Jack Bauer said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TechDawgMc said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

quash said:

---

Kennedy v. Bremerton

Football coach requested by district to tone down his motivational prayers, but mainly to quit praying at the fifty after games (where he often prayed for both teams, raising each team's helmet up). He does for a bit, then publicly announces he will defy the district. His next midfield prayer he is joined by a stampeding crowd.

There are a **** ton of amicus briefs in this one.

I don't think this court will find coercion. Concern about praying time equals playing time seems easy to rebut.

The district apparently is basing their case on people getting jostled in the rush to the field. Seems weak.

But a **** ton of amicus briefs.

---

The problem is that he's imposing his faith on his team in an activity that's basically compulsory.

Public school teachers can't and shouldn't lead prayers in their classes and coaches can't and shouldn't either.

But in today's SCOTUS atmosphere where free exercise is being exalted over no establishment, he just might prevail.

---

He wasn't the head coach and the head coach objected to his actions. How could the team have felt it was compulsory?

---

and he didn't lead prayers in class. He walked out onto the field after the game and knelt in silent prayer. After several times doing this, some of the students voluntarily joined. The practice grew. It wasn't compulsory. The "complaint" was actually a compliment from an opposing coach.

CJ's post is a classic example of how the establishment clause has been contorted to restrict first amendment liberties.

---

Yep. A line of poorly reasoned jurisprudence (mainstream religion always loses) had basically deleted the free exercise clause. Glad to see it being resuscitated.
It's an Indian smoking peyote)

---

Nobody was rewarded for praying.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Praying at midfield is not more of an expression of religion that wearing a hijab or a yarmulke. The same people going bananas about this ruling would go bananas if the school had fired a teacher for wearing either.

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Praying at midfield is not more of an expression of religion that wearing a hijab or a yarmulke. The same people going bananas about this ruling would go bananas if the school had fired a teacher for wearing either.

---

And even if it is an expression of religion (and I think it clearly is), government property is the one place where anyone should be able to express themselves, on religion or anything else.

---