe a Christian coach should be allowed to pray at midfield after the game, I have to be ok with a Muslim coach doing the same thing.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Yes, but a Satanic group was denied when they tried to join the coach. So why is he allowed to pray but the Satanists weren't?
I can't tell you why but I'd say that's a problem with consistency.
Not whether a coach can pray after the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
OK, then here's the issue:
In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
timschochet
Footballguy
The problem with this, we live in a society in which the majority are Christians. That’s just a fact, it’s always been a fact.
So long as nobody is forced to do anything, so long as individuals and non-Christians have their rights protected, I don’t see what’s wrong with society recognizing the fact of the majority and allowing for it. If that means a Christian coach can lead voluntary prayers after the game, so what?
Yes. I see it that way as well.
@squistionwhat did you mean when you wrote: "Only if players were asked to wear a cross necklace."
timschochet
Footballguy
The issue for this case.
From your link, "The school district took the position that while it wished to accommodate Kennedy's private religious expression, it could not allow his midfield post-game prayers because such a public display at a school event would be perceived as the school's endorsement of religion."
Amused to Death
Footballguy
His employer saw it otherwise and provided other accommodations. He insisted on being the center of attention. The school put him on (I believe) paid leave.
timschochet
Footballguy
To me a school sponsored prayer is something like this:
“Attention students, this is the Principal. At two o clock we will be assembling in the auditorium for a prayer. The prayer is voluntary but your attendance is mandatory.”
It’s not Joe the Coach prays after the game, and invites anyone who wants to to join him.
“Attention students, this is the Principal. At two o clock we will be assembling in the auditorium for a prayer. The prayer is voluntary but your attendance is mandatory.”
It’s not Joe the Coach prays after the game, and invites anyone who wants to to join him.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
This sounds a lot like the criticism against Colin Kaepernick. I’ll say the same thing now as I did then: we shouldn’t be assuming motivations that aren’t in clear evidence. Kaepernick said he was kneeling to protest police mistreatment of blacks. This guy says he is praying to thank the Lord for a safe and good football game. Why not take both of them at their word?
Bogeys
Footballguy
Would you have gotten this distinction as a teen? I obviously can't read their minds, but I know which side of the bet I would be on that some kids are going to feel compelled because they want to fit in or think it will help with playing time.
Doesn't really matter to me if it is the coach's intent, IMO these would be the result so it should not be allowed. And this is coming from an church going Christian.
Agreed. When I start hearing things like "He insisted on being the center of attention." or "They didn't allow another religion", that's straying a long ways from the actual issue at hand.
squistion
Footballguy
No, I don't believe so (I would have to reread it as I don't recall exact facts) but they would be joining him at the 50 yard line and whether he asked them to pray or not, I don't think really matters as they are participating and endorsing it just by being there IMO.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Let's not conflate private citizen Kaepernick, who acted with the full approval of his employer, with a government employee acting against his employers demands. He was offered other accommodations and insisted on doing it in the center of the field in full view of the public. The school told him to return to the field after the kids were in the locker room and he refused.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Joe, government can't not allow one and refuse others. That's part of the establishment clause. If the school allows his prayer, they must allow all. The establishment clause is the root of the issue. The school told him not to give the appearance of endorsement. He refused.
Ok. You said "Only if players were asked to wear a cross necklace." as if the coach had asked them to pray.
Are you saying that's not the case and the coach was not specifically asking them pray?
timschochet
Footballguy
You’re a Christian and I’m an atheist, but I see it differently from you.
I think intent matters. Not just in this case, but in just about every political issue I can think of. If the coach had no intent of pressuring anyone, then there’s no pressure. On issues like this I don’t believe that unintended consequence is a legitimate concern.
I think that makes complete sense. That's why I said if you allow a Christian to pray, you have to allow other religions to do the same.
If I'm understanding right, he just wanted to pray after the game.
Are you saying he wanted to be able to pray but refuse other religions to be able to pray?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw
Footballguy
I we had public school assemblies that were church services but we didn't ASK the kids to attend would that be ok?
What if we allowed say Hindu servies but not Jewish ones?
timschochet
Footballguy
You’re correct that it’s different. The only reason I mentioned Kaepernick is because of the statement “he wanted to be the center of attention.”
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Hard disagree. The issue here is not whether the coach is good or evil. It's whether kids should be exposed to this in schools.
We can all agree or simply grant for the sake of argument that the coach didn't intend to coerce anybody of anything. That's immaterial IMO. The result should be sufficient to make this a valid legal challenge.
bigbottom
Footballguy
I thought Joe quoted an article mentioning that the issue came to a head when the opposing coach complained that his players were invited to join.
Bogeys
Footballguy
I disagree, but I do tend to see the occasional slippery slope and I know you don't.
Thinking back to that age I know how much some want to fit in, or at least not stand out, so for the players I see coercion because of the inherent authority players invest in a coach. He doesn't have to do what he did, he could bow his head and say a silent prayer if thanking God for a safe game was his true intent.
Whether or not the coach intends to do that, there is a power dynamic in play that essentially makes it implied coercion. The coach has power over the players, as previously noted (who does/does not make team, who plays, etc.) and if this is like most public schools, he is likely also a teacher so to an extent also has power over grades for any players in his class.
With dynamics like this, it is the responsibility of the coach/teacher to be above reproach.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Really. You honestly think that wearing a cross is more public than a post game prayer on the 50 yard line?
Yes. From the Axios article:
I guess then it may become a question of compelling or coercion, and how "inviting" factors in.
Sure. He displays it for 4+ hours during the entire game.
Tons more people see Mike Tomlin's cross every Sunday than they do the players that gather after the game is over. I have no idea if Tomlin joins that group or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
It is a distinction with out a difference IMO. If a coach says I am conducting a prayer at the 50 yard line and asks players to join him, they are participating if they actually say a prayer or not.
Tim mentioned Kaepernick who felt standing for the anthem was seen as participating in a conspicuous show of patriotism on his part that he didn't believe in. I don't say the pledge of allegiance for similar reasons (although I stand quietly with my hand clasped staring at the ground so as to not cause a scene)
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
Well, it was more than he just wanted to pray. He wanted to pray on the 50-yard line in full view of players and spectators and have students join him as they wish. There are actually two constitutional issues at play - the coach’s Free Exercise rights and the limitations of the Establishment Clause. The accommodations proposed by the school are relevant because they were meant to accommodate his rights under the Free Exercise Clause (the search for accommodation generally being legally required) while minimizing concerns under the Establishment Clause as private prayer will be less problematic than leading students in prayer in a public fashion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jackstraw
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
I’m not intimately familiar with the Supreme Court jurisprudence on this topic, but wearing a cross in school or at school events without proselytizing to students seems to strike a pretty good balance between Free Exercise rights and Establishment Clause restrictions. By that same token, if the Coach had taken a knee after the game to pray in a way that did not involve other students (whether by invitation or perceived coercion), that also would seem to strike a good balance between the corresponding constitutional issues.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks. Not sure how the pledge relates to this but I guess it can be connected.
My point was as I understood it, the coach was not asking players to pray. So when you said it would be like asking players to wear the necklace, it didn't make sense.
Again, the article mentioned "inviting" so maybe that is asking. I don't know. And I guess that's stuff for the court to decide.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree and I was about to type up something similar.
Teachers are human beings. They're going to have opinions about things, and I think it's okay for them to share those feelings in a reasonable and age-appropriate way. Wearing a cross-necklace seems like simple personal expression, kind of like having a Biden 2020 bumper sticker on the car you drove to work in the morning. I get that people might disagree on exactly where we draw the line between personal free exercise vs. establishment, but the cross thing seems like a pretty good spot to me. It's at least not far off.
Van Dyman
Footballguy
Mike Tomlin is on TV with the highest quality mega-zoom HD cameras money can buy. If I'm sitting in the stands at a high school football game, I probably would not be able to determine if the coach down on the field does or does not have a cross necklace. However, if I'm sitting up there in the stands after the game waiting for my band nerd to drop off his sousaphone, I'm pretty sure I'd notice a large group of people kneeling around the coach at midfield.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
I think it’s the fact that he’s a coach and appears to be leading the students who choose to participate in prayer at a school event. I’m not sure that whether he asked them or invited them is ultimately relevant to the constitutional question. But again, I’m not an expert in this area. What I am confident about is that this situation does create Establishment Clause concerns. But those concerns do have to be balanced against accommodating the coach’s right to Free Exercise. I think the outcome of the Court will come down to how to strike the proper balance between these two interests.
squistion
Footballguy
It is a conspicuous public display of patriotism and it is indirectly coerced because those that don't participate risk being ostracized (and there are court cases regarding students who were suspended because they refused to participate in the pledge).
Similarly, being asked by the coach to pray with him is a conspicuous public displayed of religion with implied coercion of not making the team or not being considered a team player.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
To me it seems like the school made a good-faith effort to accommodate his faith. After the kids are off the field in the locker room and after the stands have emptied. Or take a quick knee and give thanks for a clean safe game. The insistence of doing it immediately following the game in full view of the public puts it over the line IMHO.
And it's certainly over the line when other groups wanted their own prayers next to the coach but were denied. I'm certain this was the situation the school wanted to avoid.
-fish-
Footballguy
I've followed this case for a while since it's a nearby high school.
At least one of his players' parents testified at the Ninth Circuit hearing that his son only joined in the prayer because he thought he might lose playing time if he didn't.
Thank you. That's a key tenet. I think a lot of the Christian life is balancing Matthew 6:5 you quoted with Matthew 5:14
Last edited by a moderator:
Van Dyman
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I assume this would also correlate to a third group of people "who have read the First Amendment."
Thanks. I don't know the details of how the coach asked or invited others to join him. Maybe it was like the pledge and the coach told the players to walk to the field after the game and pray. I guess that will come out in court.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
So how does this mesh with all these states outlawing anything dealing with LGBTA in schools? People don't want their kids exposed to that at a school, other don't want there kid exposed to this at a school.
Similar threads
