Coach Lead prayer ruled constitutional

[CaughtInThe]

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Roadvirus]

Spamming the thread with big pictures?

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Buckeyes85]

Given your comment above - I have to question whether you actually read the decision.

I have not read the decision. But I did read about the case rather extensively when it was up for oral argument. I will go take a look at it, but give me a head start: what do you think I am missing?

 

[iguanaman]

You didn’t read the facts of the case.

I do not need to read anything. A coach is a leadership position who has inherent power over his players, That fact that leading his players in prayer is coercion is a given and religious services at a State sponsored event is a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Napoleon]

I have not read the decision. But I did read about the case rather extensively when it was up for oral argument. I will go take a look at it, but give me a head start: what do you think I am missing?

The issue of coercion is addressed beginning on page 24.

 

[Roadvirus]

I do not need to read anything.

Which explains why your posts are wrong.

 

[iguanaman]

Which explains why your posts are wrong.

So explain it to me then. This ruling could mean an end to public high school football games. It will likely become too disruptive to continue them and that will be what you deserve.

 

[Roadvirus]

So explain it to me then. This ruling could mean an end to public high school football games. It will likely become too disruptive to continue them.

As long as the prayer is not mandatory, it's fine.

Pretty simple, really. A 2 year old could figure it out.

 

[Napoleon]

I do not need to read anything. A coach is a leadership position who has inherent power over his players, That fact that leading his players in prayer is coercion is a given and religious services at a State sponsored event is a violation of the 1st amendment.

“As it turns out, however, there is a pretty obvious reason why the Ninth Circuit did not adopt this theory in proceedings below: The evidence cannot sustain it. To be sure, this Court has long held that government may not, consistent with a historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause, “make a religious observance compulsory.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952).

Government “may not coerce anyone to attend church,” ibid., nor may it force citizens to engage in “a formal religious ex- ercise,” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 589 (1992). No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.5 Members of this Court have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. Compare Lee, 505 U. S., at 593, with id., at 640–641 (Scalia, J., dissenting). But in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.

Begin with the District’s own contemporaneous descrip- tion of the facts. In its correspondence with Mr. Kennedy, the District never raised coercion concerns. To the contrary, the District conceded in a public 2015 document that there was “no evidence that students [were] directly coerced to pray with Kennedy.” App. 105. This is consistent with Mr. Kennedy’s account too. He has repeatedly stated that he “never coerced, required, or asked any student to pray,” and that he never “told any student that it was important that they participate in any religious activity.” Id., at 170.

Consider, too, the actual requests Mr. Kennedy made. The District did not discipline Mr. Kennedy for engaging in
prayer while presenting locker-room speeches to students. That tradition predated Mr. Kennedy at the school. App. 170. And he willingly ended it, as the District has acknowl- edged. Id., at 77, 170. He also willingly ended his practice of postgame religious talks with his team. Id., at 70, 77, 170–172. The only prayer Mr. Kennedy sought to continue was the kind he had “started out doing” at the beginning of his tenure—the prayer he gave alone. Id., at 293–294. He made clear that he could pray “while the kids were doing the fight song” and “take a knee by [him]self and give thanks and continue on.” Id., at 294. Mr. Kennedy even considered it “acceptable” to say his “prayer while the players were walking to the locker room” or “bus,” and then catch up with his team. Id., at 280, 282; see also id., at 59 (proposing the team leave the field for the prayer). In short, Mr. Kennedy did not seek to direct any prayers to students or require anyone else to participate. His plan was to wait to pray until athletes were occupied, and he “told everybody” that’s what he wished “to do.” Id., at 292. It was for three prayers of this sort alone in October 2015 that the District suspended him. See Parts I–B and I–C, supra.

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.” Lee, 505 U. S., at 590. This Court has long recognized as well that “secondary school students are mature enough . . . to understand that a school does not endorse,” let alone coerce them to participate in, “speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.” Mergens, 496 U. S., at 250 (plurality opinion).”

 

[Slartibartfast]

“As it turns out, however, there is a pretty obvious reason why the Ninth Circuit did not adopt this theory in proceedings below: The evidence cannot sustain it. To be sure, this Court has long held that government may not, consistent with a historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause, “make a religious observance compulsory.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952).

Government “may not coerce anyone to attend church,” ibid., nor may it force citizens to engage in “a formal religious ex- ercise,” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 589 (1992). No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.5 Members of this Court have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. Compare Lee, 505 U. S., at 593, with id., at 640–641 (Scalia, J., dissenting). But in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.

Begin with the District’s own contemporaneous descrip- tion of the facts. In its correspondence with Mr. Kennedy, the District never raised coercion concerns. To the contrary, the District conceded in a public 2015 document that there was “no evidence that students [were] directly coerced to pray with Kennedy.” App. 105. This is consistent with Mr. Kennedy’s account too. He has repeatedly stated that he “never coerced, required, or asked any student to pray,” and that he never “told any student that it was important that they participate in any religious activity.” Id., at 170.

Consider, too, the actual requests Mr. Kennedy made. The District did not discipline Mr. Kennedy for engaging in
prayer while presenting locker-room speeches to students. That tradition predated Mr. Kennedy at the school. App. 170. And he willingly ended it, as the District has acknowl- edged. Id., at 77, 170. He also willingly ended his practice of postgame religious talks with his team. Id., at 70, 77, 170–172. The only prayer Mr. Kennedy sought to continue was the kind he had “started out doing” at the beginning of his tenure—the prayer he gave alone. Id., at 293–294. He made clear that he could pray “while the kids were doing the fight song” and “take a knee by [him]self and give thanks and continue on.” Id., at 294. Mr. Kennedy even considered it “acceptable” to say his “prayer while the players were walking to the locker room” or “bus,” and then catch up with his team. Id., at 280, 282; see also id., at 59 (proposing the team leave the field for the prayer). In short, Mr. Kennedy did not seek to direct any prayers to students or require anyone else to participate. His plan was to wait to pray until athletes were occupied, and he “told everybody” that’s what he wished “to do.” Id., at 292. It was for three prayers of this sort alone in October 2015 that the District suspended him. See Parts I–B and I–C, supra.

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.” Lee, 505 U. S., at 590. This Court has long recognized as well that “secondary school students are mature enough . . . to understand that a school does not endorse,” let alone coerce them to participate in, “speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.” Mergens, 496 U. S., at 250 (plurality opinion).”

Ok, so I read through that and it is certainly an opinion, but it doesn't really address or solve the concern of innate coercion which will not factor in to the formal processes cited by this passage. This is willful blindness on their part in pursuit of ideology.

 

[Buckeyes85]

The issue of coercion is addressed beginning on page 24.

Yea, they gave that lip service as I expected they would. With the suggestion that anything short of direct evidence of direct coercion, all was fine. What a joke. As was the argument that it was his free exercise of his religion that was being infringed upon. Can the 6 justices who voted in his favor really claim that none of the players he coached over the years felt pressure to simply go along with their coach and the other players who did want to participate in the praying? They can't possibly know this.

As is the case with many religious zealots, he wanted to use the opportunity of a crowd having been drawn together to preach his gospel. To the christian right, the free exercise of religion means they should have the right to force their religion on others.

 

[iguanaman]

The issue of coercion is addressed beginning on page 24.

“As it turns out, however, there is a pretty obvious reason why the Ninth Circuit did not adopt this theory in proceedings below: The evidence cannot sustain it. To be sure, this Court has long held that government may not, consistent with a historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause, “make a religious observance compulsory.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952).

Government “may not coerce anyone to attend church,” ibid., nor may it force citizens to engage in “a formal religious ex- ercise,” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 589 (1992). No doubt, too, coercion along these lines was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.5 Members of this Court have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause. Compare Lee, 505 U. S., at 593, with id., at 640–641 (Scalia, J., dissenting). But in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.

Begin with the District’s own contemporaneous descrip- tion of the facts. In its correspondence with Mr. Kennedy, the District never raised coercion concerns. To the contrary, the District conceded in a public 2015 document that there was “no evidence that students [were] directly coerced to pray with Kennedy.” App. 105. This is consistent with Mr. Kennedy’s account too. He has repeatedly stated that he “never coerced, required, or asked any student to pray,” and that he never “told any student that it was important that they participate in any religious activity.” Id., at 170.

Consider, too, the actual requests Mr. Kennedy made. The District did not discipline Mr. Kennedy for engaging in
prayer while presenting locker-room speeches to students. That tradition predated Mr. Kennedy at the school. App. 170. And he willingly ended it, as the District has acknowl- edged. Id., at 77, 170. He also willingly ended his practice of postgame religious talks with his team. Id., at 70, 77, 170–172. The only prayer Mr. Kennedy sought to continue was the kind he had “started out doing” at the beginning of his tenure—the prayer he gave alone. Id., at 293–294. He made clear that he could pray “while the kids were doing the fight song” and “take a knee by [him]self and give thanks and continue on.” Id., at 294. Mr. Kennedy even considered it “acceptable” to say his “prayer while the players were walking to the locker room” or “bus,” and then catch up with his team. Id., at 280, 282; see also id., at 59 (proposing the team leave the field for the prayer). In short, Mr. Kennedy did not seek to direct any prayers to students or require anyone else to participate. His plan was to wait to pray until athletes were occupied, and he “told everybody” that’s what he wished “to do.” Id., at 292. It was for three prayers of this sort alone in October 2015 that the District suspended him. See Parts I–B and I–C, supra.

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.” Lee, 505 U. S., at 590. This Court has long recognized as well that “secondary school students are mature enough . . . to understand that a school does not endorse,” let alone coerce them to participate in, “speech that it merely permits on a nondiscriminatory basis.” Mergens, 496 U. S., at 250 (plurality opinion).”

That is like saying players are not coerced into using the plays the coach gives them. They won't last very long on the team if they don't obey him will they? For that very reason coercion is a given in these situations and no the players won't admit to it either. It goes without saying. If they want to play football on his team they will pray and they will like it.

 

[Napoleon]

Yea, they gave that lip service as I expected they would. With the suggestion that anything short of direct evidence of direct coercion, all was fine. What a joke. As was the argument that it was his free exercise of his religion that was being infringed upon. Can the 6 justices who voted in his favor really claim that none of the players he coached over the years felt pressure to simply go along with their coach and the other players who did want to participate in the praying? They can't possibly know this.

As is the case with many religious zealots, he wanted to use the opportunity of a crowd having been drawn together to preach his gospel. To the christian right, the free exercise of religion means they should have the right to force their religion on others.

There is 0 evidence of it. No student past or contemporaneous to his suspension claimed to have ever been “coerced.” The District openly admitted there was no evidence of coercion. And “coercion” was not cited as the reason for his suspension. In fact, the reason he was suspended is because he prayed on three occasions when none of his players were present.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There is 0 evidence of it. No student past or contemporaneous to his suspension claimed to have ever been “coerced.” The District openly admitted there was no evidence of coercion. And “coercion” was not cited as the reason for his suspension. In fact, the reason he was suspended is because he prayed on three occasions when none of his players were present.

People not speaking up in fear of peer pressure or retaliation? No that's never happened before! /s

 

[Napoleon]

People not speaking up in fear of peer pressure or retaliation? No that's never happened before! /s

What’s your explanation for 7 years worth of players who graduated before this was an issue for the District?

 

[Slartibartfast]

What’s your explanation for 7 years worth of players who graduated?

USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sometimes problems go undetected for years, especially in sports scenarios.

This exact sort of problem is why I think SCOTUS got it wrong by not requiring the school to have a clear "coach time" and "citizen time" policy and signage. That would go a long way here. It would not be perfect, but I would find it at least acceptable.

 

[iguanaman]

There is 0 evidence of it. No student past or contemporaneous to his suspension claimed to have ever been “coerced.” The District openly admitted there was no evidence of coercion. And “coercion” was not cited as the reason for his suspension. In fact, the reason he was suspended is because he prayed on three occasions when none of his players were present.

No player would ever say he was coerced if he wanted to keep playing football on that team. All the players must be forbidden to pray with him or it is coercion. There is NEVER evidence of coercion in a situation like this. That is why it must be assumed.

 

[Napoleon]

No player would ever say he was coerced if he wanted to keep playing football on that team. All the players must be forbidden to pray with him or it is coercion. There is NEVER evidence of coercion in a situation like this. That is why it must be assumed.

You’re just making things up out of whole cloth.

 

[iguanaman]

What’s your explanation for 7 years worth of players who graduated before this was an issue for the District?

He recently started these midfield prayer meetings. They started getting demands for equal time from satanists and decided enough was enough. It was turning football games into a circus and that is exactly what will happen as a result of this ruling.

 

[iguanaman]

You’re just making things up out of whole cloth.

So you think players can refuse to run the coaches plays and still be on the team too? Again you have no clue how sports teams work.

 

[Napoleon]

So you think players can refuse to run the coaches plays and still be on the team too?

See post #66.

 

[iguanaman]

Agree with you here. The school created this nebulous status/timeframe where the coaching staff are technically on-duty but not engaging in any official duties. The Satanic Temple trolls did start picketing the games and demanding field-time. I don’t like the chaos these scenarios unleash.

As long as there are spectators in the stands it is a State sponsored event and the coaches prayers were a part of it. The SC has unleashed a whirlwind so if you do not like chaos then you should not like this ruling. Most Americasn do not want religion rammed down their throat every minute. Meanwhile the coach has made the game secondary to his preaching and that was his goal no doubt. He should be fired for that reason now. He can go teach bible studies somewhere instead.