That’s probably 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Oh, after the game. I read it as after every TD for some reason.
I don’t see how a ruling in favor of the coach in this case does not also overrule the school prayer cases. I see little distinction here. You could argue that the coach isn’t “leading” the team in prayer, he is simply praying himself with some on the team “voluntarily” joining him, but if that is all it takes to get around the classroom ban, it seems then really easy to do. A teacher in Alabama just “voluntarily prays” before the start of class and others are “free” to join.
Well, a football field isn’t a classroom, so no one else is forced to be in the same room with the pray-er(s). It may still be a public-enough place that it’s on the same side of the line as a classroom, but I’m not sure where that line is, or should be, drawn.
Continuing the devil’s advocate argument, nobody is forced to be in the classroom anyways as they can attend private school or be homeschooled. And if we are using a broad definition of “forced” then although football is a voluntary activity, shouldn’t students be able to participate without being subject to the same “coercion” that would be present in the classroom setting by a teacher praying?
I don’t think it’s just about forced physical proximity. It’s about coercion, about the appearance that participating in coach-led prayer is part of being a good team player.
That’s the way the Americans United for Separation of Church and State spokesperson spun it. The article doesn’t tell us much about what was actually happening, so I don’t know whether anything actually gave that appearance or not.
If the coach said a silent prayer in his head, there’s no way that God’s gonna hear that. The coach has to do something a little more dramatic like take a knee at midfield for everyone to see. God totally hears that.
Not sure what you’re looking at, but from the article linked in the OP:
After games had ended and after both teams’ players and coaches met at midfield to shake hands, Kennedy would kneel and offer a silent or quiet prayer.
His practice evolved, however. Students came to join him, and he eventually began to give motivational speeches that often included religious content and a short prayer.
Just as Republican conventions routinely play Springsteen’s “Born In The USA” without paying any attention to the lyrics, perhaps this coach could lead a rousing singalong of Dylan’s “With God On Our Side”.
Yes, I saw that, and, taken at face value, I don’t see anything coercive in some students choosing to go over and join him for prayer.
I quoted it for you - but you still seem to want to ignore the part about motivational speeches with integrated religious content and prayer. By the guy who runs the team and decides who gets to play. You realize that “coercive” doesn’t need to involve explicit threats, right? In that scenario, do you honestly not see how people might feel that the coach would look upon them more favorably if they participated in his religious ceremony?
I coach at the high school level. I have to be damn careful of how I approach anything outside the sport due to the possible influence I might have on an athlete and possible conflict with parental opinions.
He’s also openly promoting his religion using his (exalted) position while ignoring those athletes who don’t worship as he does.
As a highly religious person, I deeply believe prayer is evil. If you respect my beliefs, you will prohibit any and all prayer. If you allow it, you are violating my religious rights. It’s in the Constitution!
Since Coach is leading it, “choosing” to do as Coach does is seen as the norm-NOT choosing to is seen as disruptive to the team dynamics. It is coercion, without a doubt.
The article doesn’t specify how many, if any, of the students involved are members of the team.
I can’t believe how many people think God gives a damn who wins a fucking game or wants people thanking him for the outcome. If there is a God, I’m sure he has better things to do.
Most of this discussion seems to take the optimistic position that SCOTUS is going to view this rationally. We need to remember that all three Trump appointees are religious nutters, and the three other conservatives on the bench aren’t much better, except maybe Roberts.
I would be surprised – pleased, but surprised – if they did rule that this was an unwarranted intrusion of religion into school activities.
Where’s the fun of being omnipotent if you can’t stick your nose in everywhere?
I disagree. I think people are discussing how they think the SCOTUS should rule or would rule if they were viewing it rationally, not speculating on how they will actually rule.
All-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful does imply all-nosey.