It’s not just that he was around parents and students - if he went home and had a prayer circle with his church no one would care. He was ON THE CLOCK, and instead of doing his job (you know, coaching) he decided to engage in a little extracurricular proselytizing on taxpayer dime.
Would anyone be defending him if he was shirking his duties to do some online gambling on his phone, or to have a cup of tea and read a book about Critical Race Theory in the teacher’s lounge?
I don’t want to confuse the issue – the game was over, so maybe he wasn’t on the clock. I’m just trying to pin down one particular part of this, but I’ve basically said everything I have to say on this ridiculous case.
I’m reading the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and the only discussion of ‘private’ is whether he’s a public or private citizen when conducting the prayers after the game.
Now perhaps the District Court said praying on the 50 yard line is not private prayer, but that’s a determination made, not a finding of fact. That would be a grievous error by the District Court.
According to the lower court’s ruling, “communicating demonstratively” in this post-game period IS 100% part of his job; I’ll quote that bit a third time:
Obviously he can pray in public all he wants when he’s not acting in an official capacity.
Agreed, for the same reason that “public indecency” is a ludicrous charge. How can it be public indecency? They’re your PRIVATES!!!
Where I coach, I’m not off the clock until every athlete has left the school grounds.
I can’t imagine it’s different elsewhere.
And public indecency would be a finding of law. The finding of fact would be that the person allowed their nether regions to be exposed in specific areas (I imagine that this would be after arrest). Both sides would then argue if that fell under the statute of public indecency.
Wooooosh
Just underlining how ‘finding of fact’ can’t just be any ole determination made by a court.
Right, and I was just underlining how ridiculous your “It’s Private Prayer that’s magically private no matter how official your capacity or how many people you do it in front of, because the word private means whatever I want it to mean in that moment, just like Privaye Property!” Is, by comparing it to the equally ridiculous argument that public indecency is impossible because your privates are always, by their very nature, private.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
The “no matter how official your capacity” part would be ridiculous. The “how many people you do it in front of” part is a separate question.
Well, I’d still categorize it at private prayer. The question is the appropriateness of the private prayer.
It could be a separate discussion but the coach himself publicly admitted he led prayers publicly and there’s video evidence of such (as linked above in the thread). Legal proceedings aside, that’s the reality - the man is currently touring the country and presenting the thesis that he was punished for leading public prayers.
The real separate question is how much any of that was part of the subsequent legal proceedings. Like it or not, our legal system sometimes engages in polite fictions. His legal teams’ defense was that his actions were private and that he did not encourage students to participate - something he directly and personally contradicts outside the courtroom on an ongoing basis.
We had the Establishment Clause conflicting with the Free Exercise clause. Usually the court balances the two. The lower courts did. The SCOTUS instead gutted the Establishment Clause.
Nitpicking over what is “private” in this case is absurd. He was the coach, players on his team said they felt compelled to join via peer pressure and possibly losing playing time. That is exactly what the Establishment Clause is meant to stop from a public official.
No one said the coach could not pray on the 50 yard line. He just could not do so during games when students were present. Hardly onerous or inhibiting his right to pray. But apparently the SCOTUS thought it was which is patently absurd.
No, they did not. As the Court explained, there was no conflict (in this case) between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The District, and the lower courts, were wrong to think that their fear of a potential Establishment clause violation allows the govt to suppress an individual’s Free Exercise rights.
You say that like SCOTUS majorities are infallible and never get anything wrong. If they said it, then it just must be so!
We know from history that is absolutely not true. While the majority opinion is now inarguably the law of the land that does not remotely make them right and I am willing to bet this will go down as one of the more egregious decisions in the court’s history (although lately they keep trying to outdo themselves on that).
This clearly was a balance between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. All lower courts saw it that way. The dissent saw it that way. Decades of precedent saw it that way. The majority handwaving it away doesn’t make their entirely new take on this correct.
No, it’s an interpretation of the law of the land. And in this case, an incorrect interpretation. The law of the land is and remains that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Which these judges violated.
You left off the second part: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The former doesn’t trump the latter.
Do you think all constitutional rights have no restraint or restrictions?
If you (general “you”) cannot “prohibit the free exercise” can I pray to Allah in the Oval office whenever I want to?
If you are in the Oval office legally (no B&E), you can pray to Allah as much as you like.