re: Supreme Court ponders the right to pray on the 50-yard line

quote:

---

It is about creating a division between the players on his team that share his religion and those that do not that interests me and the legal interpretation.

---

If his players arent divided, why should people on the internet in another state care?

What interest do you have in his school district?

quote:

---

Doing it on the 50 yard line under the lights just post-game as well as asking the opposing team and coaches to join looks very much like he is doing it in his capacity as a government employee.

---

He never asked anyone to join.

Why is there all of this projection about what he says (as he prays silently) and his intentions (as he prays silently).

quote:

---

Anyone that has been in the military knows some of your rights are given up while you are in uniform.

---

He isnt in the military. He swore nothing to teach.

quote:

---

There are things you give up as an employee of the government that are protected when you are a private citizen.

---

Correct. He cannot organize a prayer on the 50 yard line. But he can kneel and pray. The ability for him to practice his faith is protected by the constitution.

quote:

---

Kennedy's legal counsel acknowledged that his prayers were verbal and audible, in contradiction with his retelling of events."

---

Audible is not the same as leading the prayer. Saying a prayer out loud to oneself is still an individual act on one's faith.

quote:

---

but saying noone should care if they aren't from his district doesn't make any sense.

---

If his team doesnt care, no one else should.

I do get pissed off when people in Minnesota care about what happens in a locker room in my home town. It is none of their damn business. Their school district should regulate their school district.

There are things that a coach can and cant do. Praying on his own should be protected. If he isnt leading the prayer, then he isnt coercing anything.

quote:

---

It's funny watching you loons think these arbitrary constructs have any weight

---

In what world is a state actor an arbitrary construct?

quote:

---

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying - can you provide the laws that prohibit “state actors” from praying in public? Thanks in advance!!!

---

I have cited the germane case law multiple times in the thread. This in particular would be Garcetti v Ceballos 547 US 410 (2006) which has the basic holding that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties.

quote:

---

not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties.

---

Was this coach engaged in his official public duties while he was praying? Weren't the games over by the time he infringed upon the rights of others by praying?

Either way, it seems that someone could challenge that this case law is unconstitutional, considering the First Amendment makes it fairly clear that there shall be no law abridging the right to the free practice of religion.

quote:

---

Not religious, but if they rule against him it would be asinine. Religious right better buckle up though, because that means a Muslim coach can and will do the same thing.

---

As would be his/her right.

Fair enough. At the risk of not being

quote:

---

Obtuse1

---

it's clear that you know a great deal on this topic. The logical leap that runs from a coach praying after a game vs what he does after the game, regardless of who can "see him" or "hear him" feels pretty limiting to me. How does the Governor of Louisiana have a prayer breakfast? Or an invocation stated at the beginning of a football game in Tiger Stadium?

It is silly that this is even something that is taking the time of either side to argue.

quote:

---

The logical leap that runs from a coach praying after a game vs what he does after the game, regardless of who can "see him" or "hear him" feels pretty limiting to me

---

I don't think there is any question that the Establishment Clause does put certain limitations on the expression of religion within the government.

One thing I would do if I was having this discussion with a first or second year associate or a summer laws school cleark is to get them to give me a hypothetical where they think the coach would be clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause and then we could work back from there to find their personal line.

quote:

---

How does the Governor of Louisiana have a prayer breakfast? Or an invocation stated at the beginning of a football game in Tiger Stadium?

---

First I don't know the exact mechanisms by which these occur so it is hard to make a constitutional analysis of them. The National Prayer Breakfast has come under scrutiny in recent years but is yet to be challenged which may be due to standing issues. A lot of these types of things go back to my point about the limited enforcement of the Establishment Clause traditionally. The National Prayer Breakfast is about 70 years old so it has the momentum of tradition. It also over the years has become far more inclusive than it was initially. It will likely be challenged in my lifetime but there are simple steps that could be taken to avoid the issues.


Separate from the constitutional issues the only concerns I personally have with the coach's conduct is any pressure players might feel to join and any public disturbance it might cause at the games like it did the last three games he coached which becomes a Pickering issue.

If you are interested in the case law in the area and have already read Garcetti and Pickering (I gove the cites earlier in the thread) you might want to also read Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

I will admit I am not fully up to speed on this case having just taken cursory notice of it because although practicing con law Establishment Clause issues just don't intersect often with my core practice.