High school football coach prays at midfield, now in Supreme Court religious liberty case

[teachercd]

Stupid case with stupid reasons.

 

I went to a big public high school.  We prayed before every practice and game...I always prayed for the same three things...

 

1.  Not to get hurt

2.  To actually get in the game for once and not get hurt

3.  For Crissy Johnson to finally notice me.

 

None of that stuff was answered so basically I was just talking to the air.  If people have a problem with that, they are losers. 

 

Now, if a team prays for a miracle comeback win and it happens...different freaking story.

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

IMO it doesn’t matter if it’s interpreted as explicitly Christian or not. I’d guess most of these midfield prayer deals mention Jesus Christ and/or God. I’d also imagine anyone who has a problem with that would simply not participate and there would be zero backlash.

 

IIRC Ameer Abdullah was muslim and he had no issues with Ron Brown or these prayers done in the name of Jesus Christ. Fact is a large percentage of people/players are Christian and that’s how they pray. It’s not done to exclude anyone or to make anyone uncomfortable. However, I would agree that he was lying if he said Christ was not mentioned but I think he probably meant it was not exclusively Christian in nature, meaning anyone was welcome to participate. A subtle but important difference.

Should be the exact same chance 

 

 

Re: Ameer and Coach Brown, that is my recollection, too. They had different faiths but mutual love. 

 

Also, apropos of nothing, my tablet wants to autocorrect "Ameer" to "America."

 

How fitting is that?

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Stupid case with stupid reasons.

 

Nah. These are important things, and we should take this discussion seriously no matter our beliefs.

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I'm fine with the coach praying on the field after the game. OTOH the school offered him several other accommodations that he ultimately refused. So his claim of "But as he was driving home afterward, he regretted giving in to what he saw as "pressure to break his commitment to God," his lawyers said in their Supreme Court petition" is pretty flimsy. Seems like him being seen praying is more important than the actually praying, which might run into separation of church and state issues.

I’d disagree. What gives the school the right to tell him where it can occur?  And you may be right about him being seen praying is what was important to him….or you may be wrong.  Either way that has no bearing on the legality or constitutionality of it.

 

What about the player that crosses himself and/or points to the sky after a touchdown? Can the school tell him to do that after the game, up in the press box?

[knapplc]

4 hours ago, commando said:

wondering what his chances of winning would be if he was leading a muslim instead of christian prayer at midfield? 

 

Nearly zero. Let's not pretend this is a country of religious freedom.

 

It's a country of Christian zealots. Atheists are tolerated, but definitely not accepted.

 

And we don't even pretend that other religions are OK. They're definitely outcast, and they're definitely on a list pending a change in ideological governance.

 

But hey! Jesus is Love! Kumbaya!

 

And all that.

[JJ Husker]

9 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Nearly zero. Let's not pretend this is a country of religious freedom.

 

It's a country of Christian zealots. Atheists are tolerated, but definitely not accepted.

 

And we don't even pretend that other religions are OK. They're definitely outcast, and they're definitely on a list pending a change in ideological governance.

 

But hey! Jesus is Love! Kumbaya!

 

And all that.

The constitution and law after law after law would disagree with this. But in the court of public opinion, yeah, you’re pretty much right. I still think there’s a good chance the USC would get it right whether it was Christian or Muslim or Atheist but it also has become tainted with the left and right circle jerk so who knows.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

The constitution and law after law after law would disagree with this. But in the court of public opinion, yeah, you’re pretty much right. I still think there’s a good chance the USC would get it right whether it was Christian or Muslim or Atheist but it also has become tainted with the left and right circle jerk so who knows.

 

What?

[JJ Husker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

What?

I thought it was pretty self explanatory  What, what?

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The constitution and law after law after law would disagree with this.

 

Disagree with what? In what way? How?

 

6 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I still think there’s a good chance the USC would get it right

 

USC? The US Supreme Court? The one the orange cheese doodles packed with right wing nutjobs that are going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

 

The "USC" that gutted the Voting Rights Act?

 

The Supremes that declared corporations are "people?"

 

That USC?

 

Because if that's the "USC" you're talking about... c'mon, man! 

 

8 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

but it also has become tainted with the left and right circle jerk

 

The same "USC" that is 6-3 super majority conservative? That "left and right circle jerk?"

 

It's funny after McConnell screwed the majority of the country that people still think there's a "both sides" to consider.

[Danny Bateman]

25 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

The constitution and law after law after law would disagree with this. But in the court of public opinion, yeah, you’re pretty much right. I still think there’s a good chance the USC would get it right whether it was Christian or Muslim or Atheist but it also has become tainted with the left and right circle jerk so who knows.

 

As someone who probably gets as annoyed as you do with our two-party system as you do, even if I hew further from dead center than you do: the Supreme Court is definitely partisan and anybody who suggests otherwise is just deluding themselves or being dishonest. I wish it wasn't, but it definitely is, and it's going to hand down some really unfortunate rulings during the span of my life because the GOP played a scummier, more cutthroat brand of politics than their opponents in their quest for power.

 

That said, I would say do get where you're coming from. I don't share all of Knapp's pessimism about other religions in the U.S. but it's abundantly clear Christianity has the most political power and acceptance. The hardliners definitely have a plan to institute a theocracy here. I'd be very curious to see if another religion could even get a case to this SCOTUS and how they would rule. Would they even take the case? I'm not sure.

[JJ Husker]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Disagree with what? In what way? How?

The constitution and laws are correct even if the application is lacking.

 

 

USC? The US Supreme Court? The one the orange cheese doodles packed with right wing nutjobs that are going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

 

The "USC" that gutted the Voting Rights Act?

 

The Supremes that declared corporations are "people?"

 

That USC?

 

Because if that's the "USC" you're talking about... c'mon, man! 

 

 

The same "USC" that is 6-3 super majority conservative? That "left and right circle jerk?"

 

It's funny after McConnell screwed the majority of the country that people still think there's a "both sides" to consider.

Chillax. I was agreeing with you.

I wasn’t saying the current court had any tendency towards the left. Only that it has also become mired in left-right politics like the rest of our government and society. Yes, it is definitely tilted to the right currently.

 

Probably threw you off when I said I thought they’d still get it right. That’s based on the law being very clear that muslims should have the exact same rights as christians in this country. Sorry, I showed a moment of optimism there.

 

[Lorewarn]

13 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

I'd be very curious to see if another religion could even get a case to this SCOTUS and how they would rule. Would they even take the case? I'm not sure.

 

 

That's something I was just thinking about too. Has a religions freedom case on behalf of a non-Christian ever made it in front of SCOTUS? 

[Archy1221]

49 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

That's something I was just thinking about too. Has a religions freedom case on behalf of a non-Christian ever made it in front of SCOTUS? 

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-defend-religious-freedom-landmark-supreme-court-case
 

This one on behalf of coach Kennedy by Orthodox Jew coalition. 
 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-418/215415/20220302132617840_21-418tsacJCRL.pdf

 

 

[RedDenver]

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

I’d disagree. What gives the school the right to tell him where it can occur?

He's a school employee at a school event where he's being paid by the school to do a job. There are exceptions to the 1st Amendment for government employees, but it's complex, so not at all clear if the school/government had the right to restrict the coach's 1st Amendment rights in this case. (This goes into it in some detail starting on page 30.)

 

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

And you may be right about him being seen praying is what was important to him….or you may be wrong.  Either way that has no bearing on the legality or constitutionality of it.

I could be wrong, but I think intent and location matters in the legality of this case.

 

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

What about the player that crosses himself and/or points to the sky after a touchdown? Can the school tell him to do that after the game, up in the press box?

I doubt it as the players are not employees. Although students at school have limited 1st Amendment rights as schools can limit things like lewd speech, acts disruptive to school environment, or acts that violate the rights of other students. I don't think a school would likely win a legal battle over a player pointing to the sky or crossing themselves though.

[TGHusker]

I see no issue with the coach praying with or without the players at mid field as long as it isn't forced.  Now "Peer Pressure" may cause some to participate but that doesn't mean they were forced.    The school was wrong for firing him.