Supreme Court sides with high school coach who prayed on 50-yard line

[BigDaddy4]

How is "what he was doin" not related to the case?

The quote you posted was about today's culture, not this case in particular. You quote mined two unrelated posts to reach your conclusion. But at least you got some likes, huh?

 

[Bradskii]

When they tell you not to pray privately/silently in the middle of a field....

Your posts would carry more weight if they actually reflected what happened. What you said is not correct. Could you please revise it?

 

[NxNW]

When they tell you not to pray privately/silently in the middle of a field, that is the time you invite others and pray and do it out loud.

This never happened.

 

[NxNW]

Your incorrect "intentions" are not present in the facts of the case.

It's been established that the Supreme Court ruling is dishonest. Some defenses of it in this thread, such as references to silent private prayer, are also dishonest. If his intentions were legitimate, such lies would not be necessary.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Your posts would carry more weight if they actually reflected what happened. What you said is not correct. Could you please revise it?

No, I can not and will not.
Add to it:
When they demand that you revise your statement, refuse to and double down on the fact that you are not subject to their whims, imaginations, perceptions, fears, or demands.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sorry but thats just ridiculous. The issues at stake are totally different.

Kap: employee protest vs conditions of employment in a private enterprise.

Coach: govt employee in authority position inviting youth subordinates into religious practice on the job.

I don't think there's anything that suggests that a person in a position of authority can't extend an invitation to people to voluntarily participate in a shared belief, correct?

They just can't force it, and they can't make a condition of employment/eligibility/etc... where people who don't want to participate are punished in some way.

Just about every modern president I can think of has participated in some capacity in the "national day of prayer"...while that's not my cup of tea, I don't think it's crossing any boundaries.

Even progressive candidates/politicians who govern secularly haven't been bashful about espousing their religious preferences.

This was a press release from the Obama White house
Presidential Proclamation -- National Day of Prayer, 2016

...where he explicitly "invites" people to join in the practice on a voluntary basis.

Unless you also feel that Obama "crossed a line" so to speak?

I don't...but perhaps I'm just not as militant an atheist as a I used to be in my 20's.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think there's anything that suggests that a person in a position of authority can't extend an invitation to people to voluntarily participate in a shared belief, correct?

They just can't force it, and they can't make a condition of employment/eligibility/etc... where people who don't want to participate are punished in some way.

Just about every modern president I can think of has participated in some capacity in the "national day of prayer"...while that's not my cup of tea, I don't think it's crossing any boundaries.

Even progressive candidates/politicians who govern secularly haven't been bashful about espousing their religious preferences.

You skipped the part about authority over youth subordinates.

The court did not negate the principle that the coach cannot lead the players in group prayer or even invite them for voluntary prayer when hes on the clock in his capacity as coach.

Coach won because Gorsuch lied about the facts of the case. But Coach still cannot invite the team on the field at halftime for Muslim (or Giaian or Satantic or Christian) prayer according to the principles left intact by the ruling. The only reason coach won was because this prayer was wrongly classified as "private", contradicting abundant case evidence that was never disputed and simply ignored in the majority opinion.

 

[Moral Orel]

The quote you posted was about today's culture, not this case in particular.

So you think that post I quoted was completely out of context of the thread and had nothing to do with the case. Interesting.

You quote mined two unrelated posts to reach your conclusion.

Those posts aren't how I reached my conclusion. The fact that he insisted on praying in a way everyone could see is how I reached my conclusion. Those two were just agreeing with me.

He could have prayed without anyone noticing. That wasn't good enough for him, therefore it wasn't about prayer. It was about spectacle.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just about every modern president I can think of has participated in some capacity in the "national day of prayer"...while that's not my cup of tea, I don't think it's crossing any boundaries.

Even progressive candidates/politicians who govern secularly haven't been bashful about espousing their religious preferences.

This was a press release from the Obama White house
Presidential Proclamation -- National Day of Prayer, 2016

...where he explicitly "invites" people to join in the practice on a voluntary basis.

Unless you also feel that Obama "crossed a line" so to speak?

I don't...but perhaps I'm just not as militant an atheist as a I used to be in my 20's.

In what manner might Obama have identified me as a non-participant?
In what manner might Obama have punished me for being a non-participant?

He can't do either, so it's a bad analogy.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You skipped the part about authority over youth subordinates.

The court did not negate the principle that the coach cannot lead the players in group prayer or even invite them for voluntary prayer when hes on the clock in his capacity as coach.

...wouldn't that be true of a president as well? They have authority over both adults and youths.

And issuing a national press release from the office, itself, would constitute acting in their official capacity, correct?

In what manner might Obama have identified me as a non-participant?
In what manner might Obama have punished me for being a non-participant?

He can't do either, so it's a bad analogy.

Perhaps I'm not familiar with the intricate details of the case...but was the coach identifying and punishing non-participants, or is this just a hypothetical "could potentially happen" sort of thing? If it's the latter, and we're looking to do a "preemptive strike" on actions that could violate the establishment clause if taken further, then we should probably be scrapping the national day of prayer thing too...as while a president probably can't identify a random non-participant in Iowa, they'd certainly be able to know if their staff was skipping the event...and a president "could" end up being tempted to give preferential treatment to staffers who participated if they're of that persuasion.

 

[NxNW]

When they demand that you revise your statement, refuse to and double down on the fact that you are not subject to their whims, imaginations, perceptions, fears, or demands.

Or accuracy, it would seem.

 

[durangodawood]

...wouldn't that be true of a president as well? They have authority over both adults and youths.....

The pres cant see if your kid is participating and dis/favor him specifically.

Plus the courts recognize a kind of 1A carve-out for ceremonial/traditional prayer at certain official proceedings. Not sure I agree. But it applies to entirely different situations than teacher led prayer in classrooms.

 

[NxNW]

...wouldn't that be true of a president as well? They have authority over both adults and youths.

And issuing a national press release from the office, itself, would constitute acting in their official capacity, correct?

The National Day of Prayer is certainly a violation of the Constitution, and should be abolished.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The National Day of Prayer is certainly a violation of the Constitution, and should be abolished.

No argument from me there.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It's been established that the Supreme Court ruling is dishonest. Some defenses of it in this thread, such as references to silent private prayer, are also dishonest. If his intentions were legitimate, such lies would not be necessary.

And where has this been "established"? In the minds of those who disagreed?

 

[JosephZ]

And where has this been "established"? In the minds of those who disagreed?

Have you taken the time to read the facts of this case?

 

[BigDaddy4]

So you think that post I quoted was completely out of context of the thread and had nothing to do with the case. Interesting.

Just because it's in the thread, does not mean it relates to the OP being discussed. Case in point, now posters are going on about the national day in prayer.

Those posts aren't how I reached my conclusion. The fact that he insisted on praying in a way everyone could see is how I reached my conclusion. Those two were just agreeing with me.

He could have prayed without anyone noticing. That wasn't good enough for him, therefore it wasn't about prayer. It was about spectacle.

He did pray without anyone noticing for years.

I think a lot of posters who disagree with the SC decision and are spreading misinformation about what actually happened just don't understand what goes on after a high school football game. There seems to be a perception that Coach Joe was praying in front of thousands of people. At best, a thousand or so are in attendance, given the size of the school, the city they play in, and their losing record at the time. A local team (to me) in the highest classification, playing in the Seattle area, and is a perennial state playoff participant, plays in front of maybe 2-3,000 at most on any given Friday night. Bremerton at the time in the SC case, was 3-7 for the season.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Have you taken the time to read the facts of this case?

I am very aware of the facts of the case. I probably have more background than anyone else on this thread, as I have been involved in high school sports in the greater Seattle area for a number of years. Can you say the same/ Why are you avoiding my question?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

He did pray without anyone noticing for years.

Incorrect - he prayed without anyone complaining. But that's not why he was fired.

I think a lot of posters who disagree with the SC decision and are spreading misinformation about what actually happened just don't understand what goes on after a high school football game. There seems to be a perception that Coach Joe was praying in front of thousands of people. At best, a thousand or so are in attendance, given the size of the school, the city they play in, and their losing record at the time. A local team (to me) in the highest classification, playing in the Seattle area, and is a perennial state playoff participant, plays in front of maybe 2-3,000 at most on any given Friday night. Bremerton at the time in the SC case, was 3-7 for the season.

The number of fans in attendance is irrelevant.

 

[JosephZ]

I am very aware of the facts of the case.

Then you would know that Justice Gorsuch's statements are false when he wrote in the majority opinion that Coach Kennedy was fired from his job, “because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks.” And “He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.”

First off, Coach Kennedy was not fired. He was placed on paid administrative leave and his season to season contract expired at the end of the 2015. He never applied for the 2016 season.

Coach Kennedy's prayers were also not "quiet prayers of thanks." While they may have started out this way, over time, they became much more than quiet private prayers.

He was leading prayers with students on the field and in the locker room.

He said that he was inspired to start holding prayers with students after he saw the movie "Facing the Giants" and that he started his prayers after each game as a motivational talk and prayer. Kennedy said he was “helping these kids be better people.”

Over time his players began to join him in this activity and at least one did so out of a fear that not participating would negatively impact his playing time.

Coach Kennedy's own attorneys stated that his prayers were "verbal" and "audible."

Kennedy's intention to pray on the field following the October 16, 2015 game was widely publicized through Kennedy and his representatives through "numerous appearances and announcements [on] various forms of media." For example, the Seattle Times published an article on October 14, 2015 entitled "Bremerton football coach vows to pray after game despite district order." "A Bremerton High School football coach said he will pray at the 50-yard line after Friday's homecoming game, disobeying the school district's orders and placing his job at risk."