The only acceptable response to the Supremes allowing this bullshit is to start a nationwide action of people sacrificing goats in the end zone after every game. Let’s see how fast they backtrack after a few of those!
Too messy, and might run afoul of health code.
If you really want to see some action on it, have people start praying to other religions than christianity. When the coach tosses down the prayer rug on the 50 yard line and starts bowing his head toward Mecca, suddenly the separation of church and state will become very important to those same people who currently don’t see a problem.
Such a coach would probably never be hired in the first place.
Unless the prospective coach was of Middle Eastern heritage, there would be no way of knowing (or suspecting) since asking about religion shouldn’t be done.
When I was hired, I wasn’t asked(surprising, considering the area).
Needn’t be the coach, in fact. Another faculty member could unroll the rug and pray. Anything the school doesn’t after that just buries it deeper.
I agree. But what does that say about the school prayer cases where a student in class can simply sit silently and not pray? The use of the word “coercion” in these contexts is not the same definition used for that word in any other context. Peer pressure, perhaps, but I see no coercion at all.
Is the coach who runs the team a peer?
No. I was referring to the commonly used argument that the student who chooses not to pray will be ostracized by his or her peers.
So, you are referencing an argument that no one in this thread is making? Odd.
But yes, anyone sitting out from such a prayer ritual is going to be the odd one out, and will face pressure not just from peers, but from the coach for being so.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that the coach gives more game time to the students who join him in prayer, would you see anything wrong with that?
I’m not. I made the observation earlier that any decision for the coach in this case would seem to call into question the other cases because the peer pressure is the same.
Absolutely. That’s definitely wrong.
I would also be a little suprised by this.
If the surprising thing happens, maybe it will be because of it being framed as freedom of speech rather than freedom of religion:
My message to Alito, if I was on the Supreme Court would be that:
a. This would allow teachers to attack, in the classroom, any school policy, or curriculum
b. This football coach is not the median teacher, and community standards are to the right of what the average teacher believes. So if teachers have such in-the-schoolhouse freedom of speech, they will use it to attack the likely coming Supreme Court decision against affirmative action, and to endorse Joe Biden.
c. How the heck is Virginia Gov. Youngkin going to fulfill his promise to give parents control over education if teachers can say in class whatever they want?
But I suppose Alito will more likely then switch to a freedom of religion argument than change his vote.
Wasn’t it a coach praying at games that prompted the original Supreme Court prayer in school case?
Some schools have a problem with preachin’ coaches and others, like this Florida High School, apparently don’t:
I have no problem with the coach praying silently. I DO have a problem with him kneeling on the field to pray. I’m guessing he chose to kneel so he could be a good “witness for the Lord,” but that’s precisely where he crossed the line, and I say this as a Christian. Perhaps he told himself that by kneeling, he was showing he wasn’t ashamed of his beliefs, but equating praying while standing, sitting, or lying down with shame makes little sense.
Then there’s this:
This was the second line he crossed, and I think it was ego that led him. It can be heady to think one is a Force for Good, and the fact players were joining him may have led him to believe God had chosen him (more ego) to Witness.
Had he prayed silently and humbly in his head and stopped there–no public kneeling, no dealing with students eager to prove they, too, are Good Christians, no motivational religious speeches and prayers–there’d be no case. The very foundations of this case have little to do with religious belief, and if SCOTUS sides with the ex-coach, religious belief will have little to do with their decision.
Not quite:
The 1962 and 1963 cases, where the Supreme Court ruled against school prayer and Bible reading, covered situations that were borderline compared to this.
I don’t think there was anything wrong when they read the King James Bible to me in a close to 100 percent Jewish (the students, because of the neighborhood) elementary school. No way I interpreted it as an attempt to change my religion. Maybe — probably — it really did help with appreciating Shakespeare in high school, as claimed. By contrast, these situations today are proselytizing.
I think actually reading what the Bible contains (critically) is a good way to push people away from Christianity.
Go up, thou bald head!
What if the forced prayer contains teachings on CRT?
I just wish to note that a motivational speech with religious content is usually known as a sermon. So you had a coach out there preaching.
In my high school band, we did sometimes pray. But it was always student led, and no one paid any attention to who went and didn’t. It was also always off in a corner where it wouldn’t call attention to itself. For all I know it had been going on for a while before I stumbled into it. I think that’s the best way to handle this sort of thing.
As for the SC: it seems to me that they’re in a splitting mood, trying to pitch themselves as being “centrist.” I wonder if they may decide it’s okay to kneel silently or to pray out loud quietly, but not to preach or “lead in prayer” as this coach is clearly doing.