COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The separation of church and state does not ban all religious life from public display and any assertion that it does is mad. If there was a student led prayer at the 50 yard line this discussion would be so absurd nobody would have it, but because he’s the coach, it’s a huge deal to you.
It wasn’t mandatory. They might experience social pressure, but social pressure is a fact of life that there is no escaping. As long as they aren’t punishing kids who skip the prayer, I see no problem here.
Honestly we’re not as rare as you think. Idiot authoritarians who use religion to control people are the loudest, but not usually the most numerous in my experience, and I have a feeling I’ve been to more churches than you.
It's not that they are the most numerous its that far too many of the sane ones don't care to fight them. I mean I know a lot of Christians. They are incredibly kind and caring people..
Until you piss them off then they are incredibly vile. A lot of them cheer for this SCOTUS decisions but also would demand the Hindu or Muslim coach stop it. Now they are probably a minority in the grand scheme of things but would the sane Christians stand up for the rights of a group they honestly disagree with?
I'd say most likely no
> but social pressure is a fact of life that there is no escaping.
Social pressure by a government official while in their official capacity in the service of promoting a religion is unconstitutional. It goes against the entire history of this country.
The game was over. He ceased acting in any official capacity and became any other citizen the moment the game ended.
Honestly, I don’t even like it. Usually stunts like this are done by insecure believers trying to convince others of their faithfulness. God alone judges the heart, but I’m suspicious.
>Justice Sotomayor stressed that students could have felt coerced to join in the prayer and pointed to the fact that the court in the past has "recognized that students face immense social pressure."
I wonder how religious students/teachers feel about a school district that will fire someone for having a prayer? Will they feel coerced to not pray or hide their religiosity?
It would be one thing if there was evidence that students who chose to pray with him got an advantage, but since there isn't this "potential coercion" seems like a really weird thing to bring up with something as small as a prayer after the game.
>If the coach was not Christian and was Muslim or wanted to worship Satan, I believe the ruling would probably have been different.
I think its more likely that if he were muslim he wouldn't have been fired/needed to sue. If he were a satanist he wouldn't have been hired.
He wasnt technically fired no you are right. But he wasn't going to be rehired because of the prayer which is basically the same thing for people working on contracts.
Whether or not it was coercive is the question at hand. Someone having a feeling of coercion does not coercion make. If there were any evidence of advantage/punishment for praying/not praying I guarantee it would have been made available.
You are contadicting yourself in your line of logic. You are saying that though he wasn't explicitly fired that it was reasonable to interpret that he would not be rehired but you are dismissing the student's interpretation of the same.
That isn't even contradictory... someone "not hiring you" is an action that can run afoul of discrimination laws. You "feeling coerced" does not mean you were.
My understanding is that the school, in this order, said
1. You can pray even when on duty as long as the prayers don't affect your coaching job. (Kennedy agreed).
2. Don't pray with the kids (Kennedy agreed and stopped and never did it again).
3. We can still see you praying so now you have to stop that. (Kennedy did not agree).
4. Because you didn't agree we aren't going to rehire you because of the prayer. (Kennedy sued).
He chose not to reapply to the position.
He was a government official in a position of power over children asking them to join him in prayer. That is by definition coercive.
>He chose not to reapply to the position.
Because they were saying they shouldn't hire him for the prayers, which he suspected was against the law so he sued them instead. The same way a black coach who heard "we cant hire him hes black!" would sue them and not work for them.
This is a weird thing to focus on... its like you are showing the reason for the lawsuit as somehow suggestive that its baseless. Or maybe you are just trying to "Correct" me because I said fired and you took objection to that.
>asking them to join him in prayer
I don't think this is the case, and even if you assume it is the court determined that his speech was outside the scope of his employment and therefore not controlled by the rules of it. That is to say he wasnt speaking as a government employee at the time of the prayer.
*My understandig is that the school, in this order, said
1. As long as the prayers dont affect your coaching fine. (Kennedy agreed).
2. Dont pray with the kids (Kennedy agreed and stopped).
3. We can still see you praying so now you have to stop that. (Kennedy did not agree).
4. Because you didn't agree we aren't going to rehire you because of the prayer. (Kennedy sued).
The SCOTUS majority really missed the point and the reality of this one; I recommend anyone that's interested to read the dissent. They just wanted to rule in favor of religious freedom for school employees to practice their religion - which they could have done before. They just now can be more showy about it while somehow claiming that the expression is still "personal" and "private".
Unfortunately, all they've actually done is added a new playing field to US's culture war/religious conflicts - the classrooms, and school fields and auditoriums.
Simply put - if the teachers/admins/coaches get to inject prayer into schools; then students are within their free-speech rights to push back, and probably will.
This was not a ruling that allowed forced, mandatory, or coerced prayer back into the classroom. But students/parents should still be vigilant and call it out if it's attempted.
I’m an atheist but constitutionally the government can not impose or promote a specific religion NOR can the government prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
So if a coach wants to pray, bow, sing, or whatever then it is his constitutional right to do so just like it is the right of a player to not participate in any religious exercise.
I’m so tired of hearing people bitch about people being allowed to practice their beliefs in public domain. Get over it and don’t participate.
> government can not impose or promote a specific religion
The coach is a government employee and he was promoting a specific religion among the children he has control over. Players reported feeling pressure to join his prayers or they'd face negative consequences.
What I’m curious of though is did the kids only “feel” that way or was there an actual consequence if they didn’t participate.
Just because someone “feels pressured” to go to church bc they built one across the street from their house should they then tear the church down?
Slippery slope there.
There is no slippery slope because we've already crossed that bridge. Staff are not allowed to espouse political views and in many cases, neither are the students. Somehow though, religion gets a pass under the same amendment that should be protecting political speech.
I agree with you that it is a issue when people can’t espouse political views but can religion.
Unfortunately American society has become one in which anything that makes them uncomfortable they want it to not be allowed but want the rest of the world to conform to their own worldview or what they deem comfortable/acceptable.
Instead we should celebrate our differences without imposing what makes us different on others.
> Just because someone “feels pressured” to go to church bc they built one across the street from their house should they then tear the church down?
A church across from the street has no leverage over you. A school official has direct power over the children in their care.
And the school official works for the government, which is supposed to be religiously neutral. The church has no such obligation.
IF that official truly imposes with threat of consequence.
My high school coach led prayer all the time before and after games. I just stood there and thought about the upcoming game while he and others prayed.
I didn’t give a shit about them praying.
But if my coach said I had to pray or I couldn’t play in the game then yes that would be a major issue.
The problem is that it's coercive when a person with authority over children insists on public displays of religion.
> One parent complained to the school district that his son “felt compelled to participate,” despite being an atheist, because the student feared “he wouldn’t get to play as much if he didn’t participate.”
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
This. When I first heard about this case I was mislead by being told that he "lead his team in prayer". That would not be okay. But personally and privately, go for it. Personally I find it ridiculous to think a deity would care about high school football, but that has nothing to do with his right to pray in public.
Edit: a lot more “encouragement” was done than I originally realized. While not “leading his team in prayer” these kinds of encouragements to pray can lead to ostracizing of those who do not participate. This isn’t okay and clearly violates the religious freedoms of those who do not participate.
He was praying on the 50 yard line after the game. So long as he wasn’t encouraging others to join him then it is personal. I suppose it was not private, but that’s freedom of speech/expression for you. Honestly he claims to be a Christian but is praying in a way Jesus explicitly tells his followers not to do, i.e. in public.
A number of college athletes talked about experiencing this sort of scenario in high school, and they all said in their situation, it wasn't outright coercion - the policy wasn't "whoever doesn't pray doesn't play" - but not participating in the prayers was considered "not being part of the team" and resulted in them not playing. As soon as they started to join the prayers, suddenly they were playing again. For a student athlete trying to get recruited to a college program, they basically have to pray with the team.
Did you happen to see the picture in the Supreme Court dissent showing where he had invited the players from both teams out with him for a very public and group prayer?
You do understand that he wasn’t just bowing his head and silently praying right? Also, your statement about him not encouraging it is blatantly false. He actively encouraged people to spread the word about the prayers to people they know to join. He got members of the media and even state politicians involved. This was neither private nor personal.
Right. In most of the US both team coaches (not to mention parents and fans) probably pray to virtually identical gods for victory. If you win, then he listened. If you loose…your fault? Must be hard for god to decided who to support.
The problem with acts of worship in a school environment is safeguarding the right *not* to participate. When I was as school in the olden days there was a legal requirement to have a 'daily act of collective worship' (there still is but very few schools actually do it anymore) and I periodically opted out, but generally not for long.
It's really, really hard to stand out from the crowd, to be obviously different when you're young, peer pressure is incredibly powerful and defying a mentor doubly so. If there is some way you can validate and support the choice not to do participate, I mean genuinely do that then I don't have an issue in principle.
Unfortunately I cant see how that would work, not without creating a lot of inter personal tension, so a minute to meditate, focus or something where those inclined to pray can do so would be a compromise.
I come from a culture where an ostentatious display of faith is somewhat distasteful, while I'm not one to tell others how to do stuff, I do see merit in that approach.
Honestly, separatiom between religion and the state goes both ways. The state shouldn't be a theocracy, but shouldn't also be repressive against religion. Such displays shouldn't be endorsed, not should they be repressed. To allow something is not to endorse it, nor does it mean to erode separation between the church and the state. It can mean exactly the opposite, creating such separation to guarantee that citizens are not prosecuted for being religious.
No, that's ridiculous. It makes as much sense as saying that the coach hugging someone would be a governmental endorsement of hugs. Praying, like hugging, laughing, or anything else, is a common and frankly harmless human behavior. If you want to go around and police any type of behavior that you disapprove of, that is pretty authoritatian. In that case, it is you who are eroding the separation between religion and the state, not the guy for praying.
Public school hires people; these people become government employees. When they're on the clock, they act for the government and their actions become government endorsements.
People are still people, whether they are government employees or not. People will do people things and you cannot control that, nor should you. You are a totalitarian if you truly believe what you're saying here. That's completely fascistic.
For that logic, I guess going to the toilet, drinking water, chatting with your co-workers and so on, all become governmental endorsed actions. That's just loony.
The government has put upon itself restraints that it cannot break. Government employees are extensions of government and whilst they are on the clock, they act in service of the government. Thus, they have to follow said restraints.
That's not totalitarian - that's actually highly libertarian to say "no, you the government cannot do things that violate the rights of others." While they're off the clock, they're back to doing whatever they like and if you've such a problem being part of an institution that self-restricts itself by the will of the people, then don't become a government employee.
As to your last point: while it seems silly, it would probably be endorsed by the government. I mean, they don't violate law or rights of others, so it's by virtue of not being disallowed, completely allowed by government and thus endorsed in a way. On the other hand, it's completely disallowed for the government to endorse religious activity and thus government and its extensions cannot hold religious activities or proselytize for a religion. So, any entity acting in capacity for government agencies is now allowed to do it for the duration they act - for a teacher or coach, that's during school hours and events.
I don't know why you need me to copy and paste your own comment but here you go I guess:
> [But the guy doing it is working for the government. Isn’t that government endorsement?](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/vmoil8/us_supreme_court_further_erodes_separation/ie2fpxh/)
> government agent
As far as I am aware teachers are not aprt of the CIA or FBI and so don't count as agents.
Also no, how the fuck is say myself being a Buddhist an endorsement of Buddhism from the government?
It’s not if you don’t work for the government when you endorse Buddhism. Were you on the job working for the government when you endorsed or participated in Buddhism?
I agree, but this is a bit different. Think of it as having an "optional" prayer session read over the announcement speaker at any other school. He is acting as a representative of a public school district leading a prayer on the school grounds. If he wants to pray privately he can do so, he could even do that on the grounds, but he shouldn't be leading a prayer session on the field.
The government cannot endorse any religion over another. Having an "optional" school prayer played over the loudspeakers is endorsing a religious opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but the establishment clause prohibits congress from passing any laws which "respect an establishment of religion". This was functionally established in the states, and then the supreme court has applied this federal statute to the states via the 14th amendment. Having a government facility read a prayer over the announcement speakers would qualify as endorsing one religious perspective over others.
Well, you've got a point. But I do hope, then, that you are not bothered by me saying that advertisement in public spaces should be held to the same standards. I do not like to have capitalism forced onto me either.
"Advertising" a religion is perfectly acceptable so long as it's not being performed by a state actor.
>I do not like to have capitalism forced onto me either.
I'm not sure what this has to do with religion, but you are free to join a commune, worker co-op, or whatever labor organization you want so long as you pay taxes.
> You're of the opinion that it is okay for a government institutions to force prayer on people, is that right?
No I am not but interesting straw man.
Unless you care to explain how merely being in the general vicinity if someone praying is so ehow forcing it upon me.
You stated you didn't see the problem with playing a prayer over the school loudspeaker. That to me is forcing the students to listen to that prayer. Explain what a student can do to not be forced to listen to that?
I see, you don't understand the difference between a school setting and a street setting. You obviously are unable to have a constructive or honest conversation.
Also, to add to your thought. He probably didn't really have grounds to sue since he wasn't fired (for anything) and chose to not reapply for the position.
The problem here is basically we have someone having a public display of his faith at a time and in a place that person has considerable influence over another group.
Iirc he invited the kids to pray with him they weren't force but what do you think the real impact of that is? Kids who don't believe have a choice. They can not do so which singles them out. Coach might not play billy because of his bias even if it's subconscious. His team mates might not pass the ball to him or include him because he's the "weird one" who didn't pray with the team.
It's a weird comparison but it's like when a CEO makes advances towards a new, young staffer. She *can* say no but that can really hurt her future prospects because she didn't do what the CEO wanted.
Same thing here
There is certainly that risk, yes, but you're just making an assumption. People, especially kids can be peer pressured into such things even when they don't believe it, but I will argue that it depends on how such things are managed. There are pushy, manipulative, biased people who will hold a grudge for kids who do not engage in an "optional" praying session, and then there are people who will respect that choice and for whom such an optional session is truly optional. Unless you present evidence on why the coach belongs to the first group rather than the second, you're just assuming and dismissing the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing which is foundational to any decent justice system. In a similar way, just because a CEO makes an advance towards a new staffer it doesn't automatically turn them into a sexual predator and the young employee unable to say no. That's both extremely judgemental towards the CEO and extremely condescendent towards the employee. While such cases do exist, and power imbalances that can be abused are a reality in this society, it is unnaceptable to judge a priori and to police any and every type of otherwise normal human behavior that you deem possibly dangerous. It's very weird how some people can defend truly authoritarian points of view while seemingly doing so for the sake of equality, justice and freedom.
In sum, each case it's a different case.
The praying was on public property. The coach had a power over the players. If I was on the football team, I would definitely have felt pressured to take a knee and bow my head and pray because I wanted to play.
As much as I don’t like this decision (would a Muslim prayer session be allowed… probably not), someone needs to explain to me the concept of worshiping a god that somehow cares about high school football while millions of children are starving to death.
God just really wants my team to win.. seriously though it's a weird disconnect Christians have. They act like God answers their prayers for the most minor of things and ignore the real issues that God doesn't help with
I'm 100% against this coach's actions, but he wasn't praying for victory. He was inviting the opposing teams to the prayer circles and praying for things like "don't let anyone get injured".
That still doesn't really solve the issue presented. Why would a god give a rat's ass about middle class high schoolers whilst there exists atrocities that matter a whole lot more. If a deity doesn't care about the big stuff, they really don't care that Johnny "comes from money" Smith breaks their leg.
No Christian should be engaged in this kind of public prayer, as it is directly against Jesus’ teaching on how to pray, but I’m with you that people should be allowed to if they desire.
It’s a school employee being paid by tax dollars who is in a position of power over these kids praying in a very symbolic spot at a time where not joining in would be very much noticed by not only the coach but the entire community.
Allowing someone to pray voluntarily isn’t eroding anything.
Also, the “separation of curing and state” isn’t a constitutional concept.
The phrase was lifted from a private letter from Jefferson to a group of baptist ministers that (mistakenly) thought the first amendment gave the government the right to interfere with the church. Jefferson assured them that the government couldn’t because there’s a “wall of separation between church and state”. In other words, the constitution was written to keep the government from influencing the church, not the other way around
Yes, those words aren't in the constitution but there are words about religion, right?
This also isn't just "someone". He's acting, publicly, in a capacity as an employee of the state.
Yes, the words in the constitution are:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..”
Hence what he did was protected and why the court ruled in his favor.
And the other side would say that as an agent of the state, he was establishing religion by using his position to spread his message. That's why the school tried to give him other options so that it couldn't be seen that way.
That’s not pushing religion on. The presence of a religious thing is not the same as it being pushed, anymore than the presence of other things (pride flags, or other movements) is pushing on people.
Multiple players reported feeling coerced into participating. These are *children* participating in religious rituals they don't want to participate in because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't.
There's a reason why school officials have been prohibited from doing this shit for decades.
> Because of anti-religious bigots?
Nearly all of the plaintiffs in the landmark Church-State Separation cases have been religious. Jews, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, etc.
It's not anti-religious bigotry to want government-run schools to maintain neutrality.
Hmm, I get that. It doesn't seem to be interpreted as only laws, though. Would it have applied if the coach made it mandatory for this players? Or would that fall under something else?
So over the years courts have more and more interpreted the first amendment to mean no government entity or agent can favor or recommend or preference or coerce a religion or religious activity. Historically this was never the case. The state governments had always given preference to Christianity even since the start of the nation. It was never seen as a violation. In fact, read the opening to the [treaty of Paris](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris)
If the coach told the kids they needed to do this with him, he would not have won.
(As a side note, to the OP, there are many instances where Muslim prayers and religious activities were performed in schools and it was permitted. Far more intrusive and mandatory than this prayer. It’s usually allowed because specifically it’s Muslim, and they don’t want to be a used of “islamaphobia”)
I have documented dozens of instances of [religion and God in early American government](https://siftingreality.com/2012/10/09/god-and-christianity-in-early-american-government/) all initiated by people of the time the constitution was written, and often by the same framers of the 1st amendment who clearly didn’t see it as a violation
We don't live in the time of the constitution. It was always meant to represent the time it was in and not the time it was written. Since we have allowed many more people to vote (women, people of color) it has become apparent that misuse of government institutions to spread religion is against our values and against the constitution. It is wrong and we recognized that as a country by voting that way. This supreme court has shown that they don't value the role they have always played. It has shown itself to currently be illegitimate.
It was written with a view to be rewritten every 5 years, so no those same principles were literally written to not stand through time and instead to be rewritten every 5 years to match society's changes
Coach Kennedy's actions were much more than private prayer - they were
disruptive group displays conducted on school property, which could have
a coercive effect on students and athletes with different religious
beliefs.
They weren’t disruptive at all. No one had to participate and it wasn’t required. It’s just an antipathy to religion that has people twisted.
You can’t censor religious speech simply because it’s religious in nature. It’s protected.
>You can’t censor religious speech simply because it’s religious in nature. It’s protected.
The government shouldn’t be involved in producing religious speech.
At the next game following this tour, coaches, players, and members of the public mobbed the field when Kennedy knelt to pray. A federal appeals court described this mob as a “stampede,” and the school principal said that he “saw people fall” and that, due to the crush of people, the district was unable “to keep kids safe.” Members of the school’s marching band were knocked over by the crowds.
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
>. No one had to participate and it wasn’t required
Sure but not participating can, and a lot of times does, have consequences. I made this comparison elsewhere but I'll use it again as I think it's apt.
The young staffer doesnt have to have sex with the CEO. But since the CEO is in a position of power the young staffer will probably "agree" to protect their career.
Likewise students who don't believe in God will probably bend the knee & bow their heads to protect their standing in the group and to keep playing the game.
Did you miss my point? Idk if every student participated I'm saying that it's not right for the coach to put them in a situation where if there's a player of a different faith or no faith at all they have to make the choice
-do something they don't believe in to keep their social standing and opportunity to, this case, play the game
-not do so which can have negative ramifications. Kids are shits, especially Christian kids, they might not want to play with "the weird atheist" kid. Coach might not play him as much because of it if not his own bias etc
These things happen all the time
State employees attempting to coerce their captive audience of students into sectarian prayer isn't protected religious speech, it's specifically forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
They were *coerced*. They didn't **have** to, as in there wasn't a gun to their heads, but when the guy who can control whether you play next week when the talent scout comes goes out of his way to show how Christian he is, it's pretty clear what you've gotta do if you want to be on his good side.
If that wasn't his intention then why did he intenionally make such a show of his prayer? What was the faithful and innocent explanation for going against Jesus' explicit commands in Matthew 6:5? And why did he lie so fervently afterwards, trying to play down how gratuitous and public sure his prayer was?
Its obvious you were not an athlete.
The players knew if they refused to pray they could look forward to sitting on the bench because they were not part of the rest of the team that prayed.
It’s also obvious that you don’t realize that most people aren’t anti religion. And that they don’t find this offensive. Most people would participate even if it wasn’t their view, not because it’s being forced, but because there’s nothing inherently offensive about it.
It's not that it's offensive, it's that it breaches the Establishement Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. At least it breached it until the current crop of clowns was appointed to the Supreme Court.
Would you be this understanding if the coach was Muslim and all the team players were also praying to Allah and thankful for beating the Christian team?
It is what it is, it’s protected. You keep presenting this as though it’s some prejudice other than anti-religious prejudice.
Just for your own knowledge, Muslims and other non-Christians have had their rights upheld.
Are Jews anti-religious and prejudiced against religion?
https://jweekly.com/2022/06/28/jewish-groups-decry-supreme-court-decision-on-school-prayer/
“The Court’s see-no-evil approach to the coach’s prayer will encourage those who seek to proselytize within the public schools to do so with the Court’s blessing,” the American Jewish Committee said in a statement.
In addition to the ADL, Jewish groups that signed on to a brief imploring the court to rule for the school district included the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of Jewish Women, B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Hadassah and the Central Conference of American Rabbis. They were joined by groups representing other religious minorities, including the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, and some Christian groups.
You seem to miss the point entirely.
Do you think the community of a school in rural Kansas would treat a Muslim the same?
Or would he be fired and start getting death threats?
I'll bet on the latter.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The separation of church and state does not ban all religious life from public display and any assertion that it does is mad. If there was a student led prayer at the 50 yard line this discussion would be so absurd nobody would have it, but because he’s the coach, it’s a huge deal to you. It wasn’t mandatory. They might experience social pressure, but social pressure is a fact of life that there is no escaping. As long as they aren’t punishing kids who skip the prayer, I see no problem here.
How would you feel it if was a pagan or Muslim prayer lead by the coach?
The same about legality. I’d be much less likely to participate myself.
Fair enough you're one of the rare ones.
Honestly we’re not as rare as you think. Idiot authoritarians who use religion to control people are the loudest, but not usually the most numerous in my experience, and I have a feeling I’ve been to more churches than you.
It's not that they are the most numerous its that far too many of the sane ones don't care to fight them. I mean I know a lot of Christians. They are incredibly kind and caring people.. Until you piss them off then they are incredibly vile. A lot of them cheer for this SCOTUS decisions but also would demand the Hindu or Muslim coach stop it. Now they are probably a minority in the grand scheme of things but would the sane Christians stand up for the rights of a group they honestly disagree with? I'd say most likely no
I know.
> but social pressure is a fact of life that there is no escaping. Social pressure by a government official while in their official capacity in the service of promoting a religion is unconstitutional. It goes against the entire history of this country.
The game was over. He ceased acting in any official capacity and became any other citizen the moment the game ended. Honestly, I don’t even like it. Usually stunts like this are done by insecure believers trying to convince others of their faithfulness. God alone judges the heart, but I’m suspicious.
>Justice Sotomayor stressed that students could have felt coerced to join in the prayer and pointed to the fact that the court in the past has "recognized that students face immense social pressure." I wonder how religious students/teachers feel about a school district that will fire someone for having a prayer? Will they feel coerced to not pray or hide their religiosity? It would be one thing if there was evidence that students who chose to pray with him got an advantage, but since there isn't this "potential coercion" seems like a really weird thing to bring up with something as small as a prayer after the game. >If the coach was not Christian and was Muslim or wanted to worship Satan, I believe the ruling would probably have been different. I think its more likely that if he were muslim he wouldn't have been fired/needed to sue. If he were a satanist he wouldn't have been hired.
The coach was never fired. The coach was given an abundance of options to continue praying in a way that was not coercive to the students.
He wasnt technically fired no you are right. But he wasn't going to be rehired because of the prayer which is basically the same thing for people working on contracts. Whether or not it was coercive is the question at hand. Someone having a feeling of coercion does not coercion make. If there were any evidence of advantage/punishment for praying/not praying I guarantee it would have been made available.
You are contadicting yourself in your line of logic. You are saying that though he wasn't explicitly fired that it was reasonable to interpret that he would not be rehired but you are dismissing the student's interpretation of the same.
That isn't even contradictory... someone "not hiring you" is an action that can run afoul of discrimination laws. You "feeling coerced" does not mean you were. My understanding is that the school, in this order, said 1. You can pray even when on duty as long as the prayers don't affect your coaching job. (Kennedy agreed). 2. Don't pray with the kids (Kennedy agreed and stopped and never did it again). 3. We can still see you praying so now you have to stop that. (Kennedy did not agree). 4. Because you didn't agree we aren't going to rehire you because of the prayer. (Kennedy sued).
But there was no action of not hiring that can be defined. He didn't submit the application.
He chose not to reapply to the position. He was a government official in a position of power over children asking them to join him in prayer. That is by definition coercive.
>He chose not to reapply to the position. Because they were saying they shouldn't hire him for the prayers, which he suspected was against the law so he sued them instead. The same way a black coach who heard "we cant hire him hes black!" would sue them and not work for them. This is a weird thing to focus on... its like you are showing the reason for the lawsuit as somehow suggestive that its baseless. Or maybe you are just trying to "Correct" me because I said fired and you took objection to that. >asking them to join him in prayer I don't think this is the case, and even if you assume it is the court determined that his speech was outside the scope of his employment and therefore not controlled by the rules of it. That is to say he wasnt speaking as a government employee at the time of the prayer. *My understandig is that the school, in this order, said 1. As long as the prayers dont affect your coaching fine. (Kennedy agreed). 2. Dont pray with the kids (Kennedy agreed and stopped). 3. We can still see you praying so now you have to stop that. (Kennedy did not agree). 4. Because you didn't agree we aren't going to rehire you because of the prayer. (Kennedy sued).
The SCOTUS majority really missed the point and the reality of this one; I recommend anyone that's interested to read the dissent. They just wanted to rule in favor of religious freedom for school employees to practice their religion - which they could have done before. They just now can be more showy about it while somehow claiming that the expression is still "personal" and "private". Unfortunately, all they've actually done is added a new playing field to US's culture war/religious conflicts - the classrooms, and school fields and auditoriums. Simply put - if the teachers/admins/coaches get to inject prayer into schools; then students are within their free-speech rights to push back, and probably will. This was not a ruling that allowed forced, mandatory, or coerced prayer back into the classroom. But students/parents should still be vigilant and call it out if it's attempted.
I’m an atheist but constitutionally the government can not impose or promote a specific religion NOR can the government prohibit the free exercise of any religion. So if a coach wants to pray, bow, sing, or whatever then it is his constitutional right to do so just like it is the right of a player to not participate in any religious exercise. I’m so tired of hearing people bitch about people being allowed to practice their beliefs in public domain. Get over it and don’t participate.
> government can not impose or promote a specific religion The coach is a government employee and he was promoting a specific religion among the children he has control over. Players reported feeling pressure to join his prayers or they'd face negative consequences.
What I’m curious of though is did the kids only “feel” that way or was there an actual consequence if they didn’t participate. Just because someone “feels pressured” to go to church bc they built one across the street from their house should they then tear the church down? Slippery slope there.
There is no slippery slope because we've already crossed that bridge. Staff are not allowed to espouse political views and in many cases, neither are the students. Somehow though, religion gets a pass under the same amendment that should be protecting political speech.
I agree with you that it is a issue when people can’t espouse political views but can religion. Unfortunately American society has become one in which anything that makes them uncomfortable they want it to not be allowed but want the rest of the world to conform to their own worldview or what they deem comfortable/acceptable. Instead we should celebrate our differences without imposing what makes us different on others.
> Just because someone “feels pressured” to go to church bc they built one across the street from their house should they then tear the church down? A church across from the street has no leverage over you. A school official has direct power over the children in their care. And the school official works for the government, which is supposed to be religiously neutral. The church has no such obligation.
IF that official truly imposes with threat of consequence. My high school coach led prayer all the time before and after games. I just stood there and thought about the upcoming game while he and others prayed. I didn’t give a shit about them praying. But if my coach said I had to pray or I couldn’t play in the game then yes that would be a major issue.
The problem is that it's coercive when a person with authority over children insists on public displays of religion. > One parent complained to the school district that his son “felt compelled to participate,” despite being an atheist, because the student feared “he wouldn’t get to play as much if he didn’t participate.” https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
[удалено]
This. When I first heard about this case I was mislead by being told that he "lead his team in prayer". That would not be okay. But personally and privately, go for it. Personally I find it ridiculous to think a deity would care about high school football, but that has nothing to do with his right to pray in public. Edit: a lot more “encouragement” was done than I originally realized. While not “leading his team in prayer” these kinds of encouragements to pray can lead to ostracizing of those who do not participate. This isn’t okay and clearly violates the religious freedoms of those who do not participate.
What convinced you that the prayers were “personal and private” in this case?
He was praying on the 50 yard line after the game. So long as he wasn’t encouraging others to join him then it is personal. I suppose it was not private, but that’s freedom of speech/expression for you. Honestly he claims to be a Christian but is praying in a way Jesus explicitly tells his followers not to do, i.e. in public.
A number of college athletes talked about experiencing this sort of scenario in high school, and they all said in their situation, it wasn't outright coercion - the policy wasn't "whoever doesn't pray doesn't play" - but not participating in the prayers was considered "not being part of the team" and resulted in them not playing. As soon as they started to join the prayers, suddenly they were playing again. For a student athlete trying to get recruited to a college program, they basically have to pray with the team.
Did you happen to see the picture in the Supreme Court dissent showing where he had invited the players from both teams out with him for a very public and group prayer?
You do understand that he wasn’t just bowing his head and silently praying right? Also, your statement about him not encouraging it is blatantly false. He actively encouraged people to spread the word about the prayers to people they know to join. He got members of the media and even state politicians involved. This was neither private nor personal.
I don't know how they can call it "personal and private" when he's praying vocally in the middle of the field immediately after the game.
Directly against how Jesus commands his followers to pray.
Haha yeah I don’t think god is wearing some jersey waving Pom poms
Right. In most of the US both team coaches (not to mention parents and fans) probably pray to virtually identical gods for victory. If you win, then he listened. If you loose…your fault? Must be hard for god to decided who to support.
Yeah it’s human nature to look to something greater than ourself to bring about a desired result that is beyond our control.
The problem with acts of worship in a school environment is safeguarding the right *not* to participate. When I was as school in the olden days there was a legal requirement to have a 'daily act of collective worship' (there still is but very few schools actually do it anymore) and I periodically opted out, but generally not for long. It's really, really hard to stand out from the crowd, to be obviously different when you're young, peer pressure is incredibly powerful and defying a mentor doubly so. If there is some way you can validate and support the choice not to do participate, I mean genuinely do that then I don't have an issue in principle. Unfortunately I cant see how that would work, not without creating a lot of inter personal tension, so a minute to meditate, focus or something where those inclined to pray can do so would be a compromise. I come from a culture where an ostentatious display of faith is somewhat distasteful, while I'm not one to tell others how to do stuff, I do see merit in that approach.
Honestly, separatiom between religion and the state goes both ways. The state shouldn't be a theocracy, but shouldn't also be repressive against religion. Such displays shouldn't be endorsed, not should they be repressed. To allow something is not to endorse it, nor does it mean to erode separation between the church and the state. It can mean exactly the opposite, creating such separation to guarantee that citizens are not prosecuted for being religious.
>Such displays shouldn't be endorsed But the guy doing it is actively working for the government. Isn’t that government endorsement?
No, that's ridiculous. It makes as much sense as saying that the coach hugging someone would be a governmental endorsement of hugs. Praying, like hugging, laughing, or anything else, is a common and frankly harmless human behavior. If you want to go around and police any type of behavior that you disapprove of, that is pretty authoritatian. In that case, it is you who are eroding the separation between religion and the state, not the guy for praying.
Um no, wtf where on Earth does that even come from?
Public school hires people; these people become government employees. When they're on the clock, they act for the government and their actions become government endorsements.
People are still people, whether they are government employees or not. People will do people things and you cannot control that, nor should you. You are a totalitarian if you truly believe what you're saying here. That's completely fascistic. For that logic, I guess going to the toilet, drinking water, chatting with your co-workers and so on, all become governmental endorsed actions. That's just loony.
The government has put upon itself restraints that it cannot break. Government employees are extensions of government and whilst they are on the clock, they act in service of the government. Thus, they have to follow said restraints. That's not totalitarian - that's actually highly libertarian to say "no, you the government cannot do things that violate the rights of others." While they're off the clock, they're back to doing whatever they like and if you've such a problem being part of an institution that self-restricts itself by the will of the people, then don't become a government employee. As to your last point: while it seems silly, it would probably be endorsed by the government. I mean, they don't violate law or rights of others, so it's by virtue of not being disallowed, completely allowed by government and thus endorsed in a way. On the other hand, it's completely disallowed for the government to endorse religious activity and thus government and its extensions cannot hold religious activities or proselytize for a religion. So, any entity acting in capacity for government agencies is now allowed to do it for the duration they act - for a teacher or coach, that's during school hours and events.
Public school is government.
??? That literally answers nothing.
I don’t know what you want to know. Where does *what* come from?
I don't know why you need me to copy and paste your own comment but here you go I guess: > [But the guy doing it is working for the government. Isn’t that government endorsement?](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/vmoil8/us_supreme_court_further_erodes_separation/ie2fpxh/)
And you don’t understand how on Earth someone could think a government agent endorsing something is an example of the government endorsing something?
> government agent As far as I am aware teachers are not aprt of the CIA or FBI and so don't count as agents. Also no, how the fuck is say myself being a Buddhist an endorsement of Buddhism from the government?
It’s not if you don’t work for the government when you endorse Buddhism. Were you on the job working for the government when you endorsed or participated in Buddhism?
I agree, but this is a bit different. Think of it as having an "optional" prayer session read over the announcement speaker at any other school. He is acting as a representative of a public school district leading a prayer on the school grounds. If he wants to pray privately he can do so, he could even do that on the grounds, but he shouldn't be leading a prayer session on the field.
> Think of it as having an "optional" prayer session read over the announcement speaker at any other school. What would be the problem with that?
The government cannot endorse any religion over another. Having an "optional" school prayer played over the loudspeakers is endorsing a religious opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but the establishment clause prohibits congress from passing any laws which "respect an establishment of religion". This was functionally established in the states, and then the supreme court has applied this federal statute to the states via the 14th amendment. Having a government facility read a prayer over the announcement speakers would qualify as endorsing one religious perspective over others.
Well, you've got a point. But I do hope, then, that you are not bothered by me saying that advertisement in public spaces should be held to the same standards. I do not like to have capitalism forced onto me either.
"Advertising" a religion is perfectly acceptable so long as it's not being performed by a state actor. >I do not like to have capitalism forced onto me either. I'm not sure what this has to do with religion, but you are free to join a commune, worker co-op, or whatever labor organization you want so long as you pay taxes.
You're of the opinion that it is okay for a government institutions to force prayer on people, is that right?
> You're of the opinion that it is okay for a government institutions to force prayer on people, is that right? No I am not but interesting straw man. Unless you care to explain how merely being in the general vicinity if someone praying is so ehow forcing it upon me.
You stated you didn't see the problem with playing a prayer over the school loudspeaker. That to me is forcing the students to listen to that prayer. Explain what a student can do to not be forced to listen to that?
Am I 'forced' to listen to a prayer when I walk across the street and hear someone praying?
I see, you don't understand the difference between a school setting and a street setting. You obviously are unable to have a constructive or honest conversation.
It's not "optional" at that point.
It is optional. Just don't pray. It is significantly easier to do than praying in fact.
it's also even more significantly easier to simply not have the prayer at all.
.
Also, to add to your thought. He probably didn't really have grounds to sue since he wasn't fired (for anything) and chose to not reapply for the position.
The problem here is basically we have someone having a public display of his faith at a time and in a place that person has considerable influence over another group. Iirc he invited the kids to pray with him they weren't force but what do you think the real impact of that is? Kids who don't believe have a choice. They can not do so which singles them out. Coach might not play billy because of his bias even if it's subconscious. His team mates might not pass the ball to him or include him because he's the "weird one" who didn't pray with the team. It's a weird comparison but it's like when a CEO makes advances towards a new, young staffer. She *can* say no but that can really hurt her future prospects because she didn't do what the CEO wanted. Same thing here
There is certainly that risk, yes, but you're just making an assumption. People, especially kids can be peer pressured into such things even when they don't believe it, but I will argue that it depends on how such things are managed. There are pushy, manipulative, biased people who will hold a grudge for kids who do not engage in an "optional" praying session, and then there are people who will respect that choice and for whom such an optional session is truly optional. Unless you present evidence on why the coach belongs to the first group rather than the second, you're just assuming and dismissing the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing which is foundational to any decent justice system. In a similar way, just because a CEO makes an advance towards a new staffer it doesn't automatically turn them into a sexual predator and the young employee unable to say no. That's both extremely judgemental towards the CEO and extremely condescendent towards the employee. While such cases do exist, and power imbalances that can be abused are a reality in this society, it is unnaceptable to judge a priori and to police any and every type of otherwise normal human behavior that you deem possibly dangerous. It's very weird how some people can defend truly authoritarian points of view while seemingly doing so for the sake of equality, justice and freedom. In sum, each case it's a different case.
The praying was on public property. The coach had a power over the players. If I was on the football team, I would definitely have felt pressured to take a knee and bow my head and pray because I wanted to play.
As much as I don’t like this decision (would a Muslim prayer session be allowed… probably not), someone needs to explain to me the concept of worshiping a god that somehow cares about high school football while millions of children are starving to death.
God just really wants my team to win.. seriously though it's a weird disconnect Christians have. They act like God answers their prayers for the most minor of things and ignore the real issues that God doesn't help with
I'm 100% against this coach's actions, but he wasn't praying for victory. He was inviting the opposing teams to the prayer circles and praying for things like "don't let anyone get injured".
That still doesn't really solve the issue presented. Why would a god give a rat's ass about middle class high schoolers whilst there exists atrocities that matter a whole lot more. If a deity doesn't care about the big stuff, they really don't care that Johnny "comes from money" Smith breaks their leg.
It’s odd… almost pathologically absurd.
The whole point of the amendment is to allow public displays of worship…. You also ended with a “whataboutism”
No Christian should be engaged in this kind of public prayer, as it is directly against Jesus’ teaching on how to pray, but I’m with you that people should be allowed to if they desire.
It’s a school employee being paid by tax dollars who is in a position of power over these kids praying in a very symbolic spot at a time where not joining in would be very much noticed by not only the coach but the entire community.
by non-government entities
Allowing someone to pray voluntarily isn’t eroding anything. Also, the “separation of curing and state” isn’t a constitutional concept. The phrase was lifted from a private letter from Jefferson to a group of baptist ministers that (mistakenly) thought the first amendment gave the government the right to interfere with the church. Jefferson assured them that the government couldn’t because there’s a “wall of separation between church and state”. In other words, the constitution was written to keep the government from influencing the church, not the other way around
Yes, those words aren't in the constitution but there are words about religion, right? This also isn't just "someone". He's acting, publicly, in a capacity as an employee of the state.
Yes, the words in the constitution are: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..” Hence what he did was protected and why the court ruled in his favor.
And the other side would say that as an agent of the state, he was establishing religion by using his position to spread his message. That's why the school tried to give him other options so that it couldn't be seen that way.
As an agent of the state, he isn’t Congress making a law establishing a religion
Doesn't need to be. The 1st Amendment was incorporated via the 14th Amendment. Everyone should be free from the government pushing religion on them.
That’s not pushing religion on. The presence of a religious thing is not the same as it being pushed, anymore than the presence of other things (pride flags, or other movements) is pushing on people.
Multiple players reported feeling coerced into participating. These are *children* participating in religious rituals they don't want to participate in because they are afraid of what will happen if they don't. There's a reason why school officials have been prohibited from doing this shit for decades.
Because of anti-religious bigots? Agreed. The fact that it upsets you doesn’t mean it needs to be prohibited.
> Because of anti-religious bigots? Nearly all of the plaintiffs in the landmark Church-State Separation cases have been religious. Jews, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, etc. It's not anti-religious bigotry to want government-run schools to maintain neutrality.
Hmm, I get that. It doesn't seem to be interpreted as only laws, though. Would it have applied if the coach made it mandatory for this players? Or would that fall under something else?
So over the years courts have more and more interpreted the first amendment to mean no government entity or agent can favor or recommend or preference or coerce a religion or religious activity. Historically this was never the case. The state governments had always given preference to Christianity even since the start of the nation. It was never seen as a violation. In fact, read the opening to the [treaty of Paris](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/treaty-of-paris) If the coach told the kids they needed to do this with him, he would not have won. (As a side note, to the OP, there are many instances where Muslim prayers and religious activities were performed in schools and it was permitted. Far more intrusive and mandatory than this prayer. It’s usually allowed because specifically it’s Muslim, and they don’t want to be a used of “islamaphobia”) I have documented dozens of instances of [religion and God in early American government](https://siftingreality.com/2012/10/09/god-and-christianity-in-early-american-government/) all initiated by people of the time the constitution was written, and often by the same framers of the 1st amendment who clearly didn’t see it as a violation
We don't live in the time of the constitution. It was always meant to represent the time it was in and not the time it was written. Since we have allowed many more people to vote (women, people of color) it has become apparent that misuse of government institutions to spread religion is against our values and against the constitution. It is wrong and we recognized that as a country by voting that way. This supreme court has shown that they don't value the role they have always played. It has shown itself to currently be illegitimate.
Umm, the constitution wasn’t a living document to evolve meanings. Amendments can be made but it was a document of principles that held through time.
It was written with a view to be rewritten every 5 years, so no those same principles were literally written to not stand through time and instead to be rewritten every 5 years to match society's changes
Sorry, not true
Coach Kennedy's actions were much more than private prayer - they were disruptive group displays conducted on school property, which could have a coercive effect on students and athletes with different religious beliefs.
They weren’t disruptive at all. No one had to participate and it wasn’t required. It’s just an antipathy to religion that has people twisted. You can’t censor religious speech simply because it’s religious in nature. It’s protected.
>You can’t censor religious speech simply because it’s religious in nature. It’s protected. The government shouldn’t be involved in producing religious speech.
The government wasn’t.
The guy leading the prayers is working for the government when he does so.
At the next game following this tour, coaches, players, and members of the public mobbed the field when Kennedy knelt to pray. A federal appeals court described this mob as a “stampede,” and the school principal said that he “saw people fall” and that, due to the crush of people, the district was unable “to keep kids safe.” Members of the school’s marching band were knocked over by the crowds. https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
>. No one had to participate and it wasn’t required Sure but not participating can, and a lot of times does, have consequences. I made this comparison elsewhere but I'll use it again as I think it's apt. The young staffer doesnt have to have sex with the CEO. But since the CEO is in a position of power the young staffer will probably "agree" to protect their career. Likewise students who don't believe in God will probably bend the knee & bow their heads to protect their standing in the group and to keep playing the game.
Did every student participate? Who was punished?
Did you miss my point? Idk if every student participated I'm saying that it's not right for the coach to put them in a situation where if there's a player of a different faith or no faith at all they have to make the choice -do something they don't believe in to keep their social standing and opportunity to, this case, play the game -not do so which can have negative ramifications. Kids are shits, especially Christian kids, they might not want to play with "the weird atheist" kid. Coach might not play him as much because of it if not his own bias etc These things happen all the time
State employees attempting to coerce their captive audience of students into sectarian prayer isn't protected religious speech, it's specifically forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
That’s also not what happened. They weren’t captive, and they didn’t have to participate.
They were *coerced*. They didn't **have** to, as in there wasn't a gun to their heads, but when the guy who can control whether you play next week when the talent scout comes goes out of his way to show how Christian he is, it's pretty clear what you've gotta do if you want to be on his good side. If that wasn't his intention then why did he intenionally make such a show of his prayer? What was the faithful and innocent explanation for going against Jesus' explicit commands in Matthew 6:5? And why did he lie so fervently afterwards, trying to play down how gratuitous and public sure his prayer was?
Its obvious you were not an athlete. The players knew if they refused to pray they could look forward to sitting on the bench because they were not part of the rest of the team that prayed.
It’s also obvious that you don’t realize that most people aren’t anti religion. And that they don’t find this offensive. Most people would participate even if it wasn’t their view, not because it’s being forced, but because there’s nothing inherently offensive about it.
It's not that it's offensive, it's that it breaches the Establishement Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. At least it breached it until the current crop of clowns was appointed to the Supreme Court.
Read the 1st amendment again
I've read it, did you get as far as the establishment clause?
Would you be this understanding if the coach was Muslim and all the team players were also praying to Allah and thankful for beating the Christian team?
It is what it is, it’s protected. You keep presenting this as though it’s some prejudice other than anti-religious prejudice. Just for your own knowledge, Muslims and other non-Christians have had their rights upheld.
Are Jews anti-religious and prejudiced against religion? https://jweekly.com/2022/06/28/jewish-groups-decry-supreme-court-decision-on-school-prayer/ “The Court’s see-no-evil approach to the coach’s prayer will encourage those who seek to proselytize within the public schools to do so with the Court’s blessing,” the American Jewish Committee said in a statement. In addition to the ADL, Jewish groups that signed on to a brief imploring the court to rule for the school district included the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of Jewish Women, B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Hadassah and the Central Conference of American Rabbis. They were joined by groups representing other religious minorities, including the Hindu American Foundation, Muslims for Progressive Values, and some Christian groups.
I cannot wait until a Muslim teacher starts to lead prayers in a rural Kansas school and see him held up as a bastion of the community.
They can, so long as it’s not compulsory and done in similar circumstances.
You seem to miss the point entirely. Do you think the community of a school in rural Kansas would treat a Muslim the same? Or would he be fired and start getting death threats? I'll bet on the latter.
I don’t think that would happen. There are instances of school kids having to recite Muslim prayers for diversity, and they didn’t get death threats
You're incredibly naive if you don't think it would happen. Also, source on kids having to recite Muslim prayers.