Quote:

So that fact that coaches allow players to opt out of pre game rituals has no bearing on this?


CHT, from what I'm reading the coach of the state sponsored team and event is considered an agent of the state. In line with what adidaskitten86 said, that allowing the event represents an endorsement of the event and possibly of one religion over another by the state through the coach, creating an "entanglement of religion and state" and a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Quote:

Now, see, it's those decisions that confuse me. Refusing to let a coach even sit in on a student-led prayer sounds very much to me like a direct violation of "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." I would love to hear a justification, because that decision just doesn't make sense. I agree that precedent is an often-used measuring stick, but it can be a dangerous one to use as the final answer; just because someone somehow came up with an off-the-wall decision years ago, does that mean it's right for all time? There are a lot of legal precedents (including the odd Constitutional amendment) that have later been judged to be, well, bad judgment, and have since been repealed.


Coach Chass, there is another case, a suit brought by 2 cheerleaders against UGA, that involved a variety of activities of the coach, some of which were considered by the courts as protected by the coach's rights to free speech and some of which were considered in violation of the Establishment Clause.

So as not to misinterpret the text of the decision in SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE, I am including a link to the actual decision and opinions of the Supreme Court. Within the text of the decision you will find reference to a number of other cases including links to those decisions. In particular you may want to follow the link to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602, 612. It is the source of the "Lemon Tests" most often used to determine violations of the Establishment Clause.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-62

A lawyer in Tennessee, William A. Wooten, created an abstract, "The Coach’s Pre-Game Prayer: Probably Wrong But Feels Right", that references and tries to explain several of the case decisions relative to this thread. I find the abstract easier to follow, but I thought you needed the link above to the actual decisions, free of Mr. Wooten's conclusions, as well for accuracy. You will find references to the cheerleaders' case with UGA.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1443342

Three more points to make, and I'm done.

1... The more I study of these decisions that I think seem to be viewed by many as "religion killers", the more I believe the intent of the courts to be just the opposite. To be an attempt by the courts to ensure there is no coercion by the state that would impact or restrict any individual's freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution.

2... We have every right to shout, picket, demonstrate, march, etc. for review and reversal of the decisions regarding pregame prayer. We're guaranteed that freedom of speech. However, once we step into that role as coach of a state supported athletic team, we become agents of the state and as such are required to act accordingly. Marching on Washington is currently considered constitutional. It seems pregame prayer is currently considered unconstitutional. If you wish to bring a new case to again test the constitutionality of pregame prayer, then continue the event and wait for the right student to show up.

However, before you embark on that endeavor, consider that as an agent of the state you alone would not be included in the suit. Your school or district would probably be named as defendant. In other words, you would not only be putting yourself at risk of suit (you may be that moved to dissent), you would also be putting your employer at risk. And, if only as a matter of courtesy you may want to find out how interested your employer is in joining you for the journey. That's why I suggested coaches discuss this with the state's or districts' legal offices.

3... Had it not been for other decisions of these same courts, you might not be coaching a girls' team today. I absolutely know Bob Winch would not be the current SOCON women's soccer coach of the year from The Citadel. Don't be too quick to take the justices out behind the wood shed.

Last edited by DeltaDog; 03/15/10 01:33 AM.