The Supreme Court to hear coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line (2 Viewers)

[Amused to Death]

Right. That would be a really blatant or dumb coach you'd definitely want to remove this guy from coaching kids regardless of the outcome of this. I'd think the more likely outcome would be kids feeling compelled to do this just to fit in or be part of the team.

That and a coach forming bonds with those in the prayer circle and having favorable views of players beyond their performance. Face it, we all show some degree of favoritism towards those we like.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Quick summary from Axios

A high school football coach's longtime practice of praying after games has become a high-profile case regarding the separation of church and state, Axios' Jeff Tracy writes.

Driving the news: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in the case of Joseph Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which fired Kennedy in 2016 after he refused to stop his post-game prayers.

Catch up quick: Kennedy, a retired Marine, became the assistant football coach at his alma mater — Bremerton High School, 30 miles west of Seattle — in 2008. After games, he'd pray alone at the 50-yard line.

"I'd take a knee and thank God for what the guys just did and the opportunity to be a coach," he told ESPN. Before long, players asked to join him.

The tradition continued for years without issue, until 2015 when an opposing coach told Bremerton's principal that Kennedy invited his players to join in his prayer.

The school ordered Kennedy to stop, which he briefly did. But when he resumed, Bremerton placed him on paid leave and declined to rehire him the following season.

Kennedy sued the district for violating his First Amendment rights. After lower courts ruled against him three times, the Supreme Court in January agreed to hear the case.

State of play: The core issue here is the grey area between the First Amendment's establishment clause, forbidding government endorsement of religion, and its free exercise clause, forbidding restrictions on private observance of religion.

The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been more likely to protect religious freedom in recent years than maintain the separation of church and state.

This wouldn't be an issue if Bremerton High were a private school, but as a public school its actions are necessarily those of the state.

What they're saying: "If this coach were in fact doing what he says he was doing, which is praying in a private and solitary manner, we wouldn't be here, because that's fine," Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CBS.

The problem, as Laser and some others see it, is that Kennedy's public act could, even indirectly, coerce students into joining him.

One parent said their son "felt compelled to participate" so as not to lose playing time. That's the exact scenario the district hoped to avoid.

The other side: "No reasonable observer could conclude that a football coach who waits until the game is over ... is speaking on behalf of the state," wrote Kennedy's lawyer in a letter to the school district.

Kennedy dismisses the idea that players felt pressured to participate in the post-game prayers.

In fact, he says he once named players captains after they objected to joining because "I need leaders, [not] drones."

What's next: A decision is expected in June.

 

[Amused to Death]

What they're saying: "If this coach were in fact doing what he says he was doing, which is praying in a private and solitary manner, we wouldn't be here, because that's fine," Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CBS.

Two things the summary leaves out:

1. The school offered alternatives for the coach to pray out of public view. He did that for a short time, then decided he had to do it in the middle of the field, while other players and spectators could see.

2. Another religious group tried to have their own prayer group on the field and were denied.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I added a poll option.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Two things the summary leaves out:

1. The school offered alternatives for the coach to pray out of public view. He did that for a short time, then decided he had to do it in the middle of the field, while other players and spectators could see.

2. Another religious group tried to have their own prayer group on the field and were denied.

How do you feel those impact the story?

1. For alternatives, I understand he wants to be able to pray after the game on the field. I'm not sure how private alternatives being offered factor into whether he can pray on the field.

2. Consistency. Again, I understand he wants to pray after the game on the field. Is inconsistency the question?

 

[Amused to Death]

How do you feel those impact the story?

1. For alternatives, I understand he wants to be able to pray after the game on the field. I'm not sure how private alternatives being offered factor into whether he can pray on the field.

2. Consistency. Again, I understand he wants to pray after the game on the field. Is inconsistency the question?

The school tried to accommodate him. They didn't deny him his religious beliefs, they wanted it more private and not as an employee of the school. That is the issue, he did this while acting as a public school employee. They even offered him the option of taking the team back to the locker room, wrap up team activities, then go back to the field and conduct his personal business. He refused.

The summary also says that he was not offered the job the following season. However he had moved to Florida.

 

[FairWarning]

How do you feel those impact the story?

1. For alternatives, I understand he wants to be able to pray after the game on the field. I'm not sure how private alternatives being offered factor into whether he can pray on the field.

2. Consistency. Again, I understand he wants to pray after the game on the field. Is inconsistency the question?

Idk the answer, but how does this differ from pro athletes doing it in publically funded stadiums?  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Idk the answer, but how does this differ from pro athletes doing it in publically funded stadiums?  

It would be a huge stretch to say the government was establishing a religion because public funds were used on a stadium where somebody prays.  It’s not as big a stretch to say it when a government employee is leading the prayers.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It would be a huge stretch to say the government was establishing a religion because public funds were used on a stadium where somebody prays.  It’s not as big a stretch to say it when a government employee is leading the prayers.

It's fine for the government to build roads that connect to churches.  It is not fine for the government to build churches.  I agree that this is a good way to draw the distinction.

 

[parasaurolophus]

No one knelt against our national flag, or national anthem. The playing of the anthem afforded an opportunity to kneel in protest of the treatment of black Americans by police in this country.

But, you know this already and continue to misrepresent the facts anyway. 

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color"

I mean I am sure you have a different interpretation of what he means when he says that, but at least admit that it is a grey area and your comments about misrepresenting facts is a reach. 

ETA: also... "It was just something – I didn’t agree with what the flag was representing at this time, and you know, if you look at the original picture where people addressed it, I was trying to sit behind the coolers and out of the way."

 

[Snotbubbles]

We need a Venn diagram of people who have a problem with a coach leading students in prayer vs. people who have no objection whatsoever to teachers pushing gender ideology on students. 

Option A: Freely allowing students to participate in a prayer session during an extra-curricular activity

Option B: Captive audience during school hours being forced to listen to a school topic

Don't think they are equivalent.  

 

[Amused to Death]

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color"

I mean I am sure you have a different interpretation of what he means when he says that, but at least admit that it is a grey area and your comments about misrepresenting facts is a reach. 

NFL players kneeling and a high school coach leading a prayer session could not be further from one another. One is a private citizen acting with the full endorsement of his employer. The NFL had no issue with it and the players were not acting as government employees.

A high school coach employed by a public school can not lead state-sponsored prayers. His employer gave him alternatives to accommodate him but he refused.

When Trump tweeted the NFL should fire the players, the collective right cheered. They wanted the employer to put a stop to it. Now when the employer tried to put a stop to it, people complain his rights are being violated even though the Constitution and the SCOTUS fully supported the school.

NFL players <> public employees.

 

[Amused to Death]

Option A: Freely allowing students to participate in a prayer session during an extra-curricular activity

Option B: Captive audience during school hours being forced to listen to a school topic

Don't think they are equivalent.  

Instead, word it as "public school employee refused to lead a prayer circle on his own time in private; opts for public display while on government time".

 

[parasaurolophus]

NFL players kneeling and a high school coach leading a prayer session could not be further from one another. One is a private citizen acting with the full endorsement of his employer. The NFL had no issue with it and the players were not acting as government employees.

A high school coach employed by a public school can not lead state-sponsored prayers. His employer gave him alternatives to accommodate him but he refused.

When Trump tweeted the NFL should fire the players, the collective right cheered. They wanted the employer to put a stop to it. Now when the employer tried to put a stop to it, people complain his rights are being violated even though the Constitution and the SCOTUS fully supported the school.

NFL players <> public employees.

That's great, but who are the Chefs? 

 

[FairWarning]

It would be a huge stretch to say the government was establishing a religion because public funds were used on a stadium where somebody prays.  It’s not as big a stretch to say it when a government employee is leading the prayers.

Was the coach a gov employee?    I don’t know much about the case.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

Instead, word it as "public school employee refused to lead a prayer circle on his own time in private; opts for public display while on government time".

If the game was over, then he wasn't really on "public" time.  Or if he was, then you need to better define what is "public" when he crosses over to "private".  DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the facts of the case but from what you posted above, the school didn't have issue with the actual prayer, but the location, correct.  They offered him a more "private" location to pray.  So if they put him in a private room at the facility, would that be "public" or "private"?  Was the private location on school grounds?  If it was then isn't that an "establishment of religion"?  Is he allowed to wear a shirt that has his school logo when he goes to church or is that an establishment of religion by the school.  When is he a school employee and when is he a private citizen?  When does a football game end?  At the final gun or when the last person leaves the parking lot?  How about if he comes to the facility on a Saturday alone to set up equipment?  Is he allowed to pray then?  What if his kid goes to the school, they both come to the facility on a Saturday, are they allowed to pray then?  What if there were players at the coaches house going over game film.  Is that "public" or is that "private".  Can he pray then?  

EDIT: What if he announces before the prayer that this is not a school sanctioned activity and that anyone who chooses may participate freely?  Is that allowed?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Was the coach a gov employee?    I don’t know much about the case.  

All coaches of public school teams are government employees (or government volunteers if unpaid).

 

[Shula-holic]

All coaches of public school teams are government employees (or government volunteers if unpaid).

Depends, in Alabama many of the powerhouse programs are run by booster clubs and they pay the "supplement" for the coaches.  Legally it may not matter but the funding for that supplement is privately raised.  At poorer and smaller schools I'm sure it's public.  Where I grew up, the coaches got small supplements by sport they coached.  We have quite a few high school coaches making six figures.

 

[Amused to Death]

If the game was over, then he wasn't really on "public" time.  Or if he was, then you need to better define what is "public" when he crosses over to "private".  DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the facts of the case but from what you posted above, the school didn't have issue with the actual prayer, but the location, correct.  They offered him a more "private" location to pray.  So if they put him in a private room at the facility, would that be "public" or "private"?  Was the private location on school grounds?  If it was then isn't that an "establishment of religion"?  Is he allowed to wear a shirt that has his school logo when he goes to church or is that an establishment of religion by the school.  When is he a school employee and when is he a private citizen?  When does a football game end?  At the final gun or when the last person leaves the parking lot?  How about if he comes to the facility on a Saturday alone to set up equipment?  Is he allowed to pray then?  What if his kid goes to the school, they both come to the facility on a Saturday, are they allowed to pray then?  What if there were players at the coaches house going over game film.  Is that "public" or is that "private".  Can he pray then?  

EDIT: What if he announces before the prayer that this is not a school sanctioned activity and that anyone who chooses may participate freely?  Is that allowed?

He was still responsible for the players. He insisted on praying right after the game on the 50 yard line. The school gave options such as praying off the field away from the players and spectators or take the team back to the locker room, wrap up team activities, and return to the field. He was asked to do it in a manner that wouldn't make others feel pressured into participating.

Additionally, another religious group tried to have a prayer circle on the field next to the coach but were denied.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Depends, in Alabama many of the powerhouse programs are run by booster clubs and they pay the "supplement" for the coaches.  Legally it may not matter but the funding for that supplement is privately raised.  At poorer and smaller schools I'm sure it's public.  Where I grew up, the coaches got small supplements by sport they coached.  We have quite a few high school coaches making six figures.

I don’t think the source of funding really matters in determining whether the coach represents the school.

 

[FairWarning]

All coaches of public school teams are government employees (or government volunteers if unpaid).

I did not know that, interesting.

 

[Snotbubbles]

He was still responsible for the players.

Who made this claim?  The school, the courts, the coach?  Also, pertinent to my other questions.  If he had a film study session at his house, is he "responsible for the players"?  Is he allowed to pray at his house, prior to, during or after the film session in front of the students then?  Is this an establishment of religion by a school employee, engaging in a school activity.

The school gave options such as praying off the field away from the players and spectators or take the team back to the locker room, wrap up team activities, and return to the field. He was asked to do it in a manner that wouldn't make others feel pressured into participating.

Sound to me like the school isn't concerned with praying during a school function or the separation of church and state.  They are concerned with "public" displays.  Again, pertinent to my other questions.  If the coach made a disclaimer prior to the prayer that this isn't a school sanctioned activity and that anyone who wanted to participate on their own free will could choose to do so.  Would that absolve the school of liability?  

 

[Amused to Death]

Who made this claim?  The school, the courts, the coach?  Also, pertinent to my other questions.  If he had a film study session at his house, is he "responsible for the players"?  Is he allowed to pray at his house, prior to, during or after the film session in front of the students then?  Is this an establishment of religion by a school employee, engaging in a school activity.

Sound to me like the school isn't concerned with praying during a school function or the separation of church and state.  They are concerned with "public" displays.  Again, pertinent to my other questions.  If the coach made a disclaimer prior to the prayer that this isn't a school sanctioned activity and that anyone who wanted to participate on their own free will could choose to do so.  Would that absolve the school of liability?  

You said you haven't read up on the case and don't know the details. I suggest you do and form your own opinion.

I also noticed you didn't address the other religious group denied the same access as this coach.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If the coach made a disclaimer prior to the prayer that this isn't a school sanctioned activity and that anyone who wanted to participate on their own free will could choose to do so.  Would that absolve the school of liability?  

I don't think there's any possible way for a coach to do this.  He's a school employee leading students in prayer on school grounds at a school activity.  It's totally reasonable for a third party to see that as the state endorsing religion regardless of what the coach says.  His actions speak on his behalf.  

If kids want to get together and pray on their own, even on the 50 yard line, that's fine IMO.  But the coach needs to realize that he's an adult, he's an agent of the state whether he thinks of himself that way or not, his words and actions carry more weight than those of a random person, and he just needs to step aside and remove himself from the situation.  That's not asking much.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I fear that activist Justices are moving us backwards. This should have been settled in 1962.

 

[timschochet]

I don’t believe in slippery slopes. Some folks appear to be arguing that if the decision is made in favor of the coach, that could lead to coercion of future players- they better pray or else, 

If and when coercion ever happens, then it should be dealt with as it’s own situation. But we should look at this case without worrying about what might happen: 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don’t believe in slippery slopes. Some folks appear to be arguing that if the decision is made in favor of the coach, that could lead to coercion of future players- they better pray or else, 

If and when coercion ever happens, then it should be dealt with as it’s own situation. But we should look at this case without worrying about what might happen: 

I think the standard argument here isn't that it's a slippery slope.  It's that this sort of situation is inherently coercive.  The coach in question has already coerced people into prayer.  

A coach has a lot of authority over his players.  He decides who starts and who sits.  He decides who makes the team.  Players know that.  If a coach says "Who wants to pray with me -- it's totally voluntary and I promise this won't affect your standing on the team," it is a fact of life that at least a couple of students on any random 53-man roster will feel compelled to participate in an activity they would prefer to avoid.  We may not know exactly who those students are, but statistically we know they exist.  So we can treat this as presumptively coercive.

 

[quick-hands]

I don’t believe in slippery slopes. Some folks appear to be arguing that if the decision is made in favor of the coach, that could lead to coercion of future players- they better pray or else, 

If and when coercion ever happens, then it should be dealt with as it’s own situation. But we should look at this case without worrying about what might happen: 

This coach had a kid who didn't think the praying was a good idea.   

So the coach punished him by making him captain.

I'd say this is a bad case to build a church/state bell weather.

The sides don't seem to have the same facts.  Instead of different interpretations.

 

[Amused to Death]

The sides don't seem to have the same facts.  Instead of different interpretations.

Its a fact that in 1962 the SCOTUS ruled that school employees can't lead students in prayer.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Am I understanding that the main point for folks is that it's a "public display" of his faith?

 

[Amused to Death]

Am I understanding that the main point for folks is that it's a "public display" of his faith?

I believe the issue is public school sponsored prayer.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I believe the issue is public school sponsored prayer.

Thanks. It's prayer specifically?

He could preach a sermon or teach a bible study without praying and it would be ok?

 

[squistion]

Thanks. It's prayer specifically?

He could preach a sermon or teach a bible study without praying and it would be ok?

No, not on the 50 yard line after a game, that would still be a state sponsored sermon or a state sponsored bible study, violating the separation of church and state concept. State sanctioned religion in a public display of any kind is the problem. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, not on the 50 yard line after a game, that would still be a state sponsored sermon or a state sponsored bible study, violating the separation of church and state concept. State sanctioned religion in a public display of any kind is the problem. 

Thanks. With the bolded, if I'm understanding right, it's the coach essentially endorsing a religion in a public display?

Not necessarily prayer?

 

[quick-hands]

Its a fact that in 1962 the SCOTUS ruled that school employees can't lead students in prayer.

He says he isn't leading them.   He prayed they asked to join.   He said it's a free country they can do what they want.

 

[Amused to Death]

Thanks. It's prayer specifically?

He could preach a sermon or teach a bible study without praying and it would be ok?

The 1962 case seems to address only "prayer". However I believe you would still run into other Constitutional issues for other forms of proselytizing or endorsement of religion.

Lawyerguys, feel free to chime in. 

 

[squistion]

Thanks. With the bolded, if I'm understanding right, it's the coach essentially endorsing a religion in a public display?

Not necessarily prayer?

Yes. 

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I don't think there's any possible way for a coach to do this.  He's a school employee leading students in prayer on school grounds at a school activity.  It's totally reasonable for a third party to see that as the state endorsing religion regardless of what the coach says.  His actions speak on his behalf.  

If kids want to get together and pray on their own, even on the 50 yard line, that's fine IMO.  But the coach needs to realize that he's an adult, he's an agent of the state whether he thinks of himself that way or not, his words and actions carry more weight than those of a random person, and he just needs to step aside and remove himself from the situation.  That's not asking much.

Good post.

I am not even sure why they would hear this case.  Seems like it has already been settled with past law.

 

[Shula-holic]

Thanks. With the bolded, if I'm understanding right, it's the coach essentially endorsing a religion in a public display?

Not necessarily prayer?

The question I have, is if this is the case what about people in religious attire?  Is it ok to display symbols of your religion, such as if this coach carried his Bible with him, a Muslim woman who covers her head, those type things.  There has to be a line somewhere and I'm not sure where it is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The question I have, is if this is the case what about people in religious attire?  Is it ok to display symbols of your religion, such as if this coach carried his Bible with him, a Muslim woman who covers her head, those type things.  There has to be a line somewhere and I'm not sure where it is.

I wondered too. 

Wearing a cross necklace like Mike Tomlin is clearly a public display of his faith. Would Tomlin be able to do that if he were a public high school coach?

 

[Amused to Death]

The question I have, is if this is the case what about people in religious attire?  Is it ok to display symbols of your religion, such as if this coach carried his Bible with him, a Muslim woman who covers her head, those type things.  There has to be a line somewhere and I'm not sure where it is.

I wondered too. 

Wearing a cross necklace like Mike Tomlin is clearly a public display of his faith. Would Tomlin be able to do that if he were a public high school coach?

CAN TEACHERS WEAR RELIGIOUS JEWELRY IN THE CLASSROOM?

Most experts agree that teachers are permitted to wear unobtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or a Star of David. But they should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g., a “Jesus Saves” T-shirt).

 

[Joe Bryant]

CAN TEACHERS WEAR RELIGIOUS JEWELRY IN THE CLASSROOM?

Most experts agree that teachers are permitted to wear unobtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or a Star of David. But they should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g., a “Jesus Saves” T-shirt).

Thanks. That's interesting. A cross necklace is clearly a public display of their religion. 

I could make all the same coercion arguments with the necklace.

 

[Jackstraw]

I wondered too. 

Wearing a cross necklace like Mike Tomlin is clearly a public display of his faith. Would Tomlin be able to do that if he were a public high school coach?

I think the line discussed is compelling people to do things. Does the simple presence of a cross compell someone to do something? But a very public display of public prayer easily could. Coach has power over playing time. Everybody is praying like coach is. Guess I better take a knee too or maybe he'll notice and give Johnny the devout Christian my minutes.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the line discussed is compelling people to do things. Does the simple presence of a cross compell someone to do something? But a very public display of public prayer easily could. Coach has power over playing time. Everybody is praying like coach is. Guess I better take a knee too or maybe he'll notice and give Johnny the devout Christian my minutes.  

The cross is quite a bit more public than a post game prayer as it's displayed for the entire game. 

 

[squistion]

Thanks. That's interesting. A cross necklace is clearly a public display of their religion. 

I could make all the same coercion arguments with the necklace.

Only if players were asked to wear a cross necklace. 

 

[Jackstraw]

Also maybe the more appropriate debate is not whether he CAN but whether he SHOULD. 

 

[Jackstraw]

The cross is quite a bit more public than a post game prayer as it's displayed for the entire game. 

Well I guess you got me. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Thanks. That's interesting. A cross necklace is clearly a public display of their religion. 

I could make all the same coercion arguments with the necklace.

For me the litmus test has been if a government official or law supported a religion other than my own, would I be ok with it. Take it to the extreme, if the coach was a Satanist and held Satanic prayers with students on the playing field immediately before or after a game, would support his right to do it?

If a government official started a meeting with a Satanic prayer, is that ok?

 

[timschochet]

Guess I better take a knee too or maybe he'll notice and give Johnny the devout Christian my minutes.  

You know, I have a real problem calling this coercion. If the kid thinks this, but the coach has no intent of actually doing it, it’s not really coercion is it? Again this is why I don’t like slippery slope arguments. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Only if players were asked to wear a cross necklace. 

I read quickly on the facts of the story. He was asking the other players to pray?