The Supreme Court to hear coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line (1 Viewer)

[BladeRunner]

I'm confused by this post. It seems like whether a kid felt coerced is exactly the type of evidence a court would want to know.

People often get feelings confused with facts.  While they sometimes might cross, typically when you're feeling something it's not necessarily a fact.  Hence the phrase, "Facts don't care about your feelings".

Was it just one kid "feeling" that way?  Because barring the coach saying, "Everyone is going to pray with at the 50 yard line at the end of the game or your off the team" then I'm not sure how you can actually say the kid felt coerced.

For example, I could say that I'm "feeling" threatened by your post (I'm not) but does that make your post threatening? Because that's how I feel?

Was it just one kid?  Or multiple kids? 

 

[whoknew]

People often get feelings confused with facts.  While they sometimes might cross, typically when you're feeling something it's not necessarily a fact.  Hence the phrase, "Facts don't care about your feelings".

Was it just one kid "feeling" that way?  Because barring the coach saying, "Everyone is going to pray with at the 50 yard line at the end of the game or your off the team" then I'm not sure how you can actually say the kid felt coerced.

For example, I could say that I'm "feeling" threatened by your post (I'm not) but does that make your post threatening? Because that's how I feel?

Was it just one kid?  Or multiple kids? 

In this scenario, whether a kid felt coerced is a fact. And its evidence. 

Obviously it can be rebutted on whether he should have felt that way. But that doesn't change that its a fact that he felt coerced.

 

[BladeRunner]

In this scenario, whether a kid felt coerced is a fact. And its evidence. 

Obviously it can be rebutted on whether he should have felt that way. But that doesn't change that its a fact that he felt coerced.

You're correct.  It is a "fact" that he testified he felt coerced.

Whether he was actually coerced can, as you said, be rebutted.  Again, I'm not really on board with this ruling.  I'm just saying that accusations of coercion, IMO, fall short unless there was some actual evidence the coach said something.  I'm not a lawyer.

 

[bigbottom]

Not sure whether or not it’s true, but there was an aspect of the story discussed upthread where the Coach made a point of complimenting two of the players who chose not to pray with him. It was touted as evidence that he wasn’t retaliating against those who did not join him in prayer. But to me, it felt like it could have a mildly coercive effect - by the fact that the coach was effectively telling the players that he was keeping tabs on who joined him and who didn’t. 

 

[Stoneworker]

Of course if he was kneeling to pray for an end to racism I'm sure it'd be okay with the liberals.

 

[parrot]

I believe if a coach or teacher has sex with a student it's generally considered coercive based on the authority of the position, regardless of age of consent and regardless of anything explicitly coercive being said or not.  

Also, if the coach blew out his knee while kneeling to pray after the game he would almost certainly be covered by the school's workman's comp because he would be within the scope of his employment doing about anything on school property.   

NAL, but it seems like the court ignored a whole lot of other well-accepted legal concepts in reverse-engineering this decision.  

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Actual photo of coach engaging in private, quiet prayer while students were otherwise occupied.

(not a joke)

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I don't like it. Not a huge fan of student led prayer but the coach is certainly in a position of power and authority. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Actual photo of coach engaging in private, quiet prayer while students were otherwise occupied.

(not a joke)

Which came after his media tour where he discussed his "quiet and private" post-game prayers.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I believe if a coach or teacher has sex with a student it's generally considered coercive based on the authority of the position, regardless of age of consent and regardless of anything explicitly coercive being said or not.  

I was about to post something along these lines too.  I opted against it because in this particular context we're talking about minors who are (mostly) below the age of consent and I didn't get sidetracked there, but since somebody else brought it up I definitely want to chime in to agree that this is a useful point of comparison.

Teachers and coaches are authority figures.  Especially in high school.  I think that whenever we're talking about any sort of interaction between a teacher/coach and a student, there should be a presumption of some level of coercion.  Obviously it might not be "Do as I say or this will go on your Permanent Record" type coercion, but it doesn't take much for a coach to twist a player's arm.

 

[Insomniac]

Actual photo of coach engaging in private, quiet prayer while students were otherwise occupied.

(not a joke)

That's from the dissent.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just started reading the opinion.  When we discussed it in the SCOTUS thread, I questioned what constitutes state action.  If the coach prays on his own during school hours is it a state action.  If he prays outside school hours but on school grounds is it a state action.  If he prays outside of school hours, off school ground but doing a school function is that state action.  

The first paragraph of the opinion says this:

I guess where and when the acts happen make a difference.  At least this isn't the 213 pages Dobbs was.

This is from 2020 dept of education guidance, but it says the same thing in there.

If a teacher is allowed to make a personal phone call at a given time they are allowed to pray. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I eagerly await The Satanic Temple's lawsuit violating their right to pray on the same field.

Since people keep posting this same talking point, I guess we should point out that the court did actually intervene to protect the religious liberties of Satanists and Wiccans not too terribly long ago in Cutter v. Wilkinson.  Clarence Thomas voted with the unanimous majority.  

 

[djmich]

So Im coming in here fresh off the boat with what’s surely a silly question, if the coach prayed during the game would that also be protected?

I’m not sure I see why a game being played should interfere with a protected right?

 

[parasaurolophus]

So Im coming in here fresh off the boat with what’s surely a silly question, if the coach prayed during the game would that also be protected?

I’m not sure I see why a game being played should interfere with a protected right?

Because if the coach was regularly calling his wife during the game, he probably would get in trouble for that. 

You think a coach would ever get in trouble for calling his wife after a game?

I think that is the point of the decision. That religion deserves equal treatment.

Similar to how they decided previously that church can't be shut down, but a liquor store that has just as many people in it be allowed to sell booze all day. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Since people keep posting this same talking point, I guess we should point out that the court did actually intervene to protect the religious liberties of Satanists and Wiccans not too terribly long ago in Cutter v. Wilkinson .  Clarence


Thomas voted with the unanimous majority.  

Yes, as it should be. However they've been discriminated against in two recent incidents where schools show preferential treatment towards Christians. Including this case.

 

[Insomniac]

Since people keep posting this same talking point, I guess we should point out that the court did actually intervene to protect the religious liberties of Satanists and Wiccans not too terribly long ago in Cutter v. Wilkinson.  Clarence Thomas voted with the unanimous majority.  

How is that case even remotely similar? Those were people in prison who had no opportunity to practice their religion. They certainly didn't have the power to compel anyone else to participate in their religious activities.

 

[Amused to Death]

I think that is the point of the decision. That religion deserves equal treatment.

Except the coach was never told he couldn't pray. They told him he couldn't do it on the field with students/players.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How is that case even remotely similar? Those were people in prison who had no opportunity to practice their religion. They certainly didn't have the power to compel anyone else to participate in their religious activities.

It's an example of SCOTUS standing up for a religious minority's free exercise rights.  

Certain people on the internet seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS is really eager to protect the free exercise of Christianity but would not extend similar protection to the Church of Satan, so it's kind of nice to see that the court does actually go to bat for actual honest-to-goodness Satanists.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Except the coach was never told he couldn't pray. They told him he couldn't do it on the field with students/players.

Do they have the same policy for all other personal matters?

 

[Amused to Death]

Do they have the same policy for all other personal matters?

What other personal matters are expressly prohibited from being done with students?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, as it should be. However they've been discriminated against in two recent incidents where schools show preferential treatment towards Christians. Including this case.

In order to for this case to involve religious discrimination, you would need to show that the school in question also employed a Satanic football coach (Belichick?) who led a dark mass after games.

Also, remember that the school fired the Christian guy, so in order for religious discrimination to be at play, the school would have needed to keep the Satanist around.  Obviously such a hypothetical would involve discrimination against Christians, not toward Christians, but that's the case we were given.

By "discrimination," do you mean that Satanists in the crowd or Satanic players were harmed by being subjected to the sight of Christian prayer?  Because while that might run afoul of the establishment clause, it's not discrimination or preferential treatment for Christians.  It's just improper establishment of religion.

 

[Amused to Death]

By "discrimination," do you mean that Satanists in the crowd or Satanic players were harmed by being subjected to the sight of Christian prayer?  Because while that might run afoul of the establishment clause, it's not discrimination or preferential treatment for Christians.  It's just improper establishment of religion.

A student at the school requested an invocation by the TST since they were accommodating the coach. They were denied. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

What other personal matters are expressly prohibited from being done with students?

If I had to guess, I would say not too many, which is the whole point.

I highly doubt that if a coach called his wife after the game school officials would tell him he was on duty and he would have to wait until all the kids were gone or go into a separate room. 

Just like if two teachers today are allowed to talk about the Stanley cup at work, two teachers would be allowed to pray. 

If you allow a non school related behavior to happen free of consequences, you would have to allow praying free of consequences. 

That is what the dept of ed bulletin laid out and it sounds like that was the supreme court reasoning. 

 

[Insomniac]

It's an example of SCOTUS standing up for a religious minority's free exercise rights.  

Certain people on the internet seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS is really eager to protect the free exercise of Christianity but would not extend similar protection to the Church of Satan, so it's kind of nice to see that the court does actually go to bat for actual honest-to-goodness Satanists.

The circumstances are too different. In that case they are tolerating the "non-traditional" religions because they otherwise would completely block them from practicing their religion. My brother in law is a prison Chaplain and sets up stuff for the Native Americans and Wiccans. I'll have to ask him if there are any Satanists.

In the Kennedy case they are favoring Christianity and at least allowing the possibility of the coach punishing the players who don't join in.

 

[parasaurolophus]

A student at the school requested an invocation by the TST since they were accommodating the coach. They were denied. 

So the student was denied having an outside group show up and get permission to be in the field? 

 

[Snotbubbles]

Before reading the opinion I thought that the school district did the right thing to avoid an Establishment Clause issue.  After reading the opinion, I don't know.  First, I don't really like Kennedy he poked the bear here. 

What the majority did that the dissent didn't was break up the prayer into different sections.  For the majority, the three prayers that Kennedy was suspended for were the important prayers.  Those three prayers, none of the players joined him.  That was reason enough for them to say that the prayers were private and there was no coercion.  The dissent looked at the totality of the prayers and it stretches the imagination to say that there wasn't coercion and peer pressure prior to the district sending a letter telling Kennedy to basically stop praying with students.  

After I read the fact pattern from the majority I thought this was private prayer.  After reading the fact pattern from the dissent, I have a hard time calling this private, even the three prayers that Kennedy was suspended for where no students joined.  By that point it had become a media issue and Kennedy seemed like he was trying to get fired for praying.  It was no longer a personal and private matter.

That being said, the point that really stuck with me was can a teacher bow their head and say a silent prayer before eating lunch at school.  I think for me the answer is yes, they should be allowed.  I think Kennedy went beyond personal and private but if this case is limited to instances where the teacher is engaging is prayer that would be considered personal and private I'm ok with this decision.  

 

[squistion]

From the Twitters:  

Prayer circles led by high school coaches are not compulsory. If a player walks up to their coach and says, "Hey Coach, I'm not doing that because it makes me uncomfortable," the coach will always reply, "Thanks for keeping me in line!" Then the player will get more playing time

 

[parrot]

So the student was denied having an outside group show up and get permission to be in the field? 

Why should they need permission to be on the field?  If the coach, acting entirely as a "private citizen" is allowed to engage in group prayer on the field, why shouldn't any other private citizen(s) be allowed to do the same?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why should they need permission to be on the field?  If the coach, acting entirely as a "private citizen" is allowed to engage in group prayer on the field, why shouldn't any other private citizen be allowed to do the same?

The coach is never entirely a private citizen. Obviously. He is a coach with the rights of a private citizen. 

This ruling treated him as a private citizen, therefore private citizens have the right to go everywhere on school property that teachers and coaches go

is the argument you are trying to make here. 

Let's look at that from a totally different angle. Let's say it was a teacher in school. And after class was dismissed he would go and lay down his prayer rug in the hallway and pray 5 times a day at school. The teacher across the hall is posting on a fantasy football message board. Two other teachers call their spouses. And another teacher goes and watches YouTube for a bit. The principal walks by all the teachers and only intervenes with the man praying in the hallway. 

Court rules that praying needs equal treatment to all those other personal activities that are clearly allowed and of course are all not official school business, but instead is conduct of a private citizen. 

Would your conclusion be that you now have a right to hang out in the school hallways because they are private citizens for the purpose of the ruling? 

I hope no. Since obviously teachers have a purpose for being there. It just means when they are there that under certain circumstances they aren't acting within the structure of their job. 

 

[Ilov80s]

If I had to guess, I would say not too many, which is the whole point.

I highly doubt that if a coach called his wife after the game school officials would tell him he was on duty and he would have to wait until all the kids were gone or go into a separate room. 

Just like if two teachers today are allowed to talk about the Stanley cup at work, two teachers would be allowed to pray. 

If you allow a non school related behavior to happen free of consequences, you would have to allow praying free of consequences. 

That is what the dept of ed bulletin laid out and it sounds like that was the supreme court reasoning. 

Oh so teachers can now lead prayer in class? That is your read on this? 

 

[Snotbubbles]

Oh so teachers can now lead prayer in class? That is your read on this? 

How did you have that take away from what he wrote? 

 

[Ilov80s]

How did you have that take away from what he wrote? 

He said: 

Just like if two teachers today are allowed to talk about the Stanley cup at work, two teachers would be allowed to pray. 
 

Teachers are allowed to talk about the Stanley Cup in class. We can even talk to the kids about it. 

 

[Zow]

I could certainly see a situation where a kid is put in a situation where he goes along with the prayer because he doesn't want to offend or piss off the coach.

High school me would have prayed to The Flying Spaghetti Monster with my coach if I thought it meant even just one more minute of playing time (or batting third instead of sixth in the lineup or whatever). 

 

[Zow]

Not sure whether or not it’s true, but there was an aspect of the story discussed upthread where the Coach made a point of complimenting two of the players who chose not to pray with him. It was touted as evidence that he wasn’t retaliating against those who did not join him in prayer. But to me, it felt like it could have a mildly coercive effect - by the fact that the coach was effectively telling the players that he was keeping tabs on who joined him and who didn’t. 

Was there any sort of evaluation suggesting some disparate treatment of players who didn't pray with him? (Genuine question - I haven't read the decision or much about this case outside this thread)

The whole coach-player relationship is really troubling to me here. High school me cared probably more about what my coaches thought of me than anybody else except maybe the girl I had a crush on (but was too scared to make a move on anyway). If a coach said something like "hey, nice job not coming to that voluntary team meeting" I absolutely would have taken it negatively and likely attended the next one so as to not have the coach notice I wasn't there. I gotta assume this is the same for most HS athletes. That social phenomenon seems lost in what I've read about this opinion. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Oh so teachers can now lead prayer in class? That is your read on this? 

Lol. 

Yes. And they can perform the briss And they can give communion. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Lol. 

Yes. And they can perform the briss And they can give communion. 

I am being serious. I jumped in mid-convo so might have missed some context. What did you mean by:

Just like if two teachers today are allowed to talk about the Stanley cup at work, two teachers would be allowed to pray. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagin, wrote a 35-page dissent that is even longer than the majority opinion, charging that the majority “misconstrues the facts” and once again pays “almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion.” 
 
Writes Sotomayor: “This decision does a disservice to schools and the young citizens they serve, as well as to our nation’s longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state.” 
 
A majority of justices on the court unfortunately have bought the deceitful narrative spun by former Coach Joe Kennedy, who falsely claimed that his prayers on the 50-yard line after high school football games were “personal” and “private,” despite his clear intent to include students and other game attendees in the prayers. Kennedy, with the help of First Liberty Institute, a Religious Right legal outfit, brought the lawsuit after the district placed him on paid administrative leave for continuing to host group prayers on the 50-yard line at the games’ conclusion. Tellingly, Kennedy has claimed that God has called him to become a coach and that he promised God to “give you the glory after every game, win or lose.” The school district tried repeatedly to accommodate Kennedy but the coach, after initially complying, changed tack.

Link

 

[parrot]

The coach is never entirely a private citizen. Obviously. He is a coach with the rights of a private citizen. 

This ruling treated him as a private citizen, therefore private citizens have the right to go everywhere on school property that teachers and coaches go

is the argument you are trying to make here. 

Let's look at that from a totally different angle. Let's say it was a teacher in school. And after class was dismissed he would go and lay down his prayer rug in the hallway and pray 5 times a day at school. The teacher across the hall is posting on a fantasy football message board. Two other teachers call their spouses. And another teacher goes and watches YouTube for a bit. The principal walks by all the teachers and only intervenes with the man praying in the hallway. 

Court rules that praying needs equal treatment to all those other personal activities that are clearly allowed and of course are all not official school business, but instead is conduct of a private citizen. 

Would your conclusion be that you now have a right to hang out in the school hallways because they are private citizens for the purpose of the ruling? 

I hope no. Since obviously teachers have a purpose for being there. It just means when they are there that under certain circumstances they aren't acting within the structure of their job. 

It's not my argument as much as it just illustrates how silly it is to pretend he can just morph back and forth between being a private citizen or a coach depending on what he's doing at a specific moment, while clearly in the middle of his coaching duties, enjoying privileges, access, and public exposure that no other "private citizen" would have.  It's non-sensical.  They invented this "private citizen" needle so they could then thread it and pretend he's not acting as a coach and exerting the coercive influence that comes with the position while engaging in public religious activities on school property, IMO. 

Also, per your hypothetical.  Teachers can do those things because the school allows them to do those things, not because they magically become a "private citizen" between classes.  I would think the school could restrict any and all of those activities if they so desired.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

I am being serious. I jumped in mid-convo so might have missed some context. What did you mean by:

Just like if two teachers today are allowed to talk about the Stanley cup at work, two teachers would be allowed to pray. 

I know. I am just having some fun with you. I haven't been shy about telling you that you are one of my favorite posters. 

For the purposes of individual behavior for teachers if a school allows non school related personal stuff, they would have to allow prayer. That's it. There is no "yeah, but" to add. I previously used the personal call example and that seems to fit better since your aren't pulling a kid into the office to call your wife with you. At least I hope not

For the purposes of instruction in class there is a different set of rules regarding religion. 

That's why I think him stopping the prayer prior to the end of the game matters. At halftime it is much easier to make an instruction argument. 

At the end of a game when players are hugging family and kissing girlfriends it is a different scenario. 

I don't pray and I haven't been to a church since my grandpa died. I would firmly be opposed to classroom prayer led by a teacher. I would oppose halftime prayer and pregame prayer. 

At the end of the game? When all sorts of social behavior is going on I don't see how it crosses the line personally and constitutionally. The school can make their own official statement on the matter and tell the kids they don't have to participate. 

Would some kids feel some pressure? Sure. Is that compelling enough? Seems like no based on the ruling. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Court rules that praying needs equal treatment to all those other personal activities that are clearly allowed and of course are all not official school business, but instead is conduct of a private citizen. 

Which the school tried repeated to accommodate by providing other areas for him to "privately" pray. Instead he insisted on "privately and personally" praying in the middle of the field with students.

He said himself he wanted personal and private prayer but insisted that needed to be at the 50 yard line with a large group of players and students. He went on a media tour and it became a spectacle. 

I would be sympathetic to the coach if he was alone in the equipment room or in his office or some other private location for his private and personal prayer. But he insisted on anything but private and personal.

Anyway, the court ruled, so be it. I look forward to the decision being applied equally.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It's not my argument as much as it just illustrates how silly it is to pretend he can just morph back and forth between being a private citizen or a coach depending on what he's doing at a specific moment, while clearly in the middle of his coaching duties, enjoying privileges, access, and public exposure that no other "private citizen" would have.  It's non-sensical.  They invented this "private citizen" needle so they could then thread it and pretend he's not acting as a coach and exerting the coercive influence that comes with the position while engaging in public religious activities on school property, IMO. 

Also, per your hypothetical.  Teachers can do those things because the school allows them to do those things, not because they magically become a "private citizen" between classes.  I would think the school could restrict any and all of those activities if they so desired.  

They could restrict them. They just can't restrict prayer, but allow the others. If they restricted all of it, then they could restrict prayer. I never said otherwise. 

And there is no magical morph needed. Just a general grasp of logic. When a teacher calls his wife to make dinner plans he isn't acting as a teacher. That's not even something people would ever debate outside a topic like this where you just want to win your side. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's not my argument as much as it just illustrates how silly it is to pretend he can just morph back and forth between being a private citizen or a coach depending on what he's doing at a specific moment, while clearly in the middle of his coaching duties, enjoying privileges, access, and public exposure that no other "private citizen" would have.  It's non-sensical.  They invented this "private citizen" needle so they could then thread it and pretend he's not acting as a coach and exerting the coercive influence that comes with the position while engaging in public religious activities on school property, IMO. 

Also, per your hypothetical.  Teachers can do those things because the school allows them to do those things, not because they magically become a "private citizen" between classes.  I would think the school could restrict any and all of those activities if they so desired.  

Good post.  These sorts of issues often land in a gray area.  On one hand, state employees like teachers have the same free exercise rights as anybody else, and they shouldn't lose those rights when they enter the schoolhouse door.  On the other hand, teachers are authority figures and agents of the state, so when they involve students in their religious expression things become coercive and we get into establishment territory very quickly.  

If a Muslim teacher keeps a prayer rug in the closet and prays five times a day in between classes, that's totally fine with me.  That seems to fall squarely under "free expression."  Same for somebody wearing a cross necklace (I think that was litigated at one point). 

A teacher casually mentions their plans for Seder?  I think that's fine, but I can see where some people might feel like things are getting a little touchy.  Still on the "free expression" side of the line IMO though.

I think this case crosses the line for exactly the reasons that you noted.  The coach in question is very clearly leading a prayer in a public place on school grounds in his role as a coach.  If he did the exact same thing on Saturday morning instead of Friday night, I might be okay with it, but I just don't think it's plausible to argue that no reasonable person would view this coach as a state actor.  He clearly is.  And while he's not literally twisting arms, it's impossible for a coach to "invite" people to do anything -- there's always a little coercion there.  This is just on the other side of the line IMO.   

 

[parasaurolophus]

Which the school tried repeated to accommodate by providing other areas for him to "privately" pray. Instead he insisted on "privately and personally" praying in the middle of the field with students.

He said himself he wanted personal and private prayer but insisted that needed to be at the 50 yard line with a large group of players and students. He went on a media tour and it became a spectacle. 

I would be sympathetic to the coach if he was alone in the equipment room or in his office or some other private location for his private and personal prayer. But he insisted on anything but private and personal.

Anyway, the court ruled, so be it. I look forward to the decision being applied equally.

You keep bringing up the other areas. Do coaches have to go to other areas to call their wives after the game?

Would he be allowed to walk to midfield and call his kids and tell them they won? 

Yes? Boom. He can walk to midfield and pray.

And of course that doesn't mean that now everybody should be able to go to midfield. 

 

[Amused to Death]

You keep bringing up the other areas. Do coaches have to go to other areas to call their wives after the game?

Would he be allowed to walk to midfield and call his kids and tell them they won? 

Yes? Boom. He can walk to midfield and pray.

And of course that doesn't mean that now everybody should be able to go to midfield. 

The distinction is school employees are allowed to talk on phones with students present. They aren't allowed to lead them in prayer. Especially when the teacher/coach is seen as an authority figure.

ETA from the dissent:

 the majority “misconstrues the facts” and once again pays “almost exclusive attention to the Free Exercise Clause’s protection for individual religious exercise while giving short shrift to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition on state establishment of religion.” 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You keep bringing up the other areas. Do coaches have to go to other areas to call their wives after the game?

Would he be allowed to walk to midfield and call his kids and tell them they won? 

Yes? Boom. He can walk to midfield and pray.

And of course that doesn't mean that now everybody should be able to go to midfield. 

Prayer is different than calling your wife after the game.  There's nothing in the first amendment that prevents the government from establishing a call-your-wife-after-the-game protocol, but there is a clause in the first amendment that prevents the government from establishing a religion.  So prayer and other religious activities are always going attract more judicial scrutiny than other stuff.

 

[AAABatteries]

It's an example of SCOTUS standing up for a religious minority's free exercise rights.  

Certain people on the internet seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS is really eager to protect the free exercise of Christianity but would not extend similar protection to the Church of Satan, so it's kind of nice to see that the court does actually go to bat for actual honest-to-goodness Satanists.

I can already see the "Supreme Court is just a bunch of Satanist apologists" memes in my head.

 

[SoBeDad]

Was there any sort of evaluation suggesting some disparate treatment of players who didn't pray with him? (Genuine question - I haven't read the decision or much about this case outside this thread)

The whole coach-player relationship is really troubling to me here. High school me cared probably more about what my coaches thought of me than anybody else except maybe the girl I had a crush on (but was too scared to make a move on anyway). If a coach said something like "hey, nice job not coming to that voluntary team meeting" I absolutely would have taken it negatively and likely attended the next one so as to not have the coach notice I wasn't there. I gotta assume this is the same for most HS athletes. That social phenomenon seems lost in what I've read about this opinion. 

High school teachers and coaches also play a big role in students' future beyond high school. They often guide students in the college admission process and give letters of recommendations. A student's non-compliance with prayer could affect the coach's recommendation and the student would never find out.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Prayer is different than calling your wife after the game.  There's nothing in the first amendment that prevents the government from establishing a call-your-wife-after-the-game protocol, but there is a clause in the first amendment that prevents the government from establishing a religion.  So prayer and other religious activities are always going attract more judicial scrutiny than other stuff.

I don't think it is different midfield after a football game. 

I think it is different in the gym during an assembly. 

I think it is different during class. At halftime. 

I would have easily walked away after the game and felt no pressure to kneel and pray. 

Not the same exact concept, but I remember when the supreme court decided the opposite direction for a case involving my high school. You probably remember the case. Short version, might even have some details wrong, but it's been a while...

Graduation ceremonies were held at a church. Big massive cross covered up. All the small stuff moved. You still knew it was at a church. Somebody got upset about that. Sued. Supreme court said you can't do that. 

Always pissed me off. And I hated the church in question. We used to refer to them as cultists. Was a big mega church.

The reason the school started having graduation there is because our school didn't have AC. My girlfriend actually fainted because it was so damn hot in that gym. So did like three parents and grandparents. Local mega church said hey you can use our facility for free. 

So they moved it to the church. I remember going to my sister's graduation and thinking man this would have been sooooo nice. 

Luckily by the time the case was decided a new field house with AC was built that year. 

I thought it was pretty stupid that somebody got bent out of shape about that. Just the fact that you knew it was a church outweighed not wanting people to melt by the person filing suit and then up the line. 

There wasnt any religious mention, service, employees, anything and it was very well known why the switch was made. In the beginning there wasn't even any payment. I say in the beginning because I don't know if they eventually started paying for rental. 

 

[Zow]

I don't think it is different midfield after a football game. 

I think it is different in the gym during an assembly. 

I think it is different during class. At halftime. 

I would have easily walked away after the game and felt no pressure to kneel and pray. 

Not the same exact concept, but I remember when the supreme court decided the opposite direction for a case involving my high school. You probably remember the case. Short version, might even have some details wrong, but it's been a while...

Graduation ceremonies were held at a church. Big massive cross covered up. All the small stuff moved. You still knew it was at a church. Somebody got upset about that. Sued. Supreme court said you can't do that. 

Always pissed me off. And I hated the church in question. We used to refer to them as cultists. Was a big mega church.

The reason the school started having graduation there is because our school didn't have AC. My girlfriend actually fainted because it was so damn hot in that gym. So did like three parents and grandparents. Local mega church said hey you can use our facility for free. 

So they moved it to the church. I remember going to my sister's graduation and thinking man this would have been sooooo nice. 

Luckily by the time the case was decided a new field house with AC was built that year. 

I thought it was pretty stupid that somebody got bent out of shape about that. Just the fact that you knew it was a church outweighed not wanting people to melt by the person filing suit and then up the line. 

There wasnt any religious mention, service, employees, anything and it was very well known why the switch was made. In the beginning there wasn't even any payment. I say in the beginning because I don't know if they eventually started paying for rental. 

1. I recall that case. It's an interesting comparison though I think legally distinguishable. I do recall thinking when I read that case that it wasn't as egregious in terms of the facts (i.e. there was a practical reason for doing it there). 

2. As to the bold, you must have been much more strong-willed than I was in high school. I seriously loved and cared about baseball so much that I would have given my coach a kidney if it meant some benefit to me on the field. If my coached prayed on the mound* I absolutely would have felt compelled to join. I'm sure then 20 years later I would have looked back on myself as foolish (heck, I look back on myself as being foolish for caring so much about what my coaches thought since now, frankly, looking back more objectively they weren't the best of people and didn't deserve such admiration) but I'm just being honest with myself here. 

*This is actually a hypothetical here as I attended a Catholic high school so, frankly, there was some permissible team prayer (though nothing like on the mound as I recall). That said, the same idea applies and I would have jumped at most things my coaches would have suggested I do (be that maybe helping them move to attending some other church with them or some such).