Religious speech and free speech
I want to have a discussion about Kennedy vs Bemeryon. In particular, does separation of church and state mean teachers or coaches cannot be openly express religious attitudes, or that the government cannot suppress public displays of religiosity?
A very interesting and heated debate. Personally, I was leaning towards Kennedy in this case, for the reason that the government saying what kinds of speech are acceptable (such as a Muslim using a prayer mat) is a violation of church and state. But it may also come down to whether or not the coach is seen as an employee/representative of the state or an individual.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-endorses-football-coachs-on-field-prayers-2022-06-27/
A very interesting and heated debate. Personally, I was leaning towards Kennedy in this case, for the reason that the government saying what kinds of speech are acceptable (such as a Muslim using a prayer mat) is a violation of church and state. But it may also come down to whether or not the coach is seen as an employee/representative of the state or an individual.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-endorses-football-coachs-on-field-prayers-2022-06-27/
Comments (71)
Religious people do not want the state to interfere with their theology, organization, practice, rituals, and membership.
The religious and secular do not want religious people influencing the state, either. The threat of the state to the religious is clear enough. Example: Non-religious people, mainline Protestants, and liberal Catholics do not like the Roe vs. Wade decision that is much more about about the politics of religion than it is about the law.
There is a lot of history showing what happens when the state decides to get involved in religious affairs, and visa versa.
Conservatives may be happy about Roe Vs. Wade today, but suppose a future court (and/or legislature) decrees that evolution WILL BE TAUGHT and so called Intelligent Design WILL NOT BE TAUGHT?
As one expects, it depends on whose ox is getting gored by whom.
Conservatives feel just as strongly and as bitterly about marriage equality as liberals do about abortion. They said the same types of things about the courts as liberals are saying now.
I agree, especially about the part about church and state being separated (and I imagine most Americans would as well, religious and non-religious).
However, depending on the way you look at it, the government limiting the way people express their religion could be seen as infringing on the separation of church and state. Or them not restricting religious speech could be seen as implicitly advocating for a certain religion too. This is why the case itself gets a bit technical-i.e. were other students participating, was it during sponsored school hours, etc.
They seem to want the freedom to persecute others and have the right to inflict religious values on the wider community. It's hard to see how America has meaningful church and state separation when even the fucking currency has In God We Trust emblazoned upon it. Given the mighty dollar's importance to the prosperity gospel of much biblical literalism, this seems apropos.
This is baloney.
The complex history of In God We Trust
Down here, if someone wanted to pray in the middle of the field after a game, we'd let 'em, but laugh and take the piss. To my eye, that is a far more civilised response.
My understanding is that the case began when some team members were ostracised because they would not join in. If that is correct, and it is a public school team, then the coach was in the wrong, and it is an issue suitable for trial.
I suppose it says "in god we trust" because they can't trust each other?
Absolutely
"In God we trust" strikes me as more of a deistic motto, though I doubt if deism was the prevailing religious mode of the congress and President Eisenhower when the motto was changed. "Jesus saves" would probably have passed, had somebody proposed it.
It's a nicer motto than "God hates fags and commies", don't you think? ?=3.141592 could have been used; it still could be. I don't think any country has used it. It would help people remember ? when they have to calculate areas and volumes of round things.
you are old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards. (youth: Earl Warren was a liberal Chief Justice long long ago.)
I agree; the issue comes down to whether students were coerced into participating/ostracized for not participating. And it seems like the facts from either side tell a very different story, making it difficult to get a clear picture of what is going on.
The way Gorsuch saw it in his writing
Sanford Levinson said in an interview (before the ruling was announced)
I think that's being used by Brazil.
You're right, deism had some mission creep in the old Republic.
There may be a good case to show the US doesn't have separation of church and state, but that isn't it. It's trivial. I think we do a reasonably good job, but I'm not particularly interested in starting a long conversation, but that bullshit reason pissed me off.
I do remember them, although I didn't really know what they meant, being 10 or 11. That's why I laugh at the current pushes to impeach Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Same as it ever was.
Nationalist bigotry. To hell with the kangaroos. You're all back on the list when we drop the big one.
You're right - it was a glib line.
I don't agree. The conduct is unprofessional, since is introduces the potential for excluding some students on religious grounds. The coach should have been aware of that possibility, and hence his behaviour was negligent. I would have reprimanded him on the first instance, and instigated proceedings to terminate employment thereafter.
That it wasted th time for the supremes is... tragic.
:wink: My comment hit a nerve, then.
We should probably protect the wildlife.
I don't disagree that it is unprofessional. In fact, I'd go farther and say if Kennedy is a Christian, it is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 6:6). The question is whether or not Kennedy should legally be allowed to make himself look like an idiot (or crusader, depending on who you ask) on the field.
Take a similar incident, where a teacher in Texas was put on paid leave (same as Kennedy) for having BLM and LGBTQ posters in her virtual classroom https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/26/texas-teacher-black-lives-matter-LGBTQ/ after parents complained (She was offered her job back, but declined). Are teachers allowed to make political statements in the classroom but not religious ones? What differentiates religious speech/expression from political speech/expression?
However we can imagine a religious student who hears of this case and feels coerced not to pray during school because he sees the ruling as hostile to prayer, and has a similar complaint to his firing. This, to me, is why it is an excellent case for the court-it helps establish principles for when teachers/coaches are representing the government and when they are themselves individuals.
The main issue is that it's a public school. Religious indoctrination isn't allowed when state funds are in use.
I don't know. Same shit different day as far as i can see.
I don't see how displaying a poster excluded anyone - except perhaps homophobes. It's not a similar case.
This is true. But effect prong of the Lemon Test (Lemon v Kurtzman) states
and the entanglement prong states
So it seems up to interpretation whether allowing the coach to pray with students is indoctrination, or if firing him is infringing upon his first amendment rights.
It seems to me that the court is saying that religious speech in classrooms must be (perhaps explicitly) coercive in order to be unconstitutional (see here).
I don't think this is the end of the separation of church and state. Perhaps it is a backlash to secularization.
Honestly I don't think it was coercive. An atheist can stand by respectfully while the Christians do their rituals. That's emotional maturity.
Or the coach can have some maturity and stop doing the prayer when asked.
I see what you're saying. It's a close call.
They ran an entire neocrusade against a rival religious region - plundering it and leaving it in shambles and death - and people are surprised when this kind of Christofascism makes its presence felt at 'home'.
You, Tom Storm, and Streetlight all run together. It's a blur.
Heres a link to a previous thread with some good examples of the myth of separation of church and state. Just follow the links provided by me, @NOS4A2 and @Frank Apisa.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7931/question-about-separation-of-church-and-state/p1
No, it isn't. The actions of the coach were unprofessional. It should have stopped there.
But, that's America.
It's not about professional behavior, it's about separation of church and state versus freedom of speech.
Quoting Banno
Damn straight.
Yeah, I know. That's where it went wrong. It was professional misconduct - the complaint was that a child felt excluded. That's where it should have stoped. It was turned into a political issue rather than a workplace issue by viewing it as "indoctrination".
You guys are in deep shit.
They should have fired the coach for wasting everyone's mental energy and the courts should have responded to his challenge with a note that said "lol". Literally anything else is a mark of a society fucked up beyond repair. Which is exactly what it is.
This is a good point. Many recovery programs (AA) along with groups like Boy Scouts have references to a "higher power" or some idea of "god/God," though it is open to interpretation. At what point does it become coercive?
I know some (secular) therapists who think a belief in moral nihilism is problematic, so they (in some way) think having a "higher power" is a necessary part of the recovery process. The word "god" or "God" can mean different things to different people, so I don't personally think it's worth trying to stop people from saying it.
When I was younger, I used to wonder why the word "God" was on the dollar/pledge of allegiance, etc, and it used to bother me, even as a Christian. I think I understand it better now, the more I know about history and philosophy.
All this is to say, the meaning of prayer and even the word "g/God" can mean different things to different people. We can't even really agree on what a "religion" is, so trying to regulate speech from a shaky foundation is going to give fuzzy results.
Exactly.
I imagine the people supporting the coach see him as someone like Rosa Parks, practicing civil disobedience in the face of losing his job to stand up for what he thinks is the right thing to do. I may not agree with his methods, but I respect the sentiment (as soon as someone tells me I shouldn't say or do something, I sometimes want to do it even more). It all feels very American, being football and all. One of my more conservative (agnostic) friends claims this wouldn't have been an issue to the left if the man was Muslim.
:up:
Plus: Ethics will get the attention it deserves.
Minus: Most religious ethics are grotesque.
This should definitely become a thing!
As someone who works in addiction and metal health services there are many people who find the theism of AA and NA counterproductive and unhelpful. God is also a barrier. They prefer SMART recovery models. I personally think whatever works is useful because it's better to be a nascent theist than a dead heroin user, right?
If you can't get some religious freak coach to fuck off from peddling his group-fantasies to children without it landing in the supreme chamber of wizard clowns, this is where things in the States will and have ended up.
:rofl:
I agree; in fact the more options there are, the better. I'm sure there are people who are either resistant to religion or have had a bad experience so secular alternatives are certainly welcome.
With that being said I've seen (as I'm sure you have) studies that have shown religious-based recovery programs being more effective than secular based ones. It could be that the people in these studies are already familiar with the language based on their upbringing, who knows. Its great that we live in a time where people can choose what resonates with them. If it's someone who's atheist, they should probably look into one of the secular programs, and if they're religious, they can look into either secular or faith based.
You can't let one in/throw one out without letting the other one in/throwing the other one out too.
I think its a bit more technical. I cant imagine anyone arguing that he was praying alone as other students clearly and visually joined him. The question becomes, is it considered coercive if he told his students, Hey, after the game, Im going to be praying at the 50 yard line. Youre welcome to join if you want. Id argue no. If he said Im praying at the 50 yard line, I expect you to be there, then yes, absolutely.
If the issue is decided by whether students or not choose (by their own free will) to join him, this means the government can choose to limit his speech based on actions outside of his control. To me, this doesnt make sense (i.e. youre allowed to pray as long as no students join. If they choose to, then we can fire you.)
Obviously, outside of school hes free to do what he wants in public, post on social media, etc. If he was to pray during the classroom, or in the locker room (as he did but stopped), it is seen as more coercive as its more of an opt-out if you dont want to do it than opt in.
If the issue is whether or not some students felt coerced, then this means 1st amendment expression can be limited based on someones testimony about how they felt. Now this becomes a bit trickier-if a student claims they felt coerced to take part in this prayer, do we respond by asking the coach to change his behavior, firing him if he doesnt change his behavior, etc? And if another student says if the school rules that he cannot pray on the 50 yard line, I too will feel coerced not to pray during school, which now means we have a conundrum as mentioned. I tend to favor speech over comfort in many cases, so personally, Id say unless a good number of students felt coerced, or there was data to show that by not participating, the complaining student was given less playtime, I think its unfair to fire the coach or infringe on his rights to free speech. With that being said, the complaining students discomfort shouldnt be ignored and I certainly think the complaint makes the case much more complicated. The problem to me is the legal precedent it would set-does one persons discomfort or concern allow restrictions on the expression of another?
The legal issue in this case is whether he was representing himself when he is kneeling or praying on the field, or whether he is representing the school/federal government in advocating for a specific religion when doing so. Of course, this is balanced with the claim that firing him for continuing to do so is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment (promoting nonreligion over religion). With that being said, if he is representing the school/government when praying, I think a similar claim about the establishment clause could be argued in the other direction (promoting whatever religion he is).
:up:
Quoting Tom Ryberg · Jun 28, 2022
(EDIT moved part of comment)
The problem with Creationism is that it tries to justify itself scientifically. That's like trying to say antifeminism is feminism.
Creationism? How did that get mentioned?
I agree with most of Tom's sentiment, but I think he misses the point, which is that for some of these evangelicals, praying is a public expression of part of their identity. When he claims
perhaps I'd agree, but how is this any different than the teacher taking a knee during the national anthem, or putting up flags/using political slogans during the game to "evangelize" a political message? Of course, the difference is it is religious speech. But I think people make a good point when they argue if the government protects certain kinds of 1st amendment rights, even for educators, then religious speech shouldn't be an exception.
This isn't the argument the Kennedy side is making (indeed he was offered a place to pray in private, and refused). He wasn't given or hijacking a microphone-if he was, this case would have been easy. The issue is balancing the 1st amendment's freedom of expression with the establishment clause of the constitution. Some would argue any religious speech by a teacher or coach on campus is a violation of the establishment clause. Others argue the silencing of such speech, (with an implication that there is a "correct" way to express one's religion) is a violation of the 1st amendment and/or the establishment clause.
Indeed, the US Department of Education's stance on these sorts of issues is
When looking at the similarities between this and people kneeling during the national anthem (https://mclellan.law.msu.edu/questions/kneeling-during-national-anthem)
Don't misunderstand me, I do think there should be limits on what types of expression are considered coercive or manipulative, especially by public school educators. I just don't think religious expression should have any special place among it, one way or another. You almost need one of those disclaimers "the views expressed by this teacher/coach are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the entities they represent"
Religion in the classroom = Creationism.
Well, the opinion is available for anyone to read.
I find the idea of "offering" (as the majority opinion puts it) prayer to God about playing football well exceedingly silly, myself. As if the God of the universe would care about football games and their outcome, or be inclined to grant prayers that relate to the performance of football players and teams. But I know that people think God listens and responds to such prayers.
But what concerns me about this decision and others is the tendency to ignore information readily available, and even mischaracterize circumstances relevant to a case, in pursuit of a particular outcome. Alas, we lawyers are known to do just that, as advocates. But judges shouldn't be advocates.
I've been a lawyer a long time and I recognize the technique.
The majority and the dissent appear to be considering very different cases. Submitted for your consideration--
From the majority opinion:
"Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football
coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a
quiet prayer of thanks."
"He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied."
"Mr. Kennedy offered his prayers after the players and coaches had shaken hands, by taking
a knee at the 50-yard line and praying quiet[ly] for approximately 30 seconds. I
"Eventually, Mr. Kennedy began incorporating short motivational speeches with his
prayer when others were present."
"Naturally, Mr. Kennedys proposal to pray quietly by
himself on the field would have meant some people would
have seen his religious exercise."
From the dissent:
"Kennedys practice evolved into postgame talks in which Kennedy would hold aloft student
helmets and deliver speeches with overtly religious references, which Kennedy described as prayers, while the players kneeled around him."
"After the game, while the athletic director watched, Kennedy led a prayer out loud, holding up a
players helmet as the players kneeled around him."
Before the homecoming game, Kennedy made multiple media appearances to publicize his plans to pray at the 50-yard line, leading to an article in the Seattle News and a
local television broadcast about the upcoming homecoming game. In the wake of this media coverage, the District began receiving a large number of emails, letters, and calls, many of them threatening."
"On October 16, after playing of the game had concluded, Kennedy shook hands with the opposing team, and as advertised, knelt to pray while most BHS players were singing the schools fight song. He quickly was joined by coaches and players from the opposing team. Television
news cameras surrounded the group.2 Members of the public rushed the field to join Kennedy, jumping fences to access the field and knocking over student band members. After the game, the District received calls from Satanists who intended to conduct ceremonies on the field after football games if others were allowed to.
Mr. Kennedy is apparently something of a publicity hound. There are pictures of him kneeling and, presumably "offering" prayer in front of the Supreme Court building as well.
I'm ashamed to admit I find the thought of Satan worshippers "offering" prayers to Lucifer on the field after a high school game is played a bit beguiling.
Anyone who has seen the many pictures of these displays would, I think, hesitate to characterize them as "private prayers." I'm amazed that accomplished lawyers (and I'm willing to assume, arguendo as we like to say, that the Justices are just that, though it seems like Justice Barret never practiced law beyond a few years at a private firm) would be so clumsy in employing this kind of argument.
Don't forget that in some (Western!!) countries (democracies!!) the person doesn't actually have a choice as to which recovery program they will join or which the court mandates them to join.
"Emotional maturity" that results in favoring Christians.
Christians do not respond with the same "emotional maturity" when atheists want to do their atheist things.
Then he'll complain about his right to freedom of expression of religion is being denied.
More to the point, if a student's coach or mentor has strong religious inclinations, this can reflect in how he treats his students, ie. by prefering those who have the same religious views as he. The coercion needn't be explicit to be powerful.
Unless a student has a powerful mummy and daddy, it's probably best to publicly go along with the coach's religious views (if the student's sport aspiration is vital for the student), or else change sports.
Jesus said pray in private. We know the agenda of those who pray in public--nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus.
Irrelevant. Outsiders are not in the position to judge the contents of a religion or whether a particular religious person adheres to their professed religion. The secular constitution gives religious people the freedom to "practice their religion in accordance with their conscience" and this trumps every objection from outsiders.
Absolutely relevant.
I have no idea why you're posting that to me.
Gosh. Insightful.
I think you both have a good point. Indeed
I think it's totally fair to say what the praying coach was doing had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, the legal system cannot (and perhaps should not) allow or disallow speech on the basis of its consistency or obedience to the religious teachings each member claims to represent.
I do think it is fair for outsiders (and insiders) to point out when people are being inconsistent with a specific political or religious doctrine (and sometimes, they can see it with a clearer eye than those inside the community). However
is the status of the law. And honestly, I think this is how it should be.
For instance, I personally abhor the Westboro Baptist Church; I think they totally misrepresent Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. But I will advocate for their right to speak, as I too would want to be free from censorship if I was in their position. I'd rather let them just go around and look like idiots (no offense to any WBC members) then allow the government to say what views people are allowed to express. I have yet to hear a good principle for why they should be legally silenced beyond me not liking what they have to say.
I never said nor implied that.
No. The motive is to maintain peaceful relations between different religious groups. If one denomination is allowed to take public funds or use governmental power, discord will ensue.
The coach initially prayed alone on the field after the game. Over time people from both teams would join him. For reasons you might not understand, I find that to be touching and very appropriate, and I'm an atheist. I most definitely would have joined them because of the symbolism of it.