# SCOTUS to hear case of praying ex-football coach (yet another "religious liberty" case) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2022, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891 "2022-01-16T11:02:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/241 "2022-11-01T04:38:12Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > They key point, it seems to me, is that the coach was acting as the government in leading a prayer for the students of a government school. I agree, but the point her was that he claimed he was _not_ leading the students. If he had, it would have been covered by earlier cases. The point was, for him and SCOTUS, was that he was making a personal prayer, after hours, and in some cases some students just happen to join him. 🙄 I think it’s a little shaky, but it wasn’t a clear cut case. > [@CurtC](#): > > There’s been a lot of chatter here about public vs. private prayer, which is beside the point. And the whole private prayer thing is not the issue for SCOTUS. It wasn’t even in their summary, but mentioned back in the 75 pages I think. So those of you talking about sex on the 50 are totally missing the point and bringing up an issue not really under consideration. Read the actual decision. The issue was that it was a **personal** prayer, not that it was a private prayer. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/242 "2022-11-01T06:05:22Z")
> [@ekedolphin](#): > > As I heretofore understood it, this guy’s making so much money and clout on the right-wing nutjob circuit that I’m surprised he actually _wants_ to go back to a normal job. And what happens if later the school has to fire him for another reason, a _performance-related_ reason? Will he be able to sue and claim this was retaliation for the school losing the case? Even better: he’ll have a new and even more lucrative story about liberal persecution to tell on the right-wing nutjob circuit. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/243 "2022-11-01T15:34:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The issue was that it was a **personal** prayer, not that it was a private prayer. But that is where I am confuzzled. A teacher is not allowed to lead a prayer in a public school in the classroom, right? So why was he allowed to lead a prayer on a public school’s football field? I am honestly having trouble seeing the difference. People probably make personal prayers all the time in public, but in this case, in this venue, with the whole coercion thing, with players having to choose to join in, it seems over the line. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/244 "2022-11-01T15:56:18Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > A teacher is not allowed to lead a prayer in a public school in the classroom, right? So why was he allowed to lead a prayer on a public school’s football field? I am honestly having trouble seeing the difference. I would say two things – public prayer in a classroom is too obviously an establishment, even for these justices to motivate their reasoning out of. Second, maybe it will be allowed if a school prayer case comes before this ridiculous court. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/245 "2022-11-01T16:07:51Z")
Too bad such a case won’t get there before I retire. I’d absolutely LOVE to go out leading prayers to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or whatever would honk off the Mormons and the Baptists in town the most. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/246 "2022-11-01T17:52:42Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > > > When I coached drill team, the girls did exactly this in private. I’m sure The Jehovah heard them just as clearly as if they had been on the 50 yard line in front of everybody > > But then how did they show everyone what good devout Christians they were? And how did they demonstrate the tyranny of the godless lbruls? The whole point of public prayer for many is to show how religious they are, and to be an example to others. Avoiding obvious public displays means foregoing ego-boosting and proselytizing, anathema to the devout. It has never been possible to ban public prayer, although certain restrictions i.e. in classrooms have been placed on the mandatory “Look at me! Look at me! Listen to me!” type. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/247 "2022-11-01T19:29:06Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > But that is where I am confuzzled. A teacher is not allowed to lead a prayer in a public school in the classroom, right? So why was he allowed to lead a prayer on a public school’s football field? I 1. The Court decided it was after hours. True, it was after the game. 2. The coach definitely did not LEAD anyone in prayer. It was a personal prayer- which is okay- BUT- some of the students joined him at some occasions. This case was juuust enuf of a grey area that SCOTUS could intervene. The school should not have pushed the issue. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/248 "2022-11-01T19:43:05Z")
Thanks. That does make sense the way you describe it. However, I think the school did the right thing to assume what he was doing was over the line (Church, state, and all that). Altho, according to the court’s interpretation, it was over-reaction by the school. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/249 "2022-11-01T19:50:11Z")
You are welcome. Somehow, this thread got derailed on “private prayer” which was not the issue. People have to get smart until CT and a couple others shuffle off- " How will the current right-wing SCOTUS rule?" ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/250 "2022-11-01T20:02:01Z")
It’s not quite as innocuous as all that. The coach did start out by privately (by himself and quietly) praying as the teams came out to shake hands after the game but, as players started to joining him at some point, that morphed into religion themed motivational speeches along with not-so-quiet short prayers. It’s literally in the article posted by the OP. That was the part the school got uncomfortable with (though not to the extent he “lost his job” as both he and his lawyer repeatedly have stated in public) that SCOTUS kind of glossed over entirely and made entirely about personal practice when he was more or less openly proselytizing in a setting where the players were more or less expected to be (shaking hands with the other team after the game). Basically, they ruled on facts not in existence. This was even in the ruling - that the coach offered his prayers quietly while the students were otherwise occupied. That was literally false yet part of the basis of the ruling. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/251 "2022-11-01T20:11:45Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The coach did start out by privately (by himself and quietly) praying as the teams came out to shake hands after the game but, as players started to joining him at some point, that morphed into religion themed motivational speeches along with not-so-quiet short prayers. It’s literally in the article posted by the OP. Yes, but the defense was that the coach did not call on people to come out, they joined him of their own volition- which is very possible. As I said- it was a grey issue, and the school should not have pressed it. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/252 "2022-11-01T20:15:05Z")
Doesn’t matter. The ruling is based literally on the idea that he was quietly praying while the students had other things to do (shaking hands and such) so did not feel compelled. The majority opinion of SCOTUS was that he somehow did not literally give speeches and audibly pray (hence not compelling students to join) when there’s plenty of video evidence otherwise. It’s ONLY a gray area if the literal facts of the case are misrepresented. It makes for a headache all around when you need to figure out if/when SCOTUS will do the same for your particular case or not. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/253 "2022-11-01T20:17:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > As I said- it was a grey issue, and the school should not have pressed it. They were between a rock and a hard place, in that if they let it continue down the path it was obviously taking they might have been sued. They didn’t anticipate that the current SC would support the bullshit story the coach’s lawyers would spin. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/254 "2022-11-01T20:18:05Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The majority opinion of SCOTUS was that he somehow did not literally give speeches and audibly pray when there’s plenty of video evidence otherwise. Can you quote that section? Can you link to those videos? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/255 "2022-11-01T20:19:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > They were between a rock and a hard place, in that if they let it continue down the path it was obviously taking they might have been sued. They had the choice of dropping it along the way. And if they had got sued- so what? It would have been cheaper to fight than fighting this. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/256 "2022-11-01T20:21:48Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They had the choice of dropping it along the way. And if they had got sued- so what? It would have been cheaper to fight than fighting this. Only if they could have anticipated which way the court would rule. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/257 "2022-11-01T20:31:57Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Can you quote that section? From page 1 of the [decision](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf): > [@SCOTUS](#): > > He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied. Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. From page 2 of the same decision: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > The contested exercise here does not involve leading prayers with the team; the District disciplined Mr. Kennedy only for his decision to persist in praying quietly without his students after three games in October 2015. In forbidding Mr. Kennedy’s brief prayer, the District’s challenged policies were neither neutral nor generally applicable > [@DrDeth](#): > > Can you link to those videos? Seriously? Well, here’s a [clip on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-LNBJIk-mY) from KING5 Seattle with a direct example from 2015 (the reporter does talk over it). And a [CNN article with video](https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/football-prayer-joe-kennedy-supreme-court) of the coach pretty much saying he was openly and vocally doing so. And that’s with 10s of Googling. Those students aren’t “otherwise occupied” and that coach was not “without his students”. I mean, jeez. These facts aren’t really in question, except by SCOTUS apparently. ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/258 "2022-11-01T20:32:19Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > The majority opinion of SCOTUS was that he somehow did not literally give speeches and audibly pray (hence not compelling students to join) when there’s plenty of video evidence otherwise. Anecdotally, when my son played HS football, some of the players would go off to the side by themselves for a few minutes before a game, without the coaches or trainers, kneel and bow their heads, with hands on others’ shoulders. Sometimes my son joined and sometimes not. It seemed voluntary, and when a player initiates this there is no positional power in play as when a coach does. Sure, you could argue the players voluntarily joined the coach, but since he is the one of the people who gets to decide who plays and who rides the bench, that is the big difference, to me at least. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/259 "2022-11-01T20:37:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Only if they could have anticipated… Yeah, this seemed like a clear violation by the coach before it got before this ridiculous court, not even a close call. The school was probably much more worried about getting sued by a parent for letting this behavior continue than losing on this case. And, the coach lost at all the lower levels, so the better question would be, why would he persist, given such an obviously losing case. The answer is that SCOTUS contains a bunch of religious nuts who want to allow other religious nuts to impose their views on the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2022, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891/260 "2022-11-01T20:37:22Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > Sure, you could argue the players voluntarily joined the coach, but since he is the one of the people who gets to decide who plays and who rides the bench, that is the big difference, to me at least. And some of the parents did say they did feel some compulsion as well. The decision by SCOTUS is a mess for everybody because it replaced an inconvenient reality with one of their own choosing so it could rule the way it wanted. That’s really what worries me. It was a ‘ha-ha’ joke that at least we could count on the adults in our government to agree on basic facts. But that’s no longer the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-to-hear-case-of-praying-ex-football-coach-yet-another-religious-liberty-case/957891.md?page=14)