ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court unanimously rules that Boston violated the constitution by refusing to allow a Christian flag....

There's no reason to think it does.
Why? There are plenty of stories about coaches who can get their players to do things they wouldn’t normally, like play thru injuries. Why wouldn’t we think there are players who’d do this because they felt they had to?
 
Why? There are plenty of stories about coaches who can get their players to do things they wouldn’t normally, like play thru injuries. Why wouldn’t we think there are players who’d do this because they felt they had to?

I would like to point out that I'm not a "Christian".... I was raised in the Unitarian Universalist Church (waaaay liberal) and consider myself to be Agnostic.

You simply cannot ban the act of public prayer. That is totally the opposite of freedom of religion.
 
There is no way to measure whether or not it is truly voluntary. Just as “voluntary” morning runs, “voluntary” summer programs, and any other host of “voluntary” team activities come with a heavy dose of understanding that choosing not to participate is apt to not bode well for you, not participating in a prayer circle will always be understood to be something you must do not just to be in good graces with the coaching staff, but also with your teammates.

The difference is those other activities genuinely help your performance, while this once merely makes sure you stand out if your religious views don’t match the coach’s.

It is truly an awful thing he is doing. Awful, unAmerican, and illegal by any fair standard.
I dunno art. The nitty gritty details in the briefs and record suggest this might be a relatively pristine case in terms of the coaches actual conduct. At least as these things go.

this is that interesting case where the court has to decide just when an establishment clause problem “trumps” a free exercise right. Not an easy question. Contrary to my thinking earlier, Maybe this actually is a better case than the flagpole case for that, since the flagpole case was really positioned as establishment v free speech. Snd maybe the answer they’re going to give is that establishment really means establishment, rather than a neutrality that is so militaristic as to be maddeningly unworkable and raising real questions of free exercise interference.

usually rights win over powers.
 
Last edited:
Congrats on guaranteeing seeing this above your town hall someday.
1920px-Mourning_of_Muharram_in_cities_and_villages_of_Iran-342_16_%2819%29.jpg
Do you think the people who will get bothered by that aren’t already bothered by the rainbow flag that’s been allowed with no issue anywhere?
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelrain
I would like to point out that I'm not a "Christian".... I was raised in the Unitarian Universalist Church (waaaay liberal) and consider myself to be Agnostic.

You simply cannot ban the act of public prayer. That is totally the opposite of freedom of religion.

No one wants to ban public prayer, and you know that. What they want to do is disallow a coach from using his position to infringe upon players’ religious freedom by performing an act that can reasonably seen as coercing then into joining his prayer.
 
Last edited:
No one wants to ban public prayer, and you know that. What they want to do is disallow a coach from using his position to infringe upon players’ religious freedom by performance an act that can reasonably seen as coercing then into joining his prayer.

I think that stance is completely unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelrain
Didn't this all start with him praying by himself and then people decided to join in? I don't think he asked anyone to join.

As I have pointed out, a coach does not have to state something is mandatory, or that something will cause him to look favorably upon you, to make it appear that way to his student athletes.
 
As I have pointed out, a coach does not have to state something is mandatory, or that something will cause him to look favorably upon you, to make it appear that way to his student athletes.

What if they're Muslims, or Hindus, or Jews, or whatever?

It's HIS JOB to make sure there's no peer pressure. If he can manage that, then there's no religious discrimination going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steelrain
I would like to point out that I'm not a "Christian".... I was raised in the Unitarian Universalist Church (waaaay liberal) and consider myself to be Agnostic.

You simply cannot ban the act of public prayer. That is totally the opposite of freedom of religion.
Then the Constitution is null and void, Trad! Think about what you said. We have no basis of law and order any more! We have kaos...and kaos was certainly never the intent of life in AmericA!
 
Actually, it might. He has a right to pray, but he doesn't have the right to force others to pray with him.
He's working for the school system as a coach in a school system facility. Kneeling and praying with his players should be no different than any teacher in any classroom calling for their students to kneel in prayer...and that's a strict no-no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artradley
I have no issue with a voluntary prayer circle at some point in a football game, as long as it's totally voluntary no one is being expected to participate. That's how the line should be drawn.
I was never religious,even as a teen, but i lead the prayer multiple times after games. I am a big man with a loud voice and people naturally look to me. Our team was known as ‘that team’ and teams would join hands with us after games as we knelt and prayed about any injuries and for safe travels and so on. We’d also ask visiting teams to join us for food after if they were staying in town(drugs and beer inevitably for most of us), and we would have a good time. I don’t find any issue with a coach participating as long as he doesn’t require, probably a good idea to let the kids lead the prayers.
 
As I have pointed out, a coach does not have to state something is mandatory, or that something will cause him to look favorably upon you, to make it appear that way to his student athletes.
My point is he did it by himself. He didn't say "hey, I'm going to pray over here boys. If you want to join me you can."
 
My point is he did it by himself. He didn't say "hey, I'm going to pray over here boys. If you want to join me you can."

My point is that he doesn’t have to say anything, because as soon as a few players join him there is no way to prevent others from feeling pressure to join in. And for those who don’t join to be very publicly displayed, in front of the entire community, as separate from the others.
 
I don't normally agree with tradition, but his arguments are 100% correct. Many are trying to create excuses but they are all stretches of perception and fallacies. Coercion, intimidation, etc, none of any of those examples are valid or can be proven.

Any flag can be flown from the pole, satanic cult flag, celebrating animal sex flag, etc. Freedom is freedom, limiting who can fly a flag because you don't agree with the group is not.

A coach praying after a game on school property is his right. If others join in that's their right. If it offends you that's your right, but to stop it because your offended is not.
 
I don't normally agree with tradition, but his arguments are 100% correct. Many are trying to create excuses but they are all stretches of perception and fallacies. Coercion, intimidation, etc, none of any of those examples are valid or can be proven.

Any flag can be flown from the pole, satanic cult flag, celebrating animal sex flag, etc. Freedom is freedom, limiting who can fly a flag because you don't agree with the group is not.

A coach praying after a game on school property is his right. If others join in that's their right. If it offends you that's your right, but to stop it because your offended is not.

You are not addressing the arguments. If a teacher, coach, or school administrator does anything that can reasonably be construed as something students need to join into in order to prevent being treated unfavorably or ostracized by their classmates, then that teacher, coach, or administrator is violating those students’ first amendment rights.

The student does not need to prove that they will be treated unfavorably. In fact, because of the pressure it is unlikely that an affected student will speak out against it. It is up to the school to make sure nothing is done that can be viewed as coercion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
You are not addressing the arguments. If a teacher, coach, or school administrator does anything that can reasonably be construed as something students need to join into in order to prevent being treated unfavorably or ostracized by their classmates, then that teacher, coach, or administrator is violating those students’ first amendment rights.

The student does not need to prove that they will be treated unfavorably. In fact, because of the pressure it is unlikely that an affected student will speak out against it. It is up to the school to make sure nothing is done that can be viewed as coercion.
Ok, nothing has changed. If your point was "during school hours" then you have a case. If a coach prays on his own and others join, where is this pressure to join you are trying to exhibit? It's in the minds of others that are creating a perception of mistreatment. That doesn't mean the prayer group is breaking a law or violating any freedoms.
What about the rights of the coaches and students voluntarily praying, outside school hours, on public property?

Who's rights are more important in this case?

This is a definitely a divisive topic, but the coaches and students praying are exercising their rights. Other students who "perceive" they are being alienated have had no rights violated, except in their minds.
 
Ok, nothing has changed. If your point was "during school hours" then you have a case. If a coach prays on his own and others join, where is this pressure to join you are trying to exhibit? It's in the minds of others that are creating a perception of mistreatment. That doesn't mean the prayer group is breaking a law or violating any freedoms.
What about the rights of the coaches and students voluntarily praying, outside school hours, on public property?

Who's rights are more important in this case?

This is a definitely a divisive topic, but the coaches and students praying are exercising their rights. Other students who "perceive" they are being alienated have had no rights violated, except in their minds.

Consider this. Coach asks the team captains to organize "voluntary" morning 3-mile runs during the off season. Would players reasonably view this as something they probably ought to do in order to stay in the coach's good graces?
 
Consider this. Coach asks the team captains to organize "voluntary" morning 3-mile runs during the off season. Would players reasonably view this as something they probably ought to do in order to stay in the coach's good graces?

Nice straw man.
 
What if they're Muslims, or Hindus, or Jews, or whatever?

It's HIS JOB to make sure there's no peer pressure. If he can manage that, then there's no religious discrimination going on.
"If he can manage that"? You want that to be the legal standard?
 
I don't normally agree with tradition, but his arguments are 100% correct. Many are trying to create excuses but they are all stretches of perception and fallacies. Coercion, intimidation, etc, none of any of those examples are valid or can be proven.

Any flag can be flown from the pole, satanic cult flag, celebrating animal sex flag, etc. Freedom is freedom, limiting who can fly a flag because you don't agree with the group is not.

A coach praying after a game on school property is his right. If others join in that's their right. If it offends you that's your right, but to stop it because your offended is not.
People who live in Polk City are smart.
 
As I recall, some of the better players on his team did not participate and there were no adverse consequenes. There was zero evidence pointing the other way. Under these circumstances, how could the Court find it was inherently coercive. The right to practice religion would be seriously erroded if this imaginary excercise was written into the equation.

I can see both sides of it. On one hand he should be able to do that and it seems harmless.

On the other hand even if he doesn't apply adverse consequences who is to say the next coach doesn't? Especially in sports adverse consequences may be hard to measure and harder to rectify.

That said I could also argue that in these situations anything could be turned into something to where you are expected to fall in line or face consequences. A coach could refuse to play you because he doesn't like your hair style or because he and your dad didn't get along in school or your mom refused to date him once.

I tend to fall on the side of the coach here I think but I would feel more comfortable if the whole thing was student led. When it comes to authority like this one has to be very careful about coaches and teachers picking favorites.

That said I think what ultimately puts me on the coach's side is that not only could a coach play favorites with just about anything under the sun but unlike many other situations the coach picking favorites here would be far easier for administration to spot than other situations.
 
What I find bizarre is that I, as fully committed Christ follower who attends church regularly, volunteers through my church, has taught Sunday School, led worship, and been on the administrative council for many years have never felt the need to make a public spectacle of my faith.

What leads people to act this way? The cynic in me says it is a lack of true and solid faith and the need for attention.
 
What I find bizarre is that I, as fully committed Christ follower who attends church regularly, volunteers through my church, has taught Sunday School, led worship, and been on the administrative council for many years have never felt the need to make a public spectacle of my faith.

What leads people to act this way? The cynic in me says it is a lack of true and solid faith and the need for attention.

Doesn't your faith require you to share the Good News to others?
 
Doesn't your faith require you to share the Good News to others?
One of the spiritual gifts that is recognized is evangelism, but it also states that not every person has been blessed with every spiritual gift.

Again, I am talking about public spectacle.
 
I can see both sides of it. On one hand he should be able to do that and it seems harmless.

On the other hand even if he doesn't apply adverse consequences who is to say the next coach doesn't? Especially in sports adverse consequences may be hard to measure and harder to rectify.

That said I could also argue that in these situations anything could be turned into something to where you are expected to fall in line or face consequences. A coach could refuse to play you because he doesn't like your hair style or because he and your dad didn't get along in school or your mom refused to date him once.

I tend to fall on the side of the coach here I think but I would feel more comfortable if the whole thing was student led. When it comes to authority like this one has to be very careful about coaches and teachers picking favorites.

That said I think what ultimately puts me on the coach's side is that not only could a coach play favorites with just about anything under the sun but unlike many other situations the coach picking favorites here would be far easier for administration to spot than other situations.
You post a lot of good examples, but there's only one that is protected by the Constitution, and that's no endorsement of religion.

I went to Catholic schools until my mom got divorced, and I was still a kid. After that, we were very poor. I went to public schools. My teacher had every kid lead The Lord's Prayer each morning. I realized the very first day there was a section at the end that I didn't know. It only took a couple of days for me to learn that last phrase, but I was terrified of what else I wouldn't know. This was the 60's, in a rural community having almost no Catholics.

I offer that for perspective. Kids shouldn't be put in an awkward position in public schools when it comes to religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lucas80
ADVERTISEMENT