Praying football coach creates a mess

[genuineoriginal]

I'm sure that's what you'll tell yourself as this coach keeps losing in the courts. :yawn:

If the courts decide the way you expect them to do, then there will be plenty of evidence that the assessment is right.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe the letter of the law is subsuming the spirit.

Part of the spirit of the law is that public school students have a right to public education free of religious coercion.

Goes back to motivation. Is he bearing witness or inviting praise and adulation? He's the only one who can really know, though in general it isn't that hard to tell if you're up close and have any real exposure to him. From our distance we can only give benefit of the doubt or withhold it.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion that he was going out to the middle of the field in order to be seen. I can't think of any other reason for doing so. Even you recognized it as being about "witnessing".

Witness means being seen, but not to self glorify.

What's the intent behind being seen while praying?

Sorry, but I think you're missing the point of the law in your zeal for a letter that suits you. He isn't pigeonholing anyone. This isn't a captive audience and there doesn't appear to be any negative consequence among his players for deciding they'd rather not.

So you don't think there's any pressure to conform and be in line with the coach while on a high school sports team? None at all?

 

[Jose Fly]

If the courts decide the way you expect them to do, then there will be plenty of evidence that the assessment is right.

Right, because that's how you evaluate things. If the courts agree with you, they're doing a good job. If they disagree with you, they're corrupt.

IOW, what's legally right and wrong is based entirely on what you believe.

 

[Town Heretic]

Part of the spirit of the law is that public school students have a right to public education free of religious coercion.

No evidence of coercion here. This isn't a classroom with a captive audience, as I noted. And as one of his players remarked, some kids do and some don't.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion that he was going out to the middle of the field in order to be seen.

I didn't argue the point, though I did distinguish between the point of being seen as self glorification or to bear witness. And I noted the people who know him are in a much better position to know which is which.

I can't think of any other reason for doing so. Even you recognized it as being about "witnessing".

I noted the distinction is about a bit more than the literal or the letter.

What's the intent behind being seen while praying?

Professing and honoring God, if your heart is right on the point.

So you don't think there's any pressure to conform and be in line with the coach while on a high school sports team? None at all?

As he's conducting it? Doesn't appear to be, reasonably. His students don't appear to worry about not following his lead on the point. Those inclined join in and those who don't move on about their business.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Right, because that's how you evaluate things. If the courts agree with you, they're doing a good job. If they disagree with you, they're corrupt.

IOW, what's legally right and wrong is based entirely on what you believe.

You don't seem to know what evidence is.

_____
evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
_____​

While the decisions themselves may be considered as part of the evidence, I am certain that there will be much more evidence than just the decisions.

 

[Traditio]

Yes it is. Why else do you think companies have codes of conduct and dress codes?

You're making a straw man, Mr. Fly. My claim is not that the employee in no way at all is a representative of his employer. My claim is that not everything that an employee does is representative of his employer.

Your claim, "in some sense, an employee is representative of his employer, thus the fact that there are codes of conduct and dress for employees" and my claim, "it is not the case that an employee represents his employer in all that he says and does while on the clock," are not mutually exclusive. They are compossible.

Even if it is true that every employee, as such, in some way represents or acts on behalf of his employer, it need not be true that an employee acts on behalf of his employer in all that he says and does. A janitor acts on behalf of his employer insofar as he wears this uniform, uses these instruments and is sweeping these hallways. A janitor does not act on behalf of his employer in telling a random passerby that he likes oranges.

Nope.

Great, then you ultimately are agreeing with me. An employee need not be taken as representing his employer, even while on the clock, in all that he says and does.

But what if I bought a book on Christianity and the cashier says "Oh, I wouldn't read that. Christianity is nonsense." Do I have a reason to complain to the store manager?

I completely agree, Mr. Fly, that there would be cause to complain. Note, however, that the cause of the complaint is not that the employee is somehow misrepresenting his employer or otherwise is acting on behalf of his employer in an inappropriate way. Your assumption, I can only assume, is that the employee is expressing, on his own behalf, his own personal opinion.

The complaint is not: "The store is promoting anti-Christian sentiments."

The complaint is: "This quarrelsome little worm is placing his nose where it doesn't belong. I just wanted him to ring up my book; what he rings up is none of his danged business."

In fact, note that we assume, in this case, that the employee acts against the interests of his employer. The "stated" interest of the employer is to sell the book.

Thus, even more strongly, why there is cause for complaint: the stated interest of the employer is to sell the book. The raison d'etre of the cashier is to help the employer sell the book, but this intrusive little man is trying to stop me from buying it.

But what if you say "Coffee is of the devil and everyone who drinks it is evil"? I have a feeling the employer might have something to say to you about that.

Very possibly, but note, Mr. Fly, not because I am somehow misrepresenting my employer or acting on behalf of my employer in an inappropriate way. I would be harming the interests of my employer by "scaring off" or unduly offending the "customers," and I would be doing so, note, in a way which is completely unrelated to the "purposes" of my job. I have no philosophical reason to teach people that coffee drinkers are evil.

Yep. Already posted.

Mr. Fly, what I asked was as follows:

You have cited the opinion of the court. Can you provide a defense of that opinion?

What you, in turn, have provided, is as follows:

"Because it's not a criterion for the act to be illegal. In Engel v Vitale, the Supreme Court held that when a school official promotes a religion while on duty, that gives students the impression that the religion is the 'officially approved religion' of the school, which puts 'indirect coercive pressure' on the students to conform."

In other words, I have asked for a defense of the opinion, and you have simply restated it.

Again, I repeat my question: would you care to defend or provide argument for the reasonableness of the court opinion?

Except there's no law or court rulings prohibiting the government from promoting beef jerky. There is OTOH, law and court rulings prohibiting the government from promoting religion.

There is no "law" which prevents government promotion of religion. There is a law which prevents government establishment of religion. There very well may be court rulings which do this, but I do wish to note that the constitutional amendment doesn't.

But I'm sure you'll have some answer to this, and it doesn't really matter anyway, since that isn't really what's in question. The question is whether the coach has acted, in any serious way, as a government representative in his actions. I'm inclined to say "no."

Thus, you can say "I love beef jerky" and even if that is seen as coercive by some students, it's probably no big deal. But if you're a Hindu and say "Eating beef is evil and anyone who does so should be put to death", that's a big deal.

Why? Why shouldn't the hindu be able to express his own opinions as such? If a hindu says: "I think that eating beef is evil and there should be a law requiring the death of beef-eaters," then, as such, he has not acted as a representative of the State. I simply don't see the problem.

So let's examine this case in that light. The coach goes out to the 50 yard line after games and prays. Why the middle of the field? Why immediately after games when most people are still there, including his players?

Obviously the context is a public display of his religion, and there is some expectation for players (students) to join in (otherwise, why not do it after the players have gone home).

That's blatantly illegal.

Again, why should it be illegal? You'll appeal to the disestablishment clause, but I'll answer in turn that the coach isn't acting as a State representative in so doing. Should a Jewish coach be prevented from wearing a yarmulke while on the job? If a Muslim coach is on a bus with his team, and the time comes for him to do his daily prayers, should he abstain simply because he is in the presence of his students?

You'll tell me, Mr. Fly, that there is an "expectation" that the students are expected to join. But to what degree? In what sense?

Would an atheist football player have felt as though his membership on the football team would have been threatened had he simply elected to take refreshment, say, from the gatorade dispenser, while his coach engaged in his public display?

And granted that he would have felt like that, would it have been reasonable for him to have felt like that? Would the coach have given him good reason to feel like that?

So you have no idea at all how a physics teacher telling his class that the laws of physics makes the resurrection of Jesus impossible is coercive or constitutes disfavoring Christianity? No idea at all?

If the physics teacher wishes to explain to his students that a certain doctrine of physics apparently conflicts with a doctrine of Christianity, I see no problem with this, so long as agreement with his doctrine or explanation is not made, in any way, part of the assessment of his course.

Clearly, he disfavors Christianity. But so what? I simply disagree that it constitutes an establishment of religion (or the lack thereof) on the part of the government. And again, I don't see it as inherently coercive.

Likewise, if a Muslim sits in my class, then he'd better be prepared for me to explain why Islam is utterly ridiculous and repugnant to natural reason. But he's perfectly free to disagree with me, and in no sense is his conformity at all relevent to his grade. Gradewise, it simply wouldn't come up.

Unless he starts writing about Muslim nonsense in his papers...but not because it's Muslim nonsense. It would be because he's writing things that are irrelevent to the topic at hand. What I would write in the margin wouldn't be: "Minus 5 points, infidel!" What I would write would be: "Dude, what does this have to do with the topic? I asked you about Aristotle's discussion about the relationship between the sense powers and bodily organs. Why are you yammering on about the Quran? I don't think Aristotle wrote that."

Even so, going back to the physics professor, I think that he should be perfectly free to explain the relationship between the law of physics and his view of why it disagrees with Christian doctrine. And he has every right to expect his students to know the law of physics in question. There's no problem unless he specifically asks them, for the purposes of grading, why it conflicts with Christianity.

Here, educate yourself. http://thelawdictionary.org/coercion/

Quoting your source:

"Compulsion; force; duress. It may be either actual, (direct or positive.) where physical force Is put upon a man to compel him to do an act against his will, or implied, (legal or constructive.) where the relation of the parties is such that one is under subjection to the other, and is thereby constrained to do what his free will would refuse."

Personally, I would have cited Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics to the same effect, but hey, whatever floats your boat. The central point is that coercion is essentially opposed to voluntariness. Coercion implies being "pushed" into doing something that you don't want to do.

If I explain at great lengths just how awesome coffee is, and my students are left with the impression that maybe they should try coffee after all (because drinking coffee seems like a favorable or good thing to try), then I haven't coerced them. If I've presented my students with a carrot, but I haven't held up a stick, there's no coersion.

You're in a private religious school, so the same rules don't apply.

Suppose I were teaching philosophy in high school, or suppose that I were teaching philosophy in a public college. Why should I teach any differently? What's inherently wrong about it?

But don't have a captive audience.

So what? They are still "on the clock" as government employees.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No one said he can't pray.

BREAKING: High school boots praying football coach

He was directed to cease and desist those prayers on Sept. 17th. He was also ordered to avoid kneeling, bowing his head or doing anything that could remotely be seen as religious.

“You violated those directives by engaging in overt, public and demonstrative religious conduct while still on duty as an assistant coach,” Leavell wrote.

Leavell had offered to let the coach engage in “private prayer” following the football games — provided no child could see the coach petitioning the Almighty.

They not only told him that he couldn't lead others in prayer, but also that HE couldn't pray if anyone could see it.

 

[Jose Fly]

No evidence of coercion here. This isn't a classroom with a captive audience, as I noted. And as one of his players remarked, some kids do and some don't.

Again, the fact that he is an authority figure over students and goes out of his way to "witness" as you put it, in a very public way, strongly suggests otherwise.

I didn't argue the point, though I did distinguish between the point of being seen as self glorification or to bear witness. And I noted the people who know him are in a much better position to know which is which.

Legally that's a distinction without a difference. We both agree that he's praying in the middle of the field in order to be seen, including being seen by the players.

As I noted earlier, public school students have a right to participate in school activities without such religious posturing by school officials.

As he's conducting it? Doesn't appear to be, reasonably.

Given case law on this, I'm quite confident that if it goes to court the courts will find his actions to be coercive.

His students don't appear to worry about not following his lead on the point. Those inclined join in and those who don't move on about their business.

Both my kids play sports with the school. There is quite a bit of pressure to conform and fit in with the environment the coach creates. In this case, the coach is going out of his way to create a religious environment around the football team.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're making a straw man, Mr. Fly. My claim is not that the employee in no way at all is a representative of his employer. My claim is that not everything that an employee does is representative of his employer.

So what's the dividing line between when an employee is representing the employer, and when he isn't?

I completely agree, Mr. Fly, that there would be cause to complain. Note, however, that the cause of the complaint is not that the employee is somehow misrepresenting his employer or otherwise is acting on behalf of his employer in an inappropriate way. Your assumption, I can only assume, is that the employee is expressing, on his own behalf, his own personal opinion.

The complaint is not: "The store is promoting anti-Christian sentiments."

The complaint is: "This quarrelsome little worm is placing his nose where it doesn't belong. I just wanted him to ring up my book; what he rings up is none of his danged business."

Why? Why is it the employee's business when he says "I don't like that candy, it's too sour" but not the employees business when he says "I don't like that book, Christianity is nonsense"?

In fact, note that we assume, in this case, that the employee acts against the interests of his employer. The "stated" interest of the employer is to sell the book.

So if you were in line and the customer ahead of you bought a Richard Dawkins book and the cashier said to him "Oh that's a great book. It's so obvious that gods aren't real"? You'd be ok with that?

Very possibly, but note, Mr. Fly, not because I am somehow misrepresenting my employer or acting on behalf of my employer in an inappropriate way. I would be harming the interests of my employer by "scaring off" or unduly offending the "customers," and I would be doing so, note, in a way which is completely unrelated to the "purposes" of my job. I have no philosophical reason to teach people that coffee drinkers are evil.

Ok, so now back to this case. Obviously some students and teachers are offended by this coach's overt public displays of his religion. Do those students and teachers have a right to file a complaint?

In other words, I have asked for a defense of the opinion, and you have simply restated it.

Again, I repeat my question: would you care to defend or provide argument for the reasonableness of the court opinion?

You want me to write up my own legal opinion on an issue that's already been well-litigated and consistently decided? No thanks.

There is no "law" which prevents government promotion of religion. There is a law which prevents government establishment of religion. There very well may be court rulings which do this, but I do wish to note that the constitutional amendment doesn't.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution constitutes law (because the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" as it states).

The question is whether the coach has acted, in any serious way, as a government representative in his actions. I'm inclined to say "no."

I'm sure you do.

Why? Why shouldn't the hindu be able to express his own opinions as such? If a hindu says: "I think that eating beef is evil and there should be a law requiring the death of beef-eaters," then, as such, he has not acted as a representative of the State. I simply don't see the problem.

I guess that's where we differ. I do see a problem with government employees preaching their religion while on the taxpayer's dime.

Again, why should it be illegal? You'll appeal to the disestablishment clause, but I'll answer in turn that the coach isn't acting as a State representative in so doing.

And yours is an extreme minority opinion that has never won in court.

Should a Jewish coach be prevented from wearing a yarmulke while on the job? If a Muslim coach is on a bus with his team, and the time comes for him to do his daily prayers, should he abstain simply because he is in the presence of his students?

You should read this: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/teachers-religious-liberties

You'll tell me, Mr. Fly, that there is an "expectation" that the students are expected to join. But to what degree? In what sense?

The environment of a sports team is one of conformity and cohesion. When the coach goes out of his way to create a religious atmosphere, there is pressure for the players to conform.

Would an atheist football player have felt as though his membership on the football team would have been threatened had he simply elected to take refreshment, say, from the gatorade dispenser, while his coach engaged in his public display?

It doesn't have to go as far as that. If the atheist player felt like his status among his teammates or with his coach is affected by his decision to not conform, that is coercion. The player has a right to play on the school football team without religious coercion.

And granted that he would have felt like that, would it have been reasonable for him to have felt like that? Would the coach have given him good reason to feel like that?

Yep.

If the physics teacher wishes to explain to his students that a certain doctrine of physics apparently conflicts with a doctrine of Christianity, I see no problem with this, so long as agreement with his doctrine or explanation is not made, in any way, part of the assessment of his course.

Well, then again yours is an extreme minority opinion.

Clearly, he disfavors Christianity. But so what? I simply disagree that it constitutes an establishment of religion (or the lack thereof) on the part of the government. And again, I don't see it as inherently coercive.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if a public school teacher trashed Christianity to his students, Christians wouldn't be as "Meh...who cares" as you.

There's no problem unless he specifically asks them, for the purposes of grading, why it conflicts with Christianity.

That's such an odd standard, I don't even know where to begin. You seem to be saying that teachers can say anything they want, as long as it's not on the test it's ok.

Quoting your source:

"Compulsion; force; duress. It may be either actual, (direct or positive.) where physical force Is put upon a man to compel him to do an act against his will, or implied, (legal or constructive.) where the relation of the parties is such that one is under subjection to the other, and is thereby constrained to do what his free will would refuse."

Personally, I would have cited Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics to the same effect, but hey, whatever floats your boat. The central point is that coercion is essentially opposed to voluntariness. Coercion implies being "pushed" into doing something that you don't want to do.

Right, even if the coercion is merely implied. That's the environment this coach is creating (see above).

Suppose I were teaching philosophy in high school, or suppose that I were teaching philosophy in a public college. Why should I teach any differently? What's inherently wrong about it?

You're taking sides with regards to religion. That's illegal.

So what? They are still "on the clock" as government employees.

I suggest you take some time to read case law and opinions on this issue. You're arguing such basic points as to indicate that you really don't know the first thing about the law here.

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, the fact that he is an authority figure over students and goes out of his way to "witness" as you put it, in a very public way, strongly suggests otherwise.

Not given the student response. Now if you told me he took roll or that all of his players participated or that players had complained about it, you'd have some legs. But the players that did comment had something different to say.

Legally that's a distinction without a difference. We both agree that he's praying in the middle of the field in order to be seen, including being seen by the players.

I wasn't speaking legally when I spoke to scripture, in response to your use of praying in public. Legally I think it's a spirit/letter question and I think this is straying to far into the letter and away from the point and spirit.

As I noted earlier, public school students have a right to participate in school activities without such religious posturing by school officials.

I think students shouldn't be pressured to join in any religious observance and I would oppose it in the classroom. I want religious instruction to rest with the parents and not with agents of the state.

But there's no reason to believe that's what's happening here and you're picking the sort of battle that only works against you in the long run.

Given case law on this, I'm quite confident that if it goes to court the courts will find his actions to be coercive.

You might well be correct. We've had S. Ct. rulings that upheld people as property and the unborn as less than human in terms of right and dignity. The rest is wait and see, both how the courts rule and how the people respond. I suspect that if this sort of thing continues it will wake and unify what is still the overwhelming majority of the compact and lead to laws that shouldn't be necessary in order to interject common sense and balance into the equation.

Both my kids play sports with the school. There is quite a bit of pressure to conform and fit in with the environment the coach creates.

Sure, in terms of athletics there's always a culture. I recall it. I actually recall a much more biased and particularly religious time in public and private schools, when there was prayer in the field house and from the booth before games. And you know what? I was an atheist. And remained one until long after I left high school. Was I damaged by what appeared to me as the mythological leanings of the structure? No. Most of my friends believed, my mother believed. And we all managed to coexist without denying anyone the right to exercise conscience. They in prayer and me in abstaining.

The Catholic mothers circle did keep an eye on me though.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not given the student response. Now if you told me he took roll or that all of his players participated or that players had complained about it, you'd have some legs. But the players that did comment had something different to say.

So there's no coercion if everyone goes along? Seems rather self-contradicting.

I think students shouldn't be pressured to join in any religious observance and I would oppose it in the classroom.

And when you're a football coach, the field is your classroom.

But there's no reason to believe that's what's happening here

Sure there is. There's a reason the schools attorney's weighed the risks between getting sued by parents for the coach's actions versus getting sued by the coach for religious discrimination, and quickly decided the former was riskier.

and you're picking the sort of battle that only works against you in the long run.

How so? The country is becoming more secular and less religious every year.

You might well be correct. We've had S. Ct. rulings..

This won't even make it to the SCOTUS. There's far to much legal precedent that is consistently against the coach.

I suspect that if this sort of thing continues it will wake and unify what is still the overwhelming majority of the compact and lead to laws that shouldn't be necessary in order to interject common sense and balance into the equation.

And what law would that be?

Sure, in terms of athletics there's always a culture. I recall it. I actually recall a much more biased and particularly religious time in public and private schools, when there was prayer in the field house and from the booth before games. And you know what? I was an atheist. And remained one until long after I left high school. Was I damaged by what appeared to me as the mythological leanings of the structure? No. Most of my friends believed, my mother believed. And we all managed to coexist without denying anyone the right to exercise conscience. They in prayer and me in abstaining.

The Catholic mothers circle did keep an eye on me though.

Being "damaged" isn't the criterion for illegal coercion. And just because you didn't complain when your rights were violated doesn't mean no one else should.

 

[Town Heretic]

So there's no coercion if everyone goes along? Seems rather self-contradicting.

Everyone doesn't. In fact, one of the Catholic kids that did spoke directly to the fact that many didn't and I noted their apparent lack of concern with that as something that would impact them with the coach or team speaks to the right sort of environment.

And when you're a football coach, the field is your classroom.

No, your course of instruction there and in the field house is. There's nothing magic about standing on grass.

Sure there is. There's a reason the schools attorney's weighed the risks between getting sued by parents for the coach's actions versus getting sued by the coach for religious discrimination, and quickly decided the former was riskier.

That doesn't sustain a reasonable concern that any coercion is happening. It's just a knee-jerk response to the potential for suit. I can understand it and all it takes is one atheist, activist parent to cost them money regardless. But I still think it's wrong headed in the way and for the reasons given prior.

How so?

The vast majority of people identify as Christian. This sort of thing can move even moderate people inclined to agree in principle and oversight into a contrary posture for the reasons I noted.

The country is becoming more secular and less religious every year.

It's incremental and who knows if it will hold. People are less enamored with organized religion to be sure. But the ranks of atheism, by way of, haven't really grown that much. Pew's last, in 2014, had 22.8% religiously unaffiliated, but only 3.1% atheists, 4% agnostic. Meaning that the vast majority of the American landscape belongs to those of faith and Christianity, however dinged the traditional protestant church has been by recent schisms and objections, remains the strong majority within the compact.

This won't even make it to the SCOTUS. There's far to much legal precedent that is consistently against the coach.

You may well be right. But if you are it won't end there and I suspect you're inviting the sort of responsive reconsideration that doesn't really serve your interests in the long run.

And what law would that be?

That's the million dollar question that should have people in your position reconsidering the question.

Being "damaged" isn't the criterion for illegal coercion.

You'll have a great point if I ever argue it is.

And just because you didn't complain when your rights were violated doesn't mean no one else should.

I don't think my rights were being violated. Beyond that, we're talking about where and to what extent we draw a particular line.

 

[Jose Fly]

You lack a command of the facts given. Everyone doesn't. In fact, one of the Catholic kids that did spoke directly to the fact that many didn't and I noted their apparent lack of concern with that as something that would impact them with the coach or team speaks to the right sort of environment.

Again, your argument for lack of coercion is that no one is complaining. That's wrong since students and teachers are complaining (that's how it came to be an issue in the first place).

Do those students and teachers have a right to have their complaints heard?

No, your course of instruction there and in the field house is. There's nothing magic about standing on grass.

????????? So it's inappropriate for a teacher to promote religion in a classroom, but ok for a football coach to do it on a football field? Is there something magic about standing on tile?

That doesn't sustain a reasonable concern that any coercion is happening. It's just a knee-jerk response to the potential for suit.

That's rather convenient hand-waving. Lazy too.

The vast majority of people identify as Christian. This sort of thing can move even moderate people inclined to agree in principle and oversight into a contrary posture for the reasons I noted.

You still haven't specified what you think this will lead to. Apparently you think this is going to generate some sort of uprising among the faithful and they will do.........something.

My question is, what are they going to do? Enact a law saying school officials should be able to promote religion at school? That's laughably unconstitutional and will quickly get shot down.

You may well be right. But if you are it won't end there and I suspect you're inviting the sort of responsive reconsideration that doesn't really server your interests in the long run.

I still have no idea what you think is going to happen. Just......something. :idunno:

That's the million dollar question that should have people in your position reconsidering the question.

So I should reconsider whether school officials should be allowed to promote religion at school, because if they aren't, Christians may rise up and do........something.

The right to determine that people of faith should check that defining context at the door? Sorry, but that's absurd.

It's absurd to expect students to be able to attend public schools and get an education that's free of religious indoctrination? What exactly do you want? Taxpayer-funded religious schools?

And if you angle for that I suspect you're doing your enemies on the point a favor.

Right....because they'll do......something.

 

[Jose Fly]

Something to consider about this case...

When the coach goes out to the middle of the field and prays in front of everyone, including the team, he's putting the players in a position where they have to decide, "Do I go join him, or not".

Public schools should not be putting students in such a position.

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, your argument for lack of coercion is that no one is complaining.

You're mistaken, or just misstating. It's more than that, as I noted by the apparent freedom and want of concern his student-athletes feel as some participate and others don't. That or he does a horrible job of coercing his players. A coach who wants or expects his players to be in that prayer will have them there. And were that the case, as I said, I'd have a different response.

Here's how the school district is couching it now:

"While attending games may be voluntary for most students, students required to be present by virtue of their participation in football or cheerleading will necessarily suffer a degree of coercion to participate in religious activity when their coaches lead or endorse it," Bremerton School District said.​

Well, attending games is entirely voluntary, though that shouldn't be the point, as are both cheerleading and playing football. The point appears to be what constitutes the "degree of coercion" and "suffering" and whether that belief is reasonable.

That's wrong since students and teachers are complaining (that's how it came to be an issue in the first place).

Which students? Which teachers? The 17 year old who doesn't play on the team but who invited the circus and declared:

"The main reason I did it is to portray to the school district that I think we should either have a policy that we're not going to have any religious affiliation or public religious practices, or they should say people are going to be allowed to practice their religion publicly whatever their beliefs. They need to either go black or white."​

And he sums the problem, if not in the way he means. Extremists are running too much of the reason and reasonable out of the public square, on either side of the equation. No, it doesn't have to be all or nothing in terms of balancing religious liberty against restrictions of the state. It only looks that way to the fringe.

Do those students and teachers have a right to have their complaints heard?

Everyone should be heard. But let's not make this a mass movement from within just yet.

????????? So it's inappropriate for a teacher to promote religion in a classroom, but ok for a football coach to do it on a football field? Is there something magic about standing on tile?

There's something specific about instruction in a compulsory environment and something different about the want of active instruction and a completely voluntary setting. I was pretty clear about that.

That's rather convenient hand-waving. Lazy too.

Rather, it's just a cost/benefit analysis. That's what tends to drive large entities more than principle.

You still haven't specified what you think this will lead to.

Didn't seem necessary. We're talking very specifically. You're already seeing states begin the push back process with laws of exemption in other matters relating to exercise. Not that hard to craft one for this circumstance. Sorry to rob you of a refrain.

It's absurd to expect students to be able to attend public schools and get an education that's free of religious indoctrination? What exactly do you want? Taxpayer-funded religious schools?

Someone saying a prayer at midfield after a football game, a prayer no one is required to join and which some students choose to forgo, apparently without concern for their position on the team is now, in the hypersensitive lexicon of the radical mind a "religious indoctrination"?

It's that ardently unreasonable approach that endangers the reasonable.

 

[ok doser]

As I noted earlier, public school students have a right to participate in school activities without such religious posturing by school officials.

really?

which right is that?

Legally I think it's a spirit/letter question and I think this is straying to far into the letter and away from the point and spirit.

i disagree - i'd like to see it driven back to a strict reading of the letter of the law:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

the pertinent words being "Congress" and "establishment"

ain't nothing in there about high school coaches leading voluntary prayer sessions

 

[serpentdove]

...[H]e didn't lead anyone in prayer, they chose to go out there and join in on their own.

Ro 1:16, Jn 8:36 :straight:

Canada ranks first in world for personal freedom and social tolerance

 

[Jose Fly]

UPDATE:

Bremerton School District Declines to Renew Coach's Contract

Kennedy, an assistant football coach at Bremerton High School, was put on paid leave Oct. 28, just before a playoff game, for defying the district's ban against prayer on the field. On Tuesday, Kennedy said the district has declined to renew his contract.

And in response, Kennedy has filed a religious discrimination complaint against the district. Anyone wanna take bets on how this will end up?

 

[ok doser]

Anyone wanna take bets on how this will end up?

with you getting banned for gloating?

 

[oatmeal]

In Bremerton, WA, there's this high school football coach, Joe Kennedy, who would lead the team in prayer after games. The FFRF complained, and the Superintendent of the school issued a statement saying the the coach is a good guy, just didn't realize he was breaking the law, and had agreed to stop leading prayers at school events.

But then the coach consulted with the Liberty Institute (after the ACLJ turned him down) and they advised him to go ahead and lead the team in prayer anyways. So he did. The school then said they were "negotiating" with the coach and his legal team. Well, now it's getting messy...

The coach is now suing the school for "refusing to let him pray". Anyone wanna take bets on how well that will go? :chuckle:

To add fuel to the fire, the Satanic Temple of Seattle is going to be at the next game and attempt to pray on the field alongside the coach. This was at the request of a student at the school. Here is what the Satanists have said...



Get some popcorn....this is going to be entertaining! opcorn:

It's ok for an atheist to give input on a theology website, but not ok for a Christian to give his input alone on a football field?