Gotcha, I agree that if someone is truly standing there silently praying that’s not likely to be an issue (how would you even know they’re praying?).
indeed, we wouldn’t know, shouldn’t care and shouldn’t stop them (even if they were hands together and talking out loud). It is all about pressure and coercion for me, and yes, this coach did indeed cross that line.
I agree there is a point to be made regarding where “the line” should be drawn. Should a group of Wiccans be allowed to do their thing in public? How about the KKK? Flag burners?
But isn’t this case also about the use of positional power (of the coach) in relation to the team, and perceived favor for players who participate in his prayer? It’s like if a manager at work wants everyone to dress up for Halloween and someone declines - there will be the perception of favoritism.
It WAS, but the writers of the majority opinion chose to completely ignore this fact in favor of the convenient fiction that the coach was praying privately. And since that Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, reality shall have to step aside.
Sex is public is generally against the law. Praying in public is not. In fact no one is claiming the coach broke any law. He wasn’t arrested, etc. He broke a school rule.
Yes, that is the real issue. Not his personal prayer.
All that is fine and I agree with it all. Others in this thread were saying or implying that this
is in someway wrong, absurd or contradictory. I don’t think it is.
The statement itself is fine; pretending that the statement has anything to do with this particular case, where the coach went significantly beyond “pricate religious expression” is wrong, absurd, and contradictory.
One of the many, many problems with this Supreme Court decision is that they based it on the absurd premise that the middle of the 50 yard line right after a highly-attended football game is “private”. By that standard, there shouldn’t be a problem with a couple having sex on the 50 yard line, because we all agree that sex in private is fine.
Even granted that they were going to arbitrarily decide to ignore the clear text of the Constitution, the judges could still have chosen a less absurd argument to justify their decision.
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?
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. openly.
Supposedly said by a guy named Jesus in a book called Matthew . . . but I’m not really sure this Jesus fellow really understood Christianity.
Certainly not how it’s practiced by mortal man.
Then we agree
It would depend to me on what one meant by “praying in public.” I tent to think of a prayer being said out loud. And while I do think people should have some (limited) rights to pray in public, I would not consider that a private religious act.
Praying silently in public would still be a private religious act, though–at least, unless you make a big public to-do about it, like this coach did.
I wonder if the idea is that, instead of praying as a public official engaging in government speech, “private” refers to whether he’s praying as a private citizen — regardless of whether he’s doing so in public or, as it were, in private?
(Which is to say, you could of course still argue that, well, yes, he is effectively praying as a public official engaging in government speech, per that bit upthread about positional power and perceived favor — but it wouldn’t be a slam dunk given the mere fact that he was doing it in public. In a similar sense, a piece of private property wouldn’t become public property upon you making “a big public to-do” about you privately owning it; you can showily announce to the world that it’s, uh, private property.)
I’d disagree. in as much as people have should have the right to say the prayer words out loud just as they have the right to talk to themselves, sing, hum, whatever.
I still think all of that counts a private act, even if it is in a public space. The line for me is crossed when there is a degree of coercion, pressure or ultimate effect on others.
e.g. standing by yourself, in a public place, saying the lords prayer out loud? absolutely fine.
Pressuring others into doing so? not fine. Walking up to others and shouting the prayer in their faces? not fine.
I disagree about the silent part in general but as to your second point. Yes, This coach clearly tried to co-opt and pressure others into his religious practice. That discounts it from being a “private” religious act in my eyes.
However, I think this coach should still retain the right to private prayer in whatever public area he likes.
Exactly how was this “arbitrarily decide to ignore the clear text of the Constitution,”?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No religion was established. he was indeed using his “free exercise”. Is he really a “public official”?
Nor was the bit about “in private” a major part of the decision. The ruling held "Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance
from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. Pp. 11–32.
The issue is really that the minor kids might be coerced into praying also. That this might be considered an “endorsement” of religion by the school.
The District, like the Ninth Circuit below, insists Mr. Kennedy’s rights to religious exercise and free speech must yield to the
District’s interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation under
Lemon and its progeny. The Lemon approach called for an examination of a law’s purposes, effects, and potential for entanglement with
religion. Lemon, 403 U. S., at 612–613. In time, that approach also
came to involve estimations about whether a “reasonable observer”
would consider the government’s challenged action an “endorsement”
of religion.
Mmm-hmm, that’s what I thought of when I first heard this story.
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?
The devil’s in the details, and the details are bizarre.
The thing is - and this is another fact the Supreme Court chose to more or less conveniently ignore - he was never fired in the first place.
The school placed him on paid leave (it’s even in the OP, long ago though that was). He had been paid in full for the year (about $5000 for an assistant coach). But assistant coaches in the area are apparently on yearly contracts. He neglected to re-apply each year since. In light of the ruling that he be re-instated (for a contract that had already expired, no less), the school made a good faith effort to hire him on this year (even sending him the paperwork for it) but he’s just been too busy to deal with it. With as much money as he’s making basically lying about what happened (he repeatedly claims he was fired, after all), there’s no reason for him to bother with it.
So, no, the school hasn’t hired him back. They are perfectly willing to, but he’s making much more money being a cause celebre.
Basically, they don’t have to worry about firing him again because (a) they never fired him the first time and (b) he doesn’t want the job anymore.
Thank you for getting back to the key point, which is whether his prayer is OK per the free exercise clause or not OK per the establishment clause. There’s been a lot of chatter here about public vs. private prayer, which is beside the point.
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. That’s a clear violation of the establishment clause, and I really don’t understand how SCOTUS came to a different conclusion.