Coach Lead prayer ruled constitutional

[poweRob]

 

[NotreDame]

Whose argument are you quoting there?
I stand by the statement: it is false to claim that to establish a violation of the establishment clause, evidence of actual coercion must be shown. If you can find a supreme court decision prior to this court to make such a ruling, please let me know.

Prior to discontinuing the practice, this coach (and perhaps others before him) had for years led pre game prayers in the locker room, and post game motivational speeches laced with overtly religious messages. Were those not violative of the establishment clause because no player or coach stepped forward to claim they felt coerced or compelled to participate?

The District’s argument.

it is false to claim that to establish a violation of the establishment clause, evidence of actual coercion must be shown. If you can find a supreme court decision prior to this court to make such a ruling, please let me know.

Move the goal posts much? Previously you commented, “No, in fact it's not necessary for others to show coercion did happen.”

Your statement in the quotes is different from the prior comment.

Regardless, I have no interest entertaining your shifting view. No interest to entertain your now nascent “actual coercion” qualification.

Your claim, your burden, you find a case for your view in the quote tags.

Regardless, what I can say is the District alleged coercion and the lack of evidence doomed their argument, regardless of your rephrasing your statement to include “actual coercion.”

“the District offers a backup argument in this Court. It still contends that its Establishment Clause con- cerns trump Mr. Kennedy’s free exercise and free speech rights. But the District now seeks to supply different reasoning for that result. Now, it says, it was justified in sup- pressing Mr. Kennedy’s religious activity because otherwise it would have been guilty of coercing students to pray. See Brief for Respondent 34–37. And, the District says, coercing worship amounts to an Establishment Clause violation on anyone’s account of the Clause’s original meaning.

As it turns out, however, there is a pretty obvious reason why the Ninth Circuit did not adopt this theory in proceed- ings below: The evidence cannot sustain it.”

Gorsuch then observes not only is there not any evidence of coercion but also the District conceded no evidence of coercion in 2015. “District conceded in a public 2015 document that there was “no evidence that students [were] directly coerced to pray with Kennedy.”

And the District’s concession was not in conflict with the coach’s statements. “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…There is no indication in the record that anyone expressed any coercion concerns to the District about the quiet, postgame prayers that Mr. Kennedy asked to continue and that led to his suspension. Nor is there any record evidence that students felt pressured to participate in these prayers.”

Gorsuch, in stating the lack of evidence supporting coercion means thr coercion argument must fail, addressed another angle of coercion advanced by the District.

“The absence of evidence of coercion in this record leaves the District to its final redoubt…District suggests that any visible religious conduct by a teacher or coach should be deemed—without more and as a matter of law— impermissibly coercive on students.” Hmm…a familiar argument made by some in this thread.

Rejecting the argument Gorsuch wrote, inter alia, “Such a rule would be a sure sign that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence had gone off the rails…no evidence anyone sought to per- suade or force students to participate, and there is no for- mal school program accommodating the religious activity at issue…”

While repudiating the District allegation of coercion because of no evidence for coercion, Gorsuch notes to at least two school coercion cases and observed those two cases had different facts than this case, the facts of those cases supporting coercion.

So, what I can safely deduce is the following. I can assume, arguendo, “evidence” of “coercion” or “evidence” suppoting “coercion” isn’t necessary to show a violation of the Establishment Clause, but a lack of it is fatal, which necessarily means it is oh so wise to have supporting evidence for a claim of coercion under the Establishment Clause.

 

[NotreDame]

In the other parts of my argument, I see no reason to make a change to my stance at this time. I say the coercion aspect has to be assumed unless actively disproved. The facts of the case used the opposite logic and therefore were not convincing.

school could have avoided this with clearer policy and/or signage about when the coach hat is on and when the citizen hat is on.

Well, let me perhaps be the first to respond with, so what? You speculate and guess a “sign” or “policy” “could have avoided this”.

This reasoning labors under the eternally optimistic assumption that wider members of the public are content to accept what the school has to say regarding when the coach is a coach while praying as opposed to a praying as a citizen. Little to no probability wider members of the public could disagree with the District’s “clear policy” or “signage.”

Yet, oozing incredulity is justified given the significant replies by objectors here and in wider society that the Court was mistaken to hold the coach wasn’t acting as coach when he prayed. A lack of deference to the Supreme Court strongly supports the notion at some point people in the wider public wouldn’t be deferential to a sign or policy by the District.

You also assume the coach would accept what the school had to say by policy/sign. Yet, the school did seek to establish a policy the coach was still coach during the time he sought to pray and the coach and his attorneys said bullocks.

The exercise of the doctrine of Molinism, of what could have happened under a different state of affairs, is rightly reserved to the realm of deities as a general matter.

I say the coercion aspect has to be assumed unless actively disproved.

Lol…oh it is so convenient and easy to assume some fact about this reality exist, occurred, that we like and want to assume.

Here’s a thought, a concerse of your logic. A theist says, “I say the coercion aspect has to be assumed to not exist.”

That statement is equal to your own. Neither your assumption of reality or the theists is superior to the other.

Assuming some fact about reality permits one to never have to confront the horrific realization their assumptions of some factual reality are false, inaccurate. Assuming facts about reality dispenses with the necessity to look for facts, especially facts contrary to their assumption or the lack of them for their assumption about reality.

Here’s a thought. “I say the coercion aspect has to be” demonstrated and not “assumed.” There’s no sound logic to assume “coercion” existed. None. There’s no sound logic to assume facts about this reality are indeed facts.

You’ve turned the burden of proof on its head. The burden of proof exists, in part, to ensure or facilitate the introduction of evidence, reasoning, to support a claim, conclusion, theory, pertaining to what is fact, reality; and there t establishing the likely truth, to such a degree, of the claim, theory, conclusion, that people and society can confidently accept as true that which is claimed/theorized to be factual, reality, and act upon it and act accordingly.

Rather than meet a burden of coercion, you just “assume” it. Needless to say, that isn’t logical.

Logically, an assumption is properly rejected as false or not accepted where there is a lack of evidence to support the assumption. There isn’t evidence of coercion here. So your assumption lacks evidentiary support, doesn’t have any.

The facts of the case used the opposite logic and therefore were not convincing.

Yeah? How so?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well, let me perhaps be the first to respond with, so what? You speculate and guess a “sign” or “policy” “could have avoided this”.

This reasoning labors under the eternally optimistic assumption that wider members of the public are content to accept what the school has to say regarding when the coach is a coach while praying as opposed to a praying as a citizen. Little to no probability wider members of the public could disagree with the District’s “clear policy” or “signage.”

Yet, oozing incredulity is justified given the significant replies by objectors here and in wider society that the Court was mistaken to hold the coach wasn’t acting as coach when he prayed. A lack of deference to the Supreme Court strongly supports the notion at some point people in the wider public wouldn’t be deferential to a sign or policy by the District.

You also assume the coach would accept what the school had to say by policy/sign. Yet, the school did seek to establish a policy the coach was still coach during the time he sought to pray and the coach and his attorneys said bullocks.

The exercise of the doctrine of Molinism, of what could have happened under a different state of affairs, is rightly reserved to the realm of deities as a general matter.



Lol…oh it is so convenient and easy to assume some fact about this reality exist, occurred, that we like and want to assume.

Here’s a thought, a concerse of your logic. A theist says, “I say the coercion aspect has to be assumed to not exist.”

That statement is equal to your own. Neither your assumption of reality or the theists is superior to the other.

Assuming some fact about reality permits one to never have to confront the horrific realization their assumptions of some factual reality are false, inaccurate. Assuming facts about reality dispenses with the necessity to look for facts, especially facts contrary to their assumption or the lack of them for their assumption about reality.

Here’s a thought. “I say the coercion aspect has to be” demonstrated and not “assumed.” There’s no sound logic to assume “coercion” existed. None. There’s no sound logic to assume facts about this reality are indeed facts.

You’ve turned the burden of proof on its head. The burden of proof exists, in part, to ensure or facilitate the introduction of evidence, reasoning, to support a claim, conclusion, theory, pertaining to what is fact, reality; and there t establishing the likely truth, to such a degree, of the claim, theory, conclusion, that people and society can confidently accept as true that which is claimed/theorized to be factual, reality, and act upon it and act accordingly.

Rather than meet a burden of coercion, you just “assume” it. Needless to say, that isn’t logical.

Logically, an assumption is properly rejected as false or not accepted where there is a lack of evidence to support the assumption. There isn’t evidence of coercion here. So your assumption lacks evidentiary support, doesn’t have any.



Yeah? How so?

This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up to avoid a middle. There’s a lot of “suppose” in there.

You got anything more grounded and less “what if” like?

Also i
Life experience has taught me there is almost always coercion in these scenarios. I accept that this SCOTUS will curate reasoning as they see fit to ensure their agenda.l though. I have no expectation otherwise and society will simply have to clean itself up after once better balance is achieved in a generation or two.

 

[Cope]

He has a very broad right to pray, pretty much anywhere he wants when he wants.
What he does not necessarily have a right to do is use school property, while still in his coach uniform, to convey his religious message. And no, I don't care that there were times he was by himself on one knee. If god/jesus exist, I'm sure they can hear him just fine without him needing to be at midfield with a crowd. But he demanded to be able to do it at midfield, in uniform, right after the game because HE wanted to do a public message.

I understand. So, for the very broad right that he has, we are talking about limiting it.
For me, to impose a limit, on time and place, there should be a very bright line that is blinking that says 'do not cross'.

Again for me, that bright line is you have a right to pray, anywhere and at any time (as long as that time is your own). After the game was over, his time was his own and not the States/Schools. He has a right to pray AT school (probably with a time limitation ala ... not on duty), since the school is a public domain. He would have less right to that in a privately owned place, to me.
Yes, he likely wanted the publicity, but that doesn't make it immoral or illegal, or unconstitutional.
I likely would be ok imposing stricter limits to signify that bright line better. Things like 'not in uniform' would probably be an easy one, but school property is public and would be a much harder sell.

 

[Cope]

This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up to avoid a middle. There’s a lot of “suppose” in there.

You got anything more grounded and less “what if” like?

Also i
Life experience has taught me there is almost always coercion in these scenarios. I accept that this SCOTUS will curate reasoning as they see fit to ensure their agenda.l though. I have no expectation otherwise and society will simply have to clean itself up after once better balance is achieved in a generation or two.

Which is why that false premise leads you astray. Until and unless you can PROVE coercion, it simply does not exist as an argument, and rightly the courts dismissed the claim.
You just KNOWING, isn't good enough to use as an argument against a very broad right, enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Which is why that false premise leads you astray. Until and unless you can PROVE coercion, it simply does not exist as an argument, and rightly the courts dismissed the claim.

The courts are wrong then.

You just KNOWING, isn't good enough to use as an argument against a very broad right, enshrined in the Constitution.

It is only as broad or narrow as the current SCOTUS mission statement wishes it to be. Only interpretation matters as the SCOTUS is now just another ideological battleground thanks to McConnell's truck with Garland.

 

[Cope]

The courts are wrong then.

How so? Do you wish to live in a world where you don't have to prove coercion (or really ANY accusation) , because you know in your heart of hearts that it MUST exist?
That would basiocally toss all of our laws out the window.

It is only as broad or narrow as the current SCOTUS mission statement wishes it to be. Only interpretation matters as the SCOTUS is now just another ideological battleground thanks to McConnell's truck with Garland.

Whether it is or isn't ideological (and you haven't convinced me), the real issue here is that the invention of rights (or dismissing of them) should not be done by the courts. When the Democrats held that majority there was much screeching by the Republicans about the invention of such and legislating from the bench. Now that the Republicans hold the majority, the tables have turned.

Want laws the way you want them? PASS A LAW. Those laws need to have clear demarcations that do not run afoul of the Constitution. (Like so many of the gun control laws do)

When you start with a desire to limit something, you must first get past the Constitution (if applicable) and then move from there.

 

[Slartibartfast]

How so? Do you wish to live in a world where you don't have to prove coercion (or really ANY accusation) , because you know in your heart of hearts that it MUST exist?
That would basiocally toss all of our laws out the window.

In this type of scenario, yes. Otherwise it puts us in a place where we need things like a #metoo movement which should not happen.

Whether it is or isn't ideological (and you haven't convinced me), the real issue here is that the invention of rights (or dismissing of them) should not be done by the courts. When the Democrats held that majority there was much screeching by the Republicans about the invention of such and legislating from the bench. Now that the Republicans hold the majority, the tables have turned.

Want laws the way you want them? PASS A LAW. Those laws need to have clear demarcations that do not run afoul of the Constitution. (Like so many of the gun control laws do)

When you start with a desire to limit something, you must first get past the Constitution (if applicable) and then move from there.

I don't care about convincing you.

I am simply telling it how it is based on the current state of US culture. You will either accept it or be surprised later on once you figure it out for yourself.

 

[Cope]

In this type of scenario, yes. Otherwise it puts us in a place where we need things like a #metoo movement which should not happen.

Is #metoo infallible in that they are guilty once accused? You believe them, but then you still have to PROVE it.

I don't care about convincing you.

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince a whole lot more people than just me (unless you are just screeching in the wind)

I am simply telling it how it is based on the current state of US culture. You will either accept it or be surprised later on once you figure it out for yourself.

Ahh, ok screeching it is.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Is #metoo infallible in that they are guilty once accused? You believe them, but then you still have to PROVE it.

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince a whole lot more people than just me (unless you are just screeching in the wind)

Ahh, ok screeching it is.

Popular sentiment is already changing.

 

[Cope]

Popular sentiment is already changing.

That and $2 will buy you a coffee.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That and $2 will buy you a coffee.

There is no direct and personal economic result in this for me, so technically you are correct.

 

[NotreDame]

This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up to avoid a middle. There’s a lot of “suppose” in there.

You got anything more grounded and less “what if” like?

Also i
Life experience has taught me there is almost always coercion in these scenarios. I accept that this SCOTUS will curate reasoning as they see fit to ensure their agenda.l though. I have no expectation otherwise and society will simply have to clean itself up after once better balance is achieved in a generation or two.

This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up to avoid a middle. There’s a lot of “suppose” in there.

“This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up” since the use of “suppose” and the amount of use isn’t a refutation.

Yet, my post is conspicuously devoid of the word or reliance upon its mechanics.

Which I’ll also add, your asinine argument is nothing more than a “supposing” this could have been avoided with a sign or policy by the District. Hi Pot, how often do you hypocritically criticize the Kettle for being black?

The word “I” and it’s mechanics use appears in copious amounts in your post, hence, your post is what bulls excrete out their anus in fields. That’s your logic.

Conspicuously devoid from your post is any rational engagement of what I said.

You got anything more grounded and less “what if” like?

Hi Pot, how often do you hypocritically criticize the Kettle for being black?

Your argument of signage/policy avoids this result is entirely speculative, a “what if.” You haven’t the slightest idea whether in fact such a sign/policy avoids this result. Your surmising, guessing, “what if” all day by you.

And your argument ignores the fact the District DID institute a policy and “this” manifested anyway, despite your guess such a policy “could have” avoided “this.”

And you ar delusion to think a use of “what if” is a flaw. “What if” is used in academia and professional fields to discern BS like your post from reality or what is reality or likely true. “What if” is used in the field of philosophy, law, science, physics, to name a few, and for very good reason, “what ifs” permit analysis of the logic/argument/ evidence, to be examined for reasonable outcomes, rational outcomes, to acquire an idea of how applicable some logic, evidence, is in a wider scale, wider application, to other factual scenarios.

But go ahead, tell me how “what if” is a flaw. This will be entertaining.

And you’ve not properly understood what I wrote, assuming you read the entirety of what I said, as my reply relies significantly upon more than “what if.”

Life experience has taught me there is almost always coercion in these scenarios.

Thank you for the at best minimally relevant anecdotal experience you have had. And given the ostensible breadth of the meaning of coercion you rely upon, your remark isn’t surprising.

All is needed now is to trot someone here who can say,” Life experience has taught me there is almost always no coercion in these scenarios.” Such a comment is at best minimally relevant as your own.

The facts, the evidence, is this reality has no evidence of coercion in this case, where coercion is not your more expansive view to conform to your beliefs.

 

[Slartibartfast]

“This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up” since the use of “suppose” and the amount of use isn’t a refutation.

Yet, my post is conspicuously devoid of the word or reliance upon its mechanics.

Which I’ll also add, your asinine argument is nothing more than a “supposing” this could have been avoided with a sign or policy by the District. Hi Pot, how often do you hypocritically criticize the Kettle for being black?

The word “I” and it’s mechanics use appears in copious amounts in your post, hence, your post is what bulls excrete out their anus in fields. That’s your logic.

Conspicuously devoid from your post is any rational engagement of what I said.

I have already responded to this in an earlier post, you are just repeating yourself here without advancing your argument in light of my rebuttal. #178.

And you’ve not properly understood what I wrote, assuming you read the entirety of what I said, as my reply relies significantly upon more than “what if.”

Its not a hypothetical, its something the current SCOTUS decided to be blind to in their ideological quest and has turned up in many past cases.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/04/supreme-court-may-allow-teacher-led-prayer-in-public-school.html

Precedent favors the school district, says Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor of law at the University of Miami in Florida, but if enough justices disagree, the Court could leave public schools vulnerable to religious displays from staff and educators. That would place religious minorities in a difficult position. Even if they aren’t forced to participate in prayer, social pressure could coerce them into feeling as though they must.


“The thing to understand is that there is a religious-liberty interest on both sides of the equation,” Corbin tells me. “Also at stake are students’ religious-liberty rights. And one thing the establishment clause is meant to protect them from is being forced into religious exercises if they don’t want to.”


The social pressure to join in a school-sponsored religious display can be intense, as shown by the details of the Bremerton case. A parent complained that his atheist son “felt compelled to participate” in the prayer, and that “he felt he wouldn’t get to play as much” if he did not. “There was a lot of pressure on students to join these prayers,” Corbin points out. “Granted, it’s not legal coercion in that they will be punished by the school, but the peer pressure is enormous.”


Equally great is the pressure that emanates from a figure like a football coach. “Players’ coaches wield an enormous amount of power because they’re huge authority figures, and they hold so many serious benefits, from playing time to access to scholarships,” says Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represents the Bremerton School District (and where, full disclosure, I used to work). “So students feel compelled to join their coach when he heads to a place that is ritualistically a time for the team to gather, and starts praying.”

 

[NotreDame]

I have already responded to this in an earlier post, you are just repeating yourself here without advancing your argument in light of my rebuttal. #178.

Self. Double post

 

[SCrider]

Actually, some players have come out to say it was not peer pressure, but pressure for the coach. If you wanted to be a good teammate, ie. wanted to play, you would come and be in on the prayer circle.

I would not be surprised by that at all. Show christians have are led to believe they have tp push everyone around them into their cult.

 

[NotreDame]

I have already responded to this in an earlier post, you are just repeating yourself here without advancing your argument in light of my rebuttal. #178.

@tacomancer

Self-serving typing. Yes, you “responded” but did not address my substantive argument to your post. Your nonsense you call a rebuttal is here.
Post in thread 'Coach Lead prayer ruled constitutional'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/coach-lead-prayer-ruled-constitutional.484754/post-1076178652

There’s nothing in your post constituting a rebuttal. Show I am wrong.

Its not a hypothetical, its something the current SCOTUS decided to be blind to in their ideological quest and has turned up in many past cases.

Confused a bit are we?

Let’s review. You said, as your “rebuttal.”

This comment reminds me of the chaff a plane throws up to avoid a middle. There’s a lot of “suppose” in there. You got anything more grounded and less “what if” like?

In responding to your reply, which isn’t a rebuttal, I said, “Hi Pot, how often do you hypocritically criticize the Kettle for being black? Your argument of signage/policy avoids this result is entirely speculative, a “what if.” You haven’t the slightest idea whether in fact such a sign/policy avoids this result. Your surmising, guessing, “what if” all day by you.”

Indeed, your hypocrisy of “the school could have avoided this with clearer policy and/or signage about when the coach hat is on and when the citizen hat is on” is a “what if” you mocked.

As I said, if you were a deity endowed with Middle Knowledge, you’d know whether the state of affairs you mentioned has a different result. But you are guessing, speculating, surmising a different result, a “what if.”

And there are facts, evidence, your “woulda, coulda” “what if” “clearer policy and/or signage” would not very likely “have avoided this” since the school instituted a policy, detailing when he is a coach and as a result when prayer isn’t private, specifically for the coach, and the coach and his lawyers sued anyway.

Your “could have avoided” was vacuous because the school did the very thing you suggested, a clear policy, and they were sued anyway.

What your “could have” assumes is that the coach or other people with firmly held beliefs as to what is right or wrong here will settle for what the school decides. But the long history of lawsuits challenging school policy and school rules demonstrates this assumption is faulty.

And SCOTUS was not “blind to” the policy in decision, but specifically enaged and addressed the substance of the policy in demonstrating how and why the policy violated the coach’s rights.

 

[NotreDame]

The social pressure to join in a school-sponsored religious display can be intense, as shown by the details of the Bremerton case. A parent complained that his atheist son “felt compelled to participate” in the prayer, and that “he felt he wouldn’t get to play as much” if he did not. “There was a lot of pressure on students to join these prayers,” Corbin points out. “Granted, it’s not legal coercion in that they will be punished by the school, but the peer pressure is enormous.”

Precedent favors the school district, says Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor of law at the University of Miami in Florida

Does it?

She can say “precedent favors the school district” but that doesn’t make it any more true or factual than the Creationist claiming, “evidence and facts favors Creationism.”

So, what precedent does she reference? And it is interesting because the majority opinion goes through precedent and uses the precedent to arrive at their decision.

“Also at stake are students’ religious-liberty rights. And one thing the establishment clause is meant to protect them from is being forced into religious exercises if they don’t want to.”

The social pressure to join in a school-sponsored religious display can be intense, as shown by the details of the Bremerton case. A parent complained that his atheist son “felt compelled to participate” in the prayer, and that “he felt he wouldn’t get to play as much” if he did not. “There was a lot of pressure on students to join these prayers,” Corbin points out. “Granted, it’s not legal coercion in that they will be punished by the school, but the peer pressure is enormous.”

Equally great is the pressure that emanates from a figure like a football coach. “Players’ coaches wield an enormous amount of power because they’re huge authority figures, and they hold so many serious benefits, from playing time to access to scholarships,” says Rachel Laser, the president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represents the Bremerton School District (and where, full disclosure, I used to work). “So students feel compelled to join their coach when he heads to a place that is ritualistically a time for the team to gather, and starts praying.”

The bolded portion is the point made by the majority, there wasn’t “legal pressure” here in that the coach didn’t demand, compel, threaten, force or ask players to join him in prayer.

Hence, there wasn’t any any evidence or facts kd pressure amounting to a constitutional violation by a state actor, such as this public school coach. Neither was there any evidence or facts coercion, force, by the coach to compel player participation.

The comments above are focusing upon what is an inherent aspect of organized sports, coaches hold the keys to playing time and players feel the pressure to perform and impress the coach. This may result in players formulating ideations in their own mind of what will or will not earn them playing time, that are mistaken and erroneous.

Hence, players stating they felt “pressured” to read “Catcher in the Rye” after every practice for 5 minutes because the head coach did so ritualistically in view of the players as they left after practice, otherwise playing time might vanish, is not coercion, force, by the coach onto the players.

And the atheist player just surmised in their own mind a connection between participating and playing time, the feeling of “compelled” originating with himself, in his own thoughts, and thrusting upon themself compulsion in their own mind.

 

[Slartibartfast]

@tacomancer

Self-serving typing. Yes, you “responded” but did not address my substantive argument to your post. Your nonsense you call a rebuttal is here.
Post in thread 'Coach Lead prayer ruled constitutional'
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/coach-lead-prayer-ruled-constitutional.484754/post-1076178652

There’s nothing in your post constituting a rebuttal. Show I am wrong.


Confused a bit are we?

Let’s review. You said, as your “rebuttal.”



In responding to your reply, which isn’t a rebuttal, I said, “Hi Pot, how often do you hypocritically criticize the Kettle for being black? Your argument of signage/policy avoids this result is entirely speculative, a “what if.” You haven’t the slightest idea whether in fact such a sign/policy avoids this result. Your surmising, guessing, “what if” all day by you.”

Indeed, your hypocrisy of “the school could have avoided this with clearer policy and/or signage about when the coach hat is on and when the citizen hat is on” is a “what if” you mocked.

As I said, if you were a deity endowed with Middle Knowledge, you’d know whether the state of affairs you mentioned has a different result. But you are guessing, speculating, surmising a different result, a “what if.”

And there are facts, evidence, your “woulda, coulda” “what if” “clearer policy and/or signage” would not very likely “have avoided this” since the school instituted a policy, detailing when he is a coach and as a result when prayer isn’t private, specifically for the coach, and the coach and his lawyers sued anyway.

Your “could have avoided” was vacuous because the school did the very thing you suggested, a clear policy, and they were sued anyway.

What your “could have” assumes is that the coach or other people with firmly held beliefs as to what is right or wrong here will settle for what the school decides. But the long history of lawsuits challenging school policy and school rules demonstrates this assumption is faulty.

And SCOTUS was not “blind to” the policy in decision, but specifically enaged and addressed the substance of the policy in demonstrating how and why the policy violated the coach’s rights.

We simply see things differently here. I believe I have sufficiently supported my case, you believe otherwise. I do not believe I will convince you of anything, so I am bowing out and you can have the last word if you wish as at this point, you are just repeating ideas we already discussed and I already made my reply to.

 

[NotreDame]

We simply see things differently here. I believe I have sufficiently supported my case, you believe otherwise. I do not believe I will convince you of anything, so I am bowing out and you can have the last word if you wish as at this point, you are just repeating ideas we already discussed and I already made my reply to.

No, there wasn’t any “we already discussed.” There was a rebuttal on my behalf, and your empty reply that substantively address my rebuttal but that you self-avowed to be a substantive reply.

Your argument wasn’t complicated.

“This could have been avoided with clearer policy and/or signage.” Simple statment. Easily plagued with many holes.

This is a “what if” statment, which you unwittingly derided the use of, as you do not know as a fact “this could have been avoided” by “clearer policy and/or signage.” You are surmising.

And this statement rests upon the assumption other people, such as the coach and others, would accept a “clearer policy and/or signage” by the school as the final arbiter. Maybe, maybe not, there’s very good reason for incredulity, since the 1st amendment law school books are littered with lawsuits challenging school “policy” and government “policy” and “laws.”

But one need not speculate as to your coulda avoided suggestion, exactly because the school/district did exactly what you said “coulda” avoid “this,” the school/district enacted a policy informing the coach of when he was acting as a coach, when his duties ceased, and they didn’t cease during the occasion after the game when he prayed.

Yet, who knew this policy didn’t “avoid this” as the coach challenged the school policy by letter and subsequently sued.

The above is a line by line rebuttal of your coulda avoided, “what if” statement.

You presented no reply qualifying as a “discussion” of the above.

The pressure and or coercion argument you initially espoused was the poor reasoning of based on experience this occurrence or phenomenon happened in the past, hence, it is okay to assume the phenomenon or occurrence factually occurred this time.

Again, the problem here is the lack of recognition that pressure on athletes is an inherent part of organized sports. Athletes feel pressure to get the attention of the coach, impress the coach, make the coach happy already without a coach who prays.

Players may naturally feel self-imposed pressure to join a coach who is praying by himself as a result of the natural, organic aspect of the coach/athlete relationship of coach determines who starts and plays and athlete want to start/play. The pressure/coercion then is not derived from from the prayer or coach. Much as they may feel pressure to weight lift after game film review when they see the coach immediately hit the weights after film, in which the pressure/coercion isn’t from the coach or the act of lifting.

Which of course coercion requires force, threat of force, and there aren’t any facts this occurred.

You responded to my argument regarding pressure or coercion with statements that pressure or coercion can occur in these contexts, which doesn’t mean in fact did occur, and one author you cited to conceded there wasn’t “legal” coercion here.

The difference is I’m not approach this decision or fact pattern with a predetermined ideology against this conduct legally or philosophically, but I suspect you are, hence, the bad arguments you’ve made.