It seems to me that the court is saying that religious speech in classrooms must be (perhaps explicitly) coercive in order to be unconstitutional (see here). — Paulm12

Honestly I don't think it was coercive. An atheist can stand by respectfully while the Christians do their rituals. That's emotional maturity.

Or the coach can have some maturity and stop doing the prayer when asked.

I see what you're saying. It's a close call.

The US has always been run by puritanical freaks and their principles, it's just now become obvious to those who were too coddled to see it beforehand.

They ran an entire neocrusade against a rival religious region - plundering it and leaving it in shambles and death - and people are surprised when this kind of Christofascism makes its presence felt at 'home'.

Shame the focus is on "indoctrination" - it should be on exclusion. — Banno

You, Tom Storm, and Streetlight all run together. It's a blur.

Here’s a link to a previous thread with some good examples of the “myth” of separation of church and state. Just follow the links provided by me, @NOS4A2 and @Frank Apisa.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7931/question-about-separation-of-church-and-state/p1

It's a close call. — Tate

No, it isn't. The actions of the coach were unprofessional. It should have stopped there.

But, that's America.

No, it isn't. The actions of the coach were unprofessional. It should have stopped there. — Banno

It's not about professional behavior, it's about separation of church and state versus freedom of speech.

But, that's America. — Banno

Damn straight.

I’m curious. What counts as inclusive? Suppose the coach invited all the players to show their gratitude in whatever way they prefer?

It's not about professional behavior, it's about separation of church and state versus freedom of speech. — Tate

Yeah, I know. That's where it went wrong. It was professional misconduct - the complaint was that a child felt excluded. That's where it should have stoped. It was turned into a political issue rather than a workplace issue by viewing it as "indoctrination".

You guys are in deep shit.

Imagine living in such a shitty country that this becomes a constitutional issue because some religious freak coach wants his students to pray to the same stupid make-believe sky fairy as him so they win some inconsequential ball game.

They should have fired the coach for wasting everyone's mental energy and the courts should have responded to his challenge with a note that said "lol". Literally anything else is a mark of a society fucked up beyond repair. Which is exactly what it is.

This is a good point. Many recovery programs (AA) along with groups like Boy Scouts have references to a "higher power" or some idea of "god/God," though it is open to interpretation. At what point does it become coercive?

I know some (secular) therapists who think a belief in moral nihilism is problematic, so they (in some way) think having a "higher power" is a necessary part of the recovery process. The word "god" or "God" can mean different things to different people, so I don't personally think it's worth trying to stop people from saying it.

When I was younger, I used to wonder why the word "God" was on the dollar/pledge of allegiance, etc, and it used to bother me, even as a Christian. I think I understand it better now, the more I know about history and philosophy.

All this is to say, the meaning of prayer and even the word "g/God" can mean different things to different people. We can't even really agree on what a "religion" is, so trying to regulate speech from a shaky foundation is going to give fuzzy results.

Exactly.

I imagine the people supporting the coach see him as someone like Rosa Parks, practicing civil disobedience in the face of losing his job to stand up for what he thinks is the right thing to do. I may not agree with his methods, but I respect the sentiment (as soon as someone tells me I shouldn't say or do something, I sometimes want to do it even more). It all feels very American, being football and all. One of my more conservative (agnostic) friends claims this wouldn't have been an issue to the left if the man was Muslim.

:up:

Religion in Politics

Plus: Ethics will get the attention it deserves.

Minus: Most religious ethics are grotesque.

the courts should have responded to his challenge with a note that said "lol". — Streetlight

This should definitely become a thing!

Many recovery programs (AA) along with groups like Boy Scouts have references to a "higher power" or some idea of "god/God," though it is open to interpretation. At what point does it become coercive? — Paulm12

As someone who works in addiction and metal health services there are many people who find the theism of AA and NA counterproductive and unhelpful. God is also a barrier. They prefer SMART recovery models. I personally think whatever works is useful because it's better to be a nascent theist than a dead heroin user, right?

https://www.deseret.com/2022/6/28/23186621/lauren-boebert-separation-of-church-and-state-colorado-primary-elections-first-amendment

During a worship service in Colorado on Sunday, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., told the congregation she is “tired of this separation of church and state junk” in the U.S. In her remarks given at the Cornerstone Christian Center, Boebert said the only reason the U.S. has so many “overreaching regulations” on religion is because “the church complied.” Boebert, who is on the ballot in Tuesday’s primary election, said to worshipers, “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”

If you can't get some religious freak coach to fuck off from peddling his group-fantasies to children without it landing in the supreme chamber of wizard clowns, this is where things in the States will and have ended up.

supreme chamber of wizard clowns — Streetlight

:rofl:

I agree; in fact the more options there are, the better. I'm sure there are people who are either resistant to religion or have had a bad experience so secular alternatives are certainly welcome.

With that being said I've seen (as I'm sure you have) studies that have shown religious-based recovery programs being more effective than secular based ones. It could be that the people in these studies are already familiar with the language based on their upbringing, who knows. Its great that we live in a time where people can choose what resonates with them. If it's someone who's atheist, they should probably look into one of the secular programs, and if they're religious, they can look into either secular or faith based.

Actually in my experience it is often Christians who don't click with AA because they find it to be like a cult and do not see Christ in the model. And yes, there are those who are secular who don't like it because they don't relate to god as an idea. They have no sensus divinitatis . I think the wording 'resistant to religion' is misleading. Why should someone who has no need for god/s have to play the theist game at AA? Eight of the twelve steps are related to god. It's god heavy over at AA. But all this is out of place in this thread. :wink:

Siamese twin conundrum:

You can't let one in/throw one out without letting the other one in/throwing the other one out too.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is an embarrassing decision, in which the majority is reduced to asserting that a prayer by a coach surrounded by players at the 50 yard line is a "private expression" of religious belief that the coach engaged in "alone."

Laugh or cry?

I think it’s a bit more technical. I can’t imagine anyone arguing that he was praying “alone” as other students clearly and visually joined him. The question becomes, is it considered coercive if he told his students, “Hey, after the game, I’m going to be praying at the 50 yard line. You’re welcome to join if you want.” I’d argue no. If he said “I’m praying at the 50 yard line, I expect you to be there,” then yes, absolutely.

If the issue is decided by whether students or not choose (by their own free will) to join him, this means the government can choose to limit his speech based on actions outside of his control. To me, this doesn’t make sense (i.e. “you’re allowed to pray as long as no students join. If they choose to, then we can fire you.”)

Obviously, outside of school he’s free to do what he wants in public, post on social media, etc. If he was to pray during the classroom, or in the locker room (as he did but stopped), it is seen as more coercive as it’s more of an “opt-out” if you don’t want to do it than “opt in.”

If the issue is whether or not some students felt coerced, then this means 1st amendment expression can be limited based on someone’s testimony about how they felt. Now this becomes a bit trickier-if a student claims they felt coerced to take part in this prayer, do we respond by asking the coach to change his behavior, firing him if he doesn’t change his behavior, etc? And if another student says “if the school rules that he cannot pray on the 50 yard line, I too will feel coerced not to pray during school,” which now means we have a conundrum as mentioned. I tend to favor speech over comfort in many cases, so personally, I’d say unless a good number of students felt coerced, or there was data to show that by not participating, the complaining student was given less playtime, I think it’s unfair to fire the coach or infringe on his rights to free speech. With that being said, the complaining students discomfort shouldn’t be ignored and I certainly think the complaint makes the case much more complicated. The problem to me is the legal precedent it would set-does one person’s discomfort or concern allow restrictions on the expression of another?

The legal issue in this case is whether he was representing himself when he is kneeling or praying on the field, or whether he is representing the school/federal government in advocating for a specific religion when doing so. Of course, this is balanced with the claim that firing him for continuing to do so is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment (promoting nonreligion over religion). With that being said, if he is representing the school/government when praying, I think a similar claim about the establishment clause could be argued in the other direction (promoting whatever religion he is).

The conduct is unprofessional, since is introduces the potential for excluding some students on religious grounds. The coach should have been aware of that possibility, and hence his behaviour was negligent. — Banno

:up:

One more thing about the "praying" football coach. Let's be really clear that this isn't about personal prayer. It is about a uniquely Christian intention to use "prayer" in a public place as a means to evangelize.

Ever notice how it's only ever evangelical Christians who insist on being permitted to practice their religion through expressions of public prayer, with captive audiences? Using public microphones, using influence as an authority figure, desiring not only to pray, but to do so publicly, in classrooms with students, at secular sports events, when everyone is still around, etc? Have you ever heard of a Christian suing for access to prayer when there wasn't a public audience involved? The true desire is not prayer, but evangelism.

I'm a Christian. I can pray personally anywhere I am, at any moment. Silently, or out loud if I'm alone. And I do, every day. It's easy. But what they are doing is pretending that the only possible way for them to pray privately is to hijack the microphone publicly, which enables them to exploit the trust and access that their public secular role affords them. ***The possibility of influencing others isn't a byproduct, it is the point.***

By enshrining this behavior as constitutionally protected religious practice, the government is now perpetuating - establishing - the Christian trojan horse strategy of rebranding evangelism as prayer. And it does so at the expense of mutual respect, autonomy, and healthy boundaries between authority figures and members of the public, in public spaces. — Tom Ryberg · Jun 28, 2022

(EDIT moved part of comment)

:o

@Paulm

The problem with Creationism is that it tries to justify itself scientifically. That's like trying to say antifeminism is feminism.

Creationism? How did that get mentioned?


I agree with most of Tom's sentiment, but I think he misses the point, which is that for some of these evangelicals, praying is a public expression of part of their identity. When he claims

The true desire is not prayer, but evangelism

perhaps I'd agree, but how is this any different than the teacher taking a knee during the national anthem, or putting up flags/using political slogans during the game to "evangelize" a political message? Of course, the difference is it is religious speech. But I think people make a good point when they argue if the government protects certain kinds of 1st amendment rights, even for educators, then religious speech shouldn't be an exception.

...what they are doing is pretending that the only possible way for them to pray privately is to hijack the microphone publicly

This isn't the argument the Kennedy side is making (indeed he was offered a place to pray in private, and refused). He wasn't given or hijacking a microphone-if he was, this case would have been easy. The issue is balancing the 1st amendment's freedom of expression with the establishment clause of the constitution. Some would argue any religious speech by a teacher or coach on campus is a violation of the establishment clause. Others argue the silencing of such speech, (with an implication that there is a "correct" way to express one's religion) is a violation of the 1st amendment and/or the establishment clause.

Indeed, the US Department of Education's stance on these sorts of issues is

...students have the right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination, but that does not include the right to have a captive audience listen or compel other students to participate

When looking at the similarities between this and people kneeling during the national anthem (https://mclellan.law.msu.edu/questions/kneeling-during-national-anthem)

[Heckler's Veto] Speech is not considered a substantial disruption if those that hear it cause their own disruption as a result. As long as the speech itself isn’t causing the disruption, it will be protected, regardless of how other people react to it

Don't misunderstand me, I do think there should be limits on what types of expression are considered coercive or manipulative, especially by public school educators. I just don't think religious expression should have any special place among it, one way or another. You almost need one of those disclaimers "the views expressed by this teacher/coach are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the entities they represent"

Creationism? How did that get mentioned? — Paulm12

Religion in the classroom = Creationism.

Well, the opinion is available for anyone to read.

I find the idea of "offering" (as the majority opinion puts it) prayer to God about playing football well exceedingly silly, myself. As if the God of the universe would care about football games and their outcome, or be inclined to grant prayers that relate to the performance of football players and teams. But I know that people think God listens and responds to such prayers.

But what concerns me about this decision and others is the tendency to ignore information readily available, and even mischaracterize circumstances relevant to a case, in pursuit of a particular outcome. Alas, we lawyers are known to do just that, as advocates. But judges shouldn't be advocates.

I've been a lawyer a long time and I recognize the technique.

The majority and the dissent appear to be considering very different cases. Submitted for your consideration--

From the majority opinion:

"Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football
coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a
quiet prayer of thanks."

"He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied."

"Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers after the players and coaches had shaken hands, by taking
a knee at the 50-yard line and praying “quiet[ly]” for “approximately 30 seconds.” I

"Eventually, Mr. Kennedy began incorporating short motivational speeches with his
prayer when others were present."

"Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by
himself on the field would have meant some people would
have seen his religious exercise."

From the dissent:

"Kennedy’s practice evolved into postgame talks in which Kennedy would hold aloft student
helmets and deliver speeches with “overtly religious references,” which Kennedy described as prayers, while the players kneeled around him."

"After the game, while the athletic director watched, Kennedy led a prayer out loud, holding up a
player’s helmet as the players kneeled around him."

Before the homecoming game, Kennedy made multiple media appearances to publicize his plans to pray at the 50-yard line, leading to an article in the Seattle News and a
local television broadcast about the upcoming homecoming game. In the wake of this media coverage, the District began receiving a large number of emails, letters, and calls, many of them threatening."

"On October 16, after playing of the game had concluded, Kennedy shook hands with the opposing team, and as advertised, knelt to pray while most BHS players were singing the school’s fight song. He quickly was joined by coaches and players from the opposing team. Television
news cameras surrounded the group.2 Members of the public rushed the field to join Kennedy, jumping fences to access the field and knocking over student band members. After the game, the District received calls from Satanists who “‘intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after football games if others were allowed to.’”

Mr. Kennedy is apparently something of a publicity hound. There are pictures of him kneeling and, presumably "offering" prayer in front of the Supreme Court building as well.

I'm ashamed to admit I find the thought of Satan worshippers "offering" prayers to Lucifer on the field after a high school game is played a bit beguiling.

Anyone who has seen the many pictures of these displays would, I think, hesitate to characterize them as "private prayers." I'm amazed that accomplished lawyers (and I'm willing to assume, arguendo as we like to say, that the Justices are just that, though it seems like Justice Barret never practiced law beyond a few years at a private firm) would be so clumsy in employing this kind of argument.

As someone who works in addiction and metal health services there are many people who find the theism of AA and NA counterproductive and unhelpful. God is also a barrier. They prefer SMART recovery models. I personally think whatever works is useful because it's better to be a nascent theist than a dead heroin user, right? — Tom Storm

Don't forget that in some (Western!!) countries (democracies!!) the person doesn't actually have a choice as to which recovery program they will join or which the court mandates them to join.

Honestly I don't think it was coercive. An atheist can stand by respectfully while the Christians do their rituals. That's emotional maturity. — Tate

"Emotional maturity" that results in favoring Christians.

Christians do not respond with the same "emotional maturity" when atheists want to do their atheist things.

Or the coach can have some maturity and stop doing the prayer when asked.

Then he'll complain about his right to freedom of expression of religion is being denied.


More to the point, if a student's coach or mentor has strong religious inclinations, this can reflect in how he treats his students, ie. by prefering those who have the same religious views as he. The coercion needn't be explicit to be powerful.

Unless a student has a powerful mummy and daddy, it's probably best to publicly go along with the coach's religious views (if the student's sport aspiration is vital for the student), or else change sports.